333.91616
Glfsr
1988
-m
CLARK FORK BASIN PROJECT
STATUS REPORT
AND
ACTION PLAN
STATE DOCUMENTS COLLECTION
^ ^^ 2002
i
m
tfi&
!k
MONTANA STATE LlbSARY
1515 E. 6th AVE.
HELENA, MONTANA 59620
4
4
i
I
i
-FT^rrc'"
CLARK FORK BASIN PROJECT
STATUS REPORT
AND
ACTION PLAN
Prepared by:
Howard E. Johnson, Coordinator
Carole L. Schmidt, Environmental Specialist
Clark Fork Basin Project
Office of the Governor
Capitol Station
Helena, Montana 5962 0
DECEMBER 1988
itatp of Moniana
<§Uice at tt;r (Souernor
Helena, Montana 59620
400-444-3 111
TED SCHWINDEN
GOVERNOR
December 1988
Dear Members of the 51^^ Legislature:
In April 1984 I announced the initiation of a long-range
comprehensive study of the Clark Fork Basin. A primary goal of
the project has been to draw together fragmented information
about the river and to develop a management plan for the future.
I am pleased to transmit the Clark Fork Basin Project Status
Report and Action Plan, which is the culmination of this effort.
This document provides a review of the resources and special
issues affecting the basin, a summary of efforts now underway to
solve problems, and recommendations for future action. Many
organizations and individuals have participated in this project
and contributed new knowledge about the basin resources.
Important investigations have been completed and others are
continuing. But most importantly, we now have a far better
understanding of the issues and the actions needed to solve the
basin's problems.
Through public meetings and written comments many
individuals and organizations have offered comments on the report
and suggestions for future actions. Their contributions are
included as an integral part of the report.
The efforts to maintain and improve the special resources of
the Clark Fork Basin is a complex and long-term process. Some
actions recommended in this report should be addressed
immediately, but other issues will require continued and
systematic efforts by citizens, legislators, and government
agencies over the years to come. It is essential that these
efforts are continued in a logical and coordinated manner.
On behalf of all Montanans, I urge your careful
consideration of this report.
TED SCHWINDEN
Governor
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The patience and skills of Verna Bedard and Ronni Burke,
who typed the entire report (including all of the many
revisions), are gratefully acknowledged. The efforts of
Marnie Hagmann, who skillfully edited the report in a timely
manner, and Mary Jo Murray, who assisted with the tables, are
also appreciated. The basin maps were prepared by the
Montana State Library, Clark Fork GIS Project.
The Clark Fork Basin Project is grateful for the
assistance of the ten technical work groups whose efforts
have contributed greatly to producing this status report and
action plan for the Clark Fork Basin. The following lists
all work group members including those who may have served
through only a portion of the process.
John Arrigo
Loren Bahls
Don Bartschi
Mike Beckwith
Rod Berg
Rich Brasch
Tom Brooks
Larry Brown
Tim Byron
Jim Carlson
Ken Chrest
Dept. of Health and Environmental
Sciences, Helena
Dept. of Health and Environmental
Sciences, Helena
United States Forest Service,
Missoula
Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare,
Coeur d'Alene
Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
Missoula
Dept. of Natural Resources and
Conservation, Helena
United States Geological Survey,
Helena
Dept. of Health and Environmental
Sciences, Helena
Dept. of Natural Resources and
Conservation, Helena
Missoula City-County Health Dept.,
Missoula
Dept. of Health and Environmental
Sciences, Helena
Dan Corti
Bob Davis
Ted Dodge
Ted Duaime
Mike Falter
Bob Fox
Wayne Hadley
Linda Hedstrom
Larry Holman
Ned Horner
Joe Huston
Gary Ingman
Jon Jourdonnais
Roger Knapton
John Lambing
Warren McFall
Marvin Miller
Johnnie Moore
Joe Moreland
Missoula City-County Health Dept.,
Missoula
United States Geological Survey,
Helena
Headwaters Resource, Conservation
and Development, Butte
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology,
Butte
University of Idaho, Moscow
United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Helena
Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
Deer Lodge
Missoula City-County Health Dept.,
Missoula
Dept. of Natural Resources and
Conservation, Helena
Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game,
Coeur d'Alene
Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
Kalispell
Dept. of Health and Environmental
Sciences, Helena
Montana Power Company, Butte
United States Geological Survey,
Helena
United States Geological Survey,
Helena
United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Boise
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology,
Butte
University of Montana, Missoula
United States Geological Survey,
Helena
x _:,i-. nrvxfiM
Rich Moy
Greg Wunther
Howard Peavy
Larry Peterman
Don Peters
Glenn Phillips
Frank Pickett
Steve Potts
Tom Ring
Mike Rubich
Ron Russell
Bill Schultz
Lee Shanklin
Mark Shapley
Laurence Siroky
John Sonderegger
Liter Spence
Tim Swant
Jack Thomas
Dept. of Natural Resources and
Conservation, Helena
United States Forest Service,
Missoula
Montana State University, Bozeman
Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
Helena
Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
Missoula
Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
Helena
Montana Power Company, Butte
United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Helena
Dept. of Natural Resources and
Conservation, Helena
Dept. of Health and Environmental
Sciences, Helena
United States Forest Service,
Missoula
Dept. of State Lands, Missoula
United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Helena
Dept. of Natural Resources and
Conservation, Helena
Dept. of Natural Resources and
Conservation, Helena
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology,
Butte
Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
Helena
The Washington Water Power Company,
Noxon
Dept. of Natural Resources and
Conservation, Helena
'•{y---. I'
iiuFi IE-'
ir.u^-.;
^xP'^r-vfi Aioi5
aiJiftJ
'SiTio;:/ ;>t.- ,•.
Jack Thomas
John Tubbs
Vicki Watson
Larry Weeks
Bill Woessner
Roger Woodworth
Dennis Workman
Hugh Zackheim
Dept. of Natural Resources and
Conservation, Helena
Dept. of Natural Resources and
Conservation, Helena
University of Montana, Missoula
Stone Container Corporation,
Missoula
University of Montana, Missoula
The Washington Water Power Company,
Spokane
Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
Missoula
Environmental Quality Council,
Helena
add:
fir- t^
.'H-
cxcrri ToV,
CONTENTS
List of Figures vii
List of Tables x
List of Acronyms xv
INTRODUCTION I-l
PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND GOALS 1-2
REPORT CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION 1-3
CHAPTER 1 HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF
THE CLARK FORK BASIN 1-1
INTRODUCTION 1-1
SURFACE WATER 1-1
GROUND WATER 1-3
MINING 1-4
FORESTRY 1-6
AGRICULTURE AND RANCHING 1-7
HYDROPOWER 1-9
WATER RIGHTS 1-10
RECREATION AND TOURISM 1-11
FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES 1-13
IMPORTANT TRIBUTARIES 1-14
CHAPTER 2 CURRENT WATER USES, ACTIVITIES,
AND AQUATIC RESOURCES 2-1
MINING 2-1
Montana Resources, Inc 2-1
Montana Mining Properties, Inc. and
New Butte Mining, Inc 2-2
Other Mining Operations 2-3
FOREST PRODUCTS 2-4
OTHER INDUSTRIES 2-6
Stauffer Chemical Company 2-6
IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE 2-7
Introduction 2-7
Federal Water Projects 2-8
State-Owned Irrigation Projects 2-9
Benefits and Costs of Irrigation to
Western Montana's Economy 2-9
?-i
r.i-i
» jsi^
io
iOHTll
. .Sr ;QYH
1^ [■
c.iOvii;
ij.ni '
1 -£
aaiTivi""''D/
: asT'
•- o-cr no-..
ilsn&fi
HYDROPOWER 2-11
System Operation 2-11
Columbia River Treaty 2-12
Pacific Northwest Coordination
Agreement 2-12
Northwest Power Pool 2-13
Headwater Payments 2-14
Benefits and Costs to Western Montana
and the Northwest Region 2-14
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIES 2-18
INDUSTRIAL/MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISPOSAL 2-19
WATER RESERVATIONS 2-20
Introduction 2-20
Upper Clark Fork Water Reservations
Proceedings 2-21
RECREATION AND AESTHETICS 2-22
MACROINVERTEBRATES 2-24
Silver Bow Creek to Milltown Dam 2-2 4
Milltown Dam to the Confluence of
the Flathead River 2-2 5
Confluence of the Flathead River
to the Idaho Border 2-27
FISHERIES 2-27
Introduction 2-27
Upper Clark Fork Fishery
(Headwaters to Milltown Dam) 2-28
Fish Species Composition 2-28
Trout Population Estimates. , 2-28
Trout Spawning and Rearing
Habitat 2-29
Tributary Trout Spawning
Migrations 2-30
Middle Clark Fork Fishery
(Milltown Dam to Flathead River) .... 2-31
Fish Species Composition 2-31
Trout Population Estimates 2-31
Trout Spawning and Rearing
Habitat 2-33
Tributary Trout Spawning
Migrations 2-35
Lower Clark Fork Fishery
(Flathead River to Lake Pend Oreille) . 2-35
Cabinet Gorge Reservoir 2-36
Noxon Rapids Reservoir 2-36
Fisherman Use and Benefits 2-38
ii
-w
^TO'l-^AM
CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND
PROBLEMS 3-1
WATER RIGHTS 3-1
Introduction 3-1
Pre-197 3 Water Rights Claimed Through
Statewide Adjudication . 3-2
Hydropower. . 3-3
Instream Flow Rights 3-4
Status of Statewide Adjudication 3-6
Provisional Permits Issued Since 1973. . . . 3-9
Ground Water Permitting Process 3-10
Indian and Non-Indian Federal
Reserved Water Rights. . 3-12
US Forest Service 3-12
The Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes of the
Flathead Reservation 3-14
INSTREAM FLOW RESERVATIONS 3-16
Introduction 3-16
Hydropower Rights 3-16
Fish, Wildlife, and Aquatic Resources. . . . 3-17
Water Quality Benefits 3-18
Water Supply 3-19
Recreation, Aesthetics, and Tourism 3-20
Riparian Areas 3-20
STATUS OF SUPERFUND INVESTIGATIONS 3-21
Introduction 3-21
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Addition 3-24
Montana Pole 3-27
Anaconda Smelter 3-28
Milltown Reservoir 3-30
METALS -CONTAMINATED LANDS 3-31
Introduction 3-31
Tailings Disposal Areas 3-32
Colorado Tailings 3-32
Old Works 3-3 3
Anaconda and Opportunity Ponds 3-3 4
Warm Springs Ponds 3-35
Lands Affected by Aerial Deposition 3-37
Irrigation-Affected Lands 3-40
Floodplain Mine Wastes 3-42
Sediment Transport Mechanisms 3-4 7
Reservoir Sediments 3-49
Reclamation of Contaminated Lands 3-50
Spangler Ranch Study 3-50
Streambank Tailings and
Revegetation Study 3-52
ill
Clark Fork Reclamation
Demonstration Project 3-53
Anaconda Minerals Company
Reclamation 3-55
SURFACE WATER QUALITY 3-56
Introduction 3-56
Historical Surface Water Quality Problems. . 3-56
Silver Bow Creek 3-57
Clark Fork 3-58
Recent and Current Surface Water
Quality Monitoring Programs 3-60
Current Surface Water Quality 3-64
Heavy Metals 3-65
Suspended Sediment 3-74
Other Water Quality Parameters 3-78
EUTROPHICATION AND NUTRIENTS 3-84
Excessive Algal Growth 3-8 4
Nutrient Concentrations and Loading 3-86
Silver Bow Creek 3-86
Warm Springs Ponds 3-87
Upper Clark Fork 3-88
Middle Clark Fork 3-89
Lower Clark Fork 3-91
Aquatic Macrophyte Problems 3-91
Additional Monitoring Efforts 3-91
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION 3-92
Introduction 3-92
Agriculture 3-93
Silviculture 3-93
Construction 3-95
Urban Runoff 3-95
Resource Extraction, Exploration,
and Development 3-95
Land Disposal 3-95
Hydromodif ication 3-96
NPS Problems in the Clark Fork Basin .... 3-96
Upper Clark Fork Basin 3-96
Middle and Lower Clark Fork Basin . . . 3-96
Current NPS Programs 3-97
DHES-Water Quality Bureau 3-97
Silviculture Programs and Activities. . 3-98
Agriculture Programs 3-100
Resource Extraction Programs 3-101
IV
1>|;
'HTU2
.)V!
-yfjuO
GROUND WATER QUALITY 3-102
Introduction 3-102
Historical Ground Water Quality Studies. . . 3-102
Current Ground Water Quality 3-104
Upper Silver Bow Creek Area 3-105
Warm Springs and Opportunity Ponds. . . 3-108
Floodplain Mine Wastes 3-109
Warm Springs to Milltown Data 3-109
Milltown Area 3-110
Missoula Area 3-112
Lower Clark Fork Basin 3-113
FISHERIES, RECREATION, AND AESTHETICS 3-113
Effects of Surface Water Quality
Degradation 3-113
Effects from Existing Hydropower
Development 3-118
Effects from Irrigation Projects 3-121
Large Storage Projects 3-121
Other Irrigation Projects 3-125
Other Water Uses 3-127
CHAPTER 4 FUTURE WATER NEEDS AND
ACTIVITIES 4-1
WATER RESERVATIONS 4-1
Introduction 4-1
Consumptive Water Needs 4-1
Instream Flow Reservation Needs
in the Basin 4-2
Forest Service Instream Flow Needs 4-3
IRRIGATION 4-4
MINING 4-5
New Butte Mining, Inc 4-5
Pegasus Gold Corporation 4-6
Cable Mountain Mine, Inc 4-7
Sunshine Mining Company 4-8
Montana Mining and Timber Company 4-9
Mark V Mines, Inc 4-10
American Eagle Mining Company 4-10
ASARCO, Inc 4-11
U.S. Borax 4-12
FOREST PRODUCTS 4-13
WATER AVAILABLE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 4-14
Surface Water v. . . . 4-15
Hydropower Water Rights 4-15
Existing Water Rights 4-17
^sf•
Ground Water 4-17
Clark Fork Basin 4-19
Lower Flathead Basin 4-2 0
Water Exchanges 4-22
The Probability of New Federal
Irrigation Projects 4-23
CHAPTER 5 ACTION PLAN 5-1
INTRODUCTION 5-1
COMPONENTS OF THE PLAN 5-1
Data Management 5-1
Public Involvement 5-2
Funding 5-2
Recommendations 5-3
RECOMMENDATIONS 5-4
Upper Clark Fork Reclamation 5-4
Butte Mine Flooding 5-4
Warm Springs Ponds 5-5
Floodplain Mine Wastes 5-6
Soils and Reclamation 5-8
Surface Water Quality 5-10
Nonpoint Source Pollution 5-11
Nutrients and Eutrophication 5-13
DO, Temperature, and Mixing Zones . . . 5-16
Monitoring 5-17
Ground Water 5-21
Fisheries 5-23
Recreation 5-27
Water Management Issues 5-28
Water Rights 5-28
Instream Flow 5-3 0
Land and Water Use Inventory 5-3 2
Natural Resource Damages Claim 5-3 3
Program Implementation and Continuity. . . . 5-34
REFERENCES CITED R-1
APPENDIX
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES A-1
INTRODUCTION A-1
COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC MEETINGS A-1
Butte A-1
Missoula A-6
Plains A-17
WRITTEN COMMENTS A-24
VI
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Clark Fork Drainage of Western Montana. . . . l-la
1-2 Subbasins of the Clark Fork 1-lb
1-3 Upper Clark Fork and Blackfoot Basins .... 1-lc
1-4 Middle Clark Fork, Lower Flathead, and
Bitterroot Basins l-2a
1-5 Lower Clark Fork and Lake Pend Oreille
Basins l-3a
2-1 Total Trout Per Mile in 31
River Segments of the Upper
Clark Fork, Spring 1987 2-29a
3-1 Superfund Sites in the Clark
Fork Basin 3-22a
3-2 Colorado Tailings Vicinity 3-32a
3-3 Old Works Area and Anaconda and Opportunity
Ponds, Anaconda Smelter Superfund Site. . . . 3-3 3a
3-4 Warm Springs Ponds-Opportunity Ponds
Vicinity 3-36a
3-5 Anaconda Smelter RI Soil
Sampling Sites 3-37a
3-6 Silver Bow Creek RI Soil
Sampling Sites 3-4 la
3-7 Ramsay Tailings Vicinity 3-42a
3-8 Upper Clark Fork Sediment, Soil,
and Biota Sampling Areas 3-44a
3-9 Total Arsenic in Bank Sediment,
Upper Clark Fork 3-46a
3-10 Total Copper in Bank Sediment,
Upper Clark Fork 3 -4 6b
Vll
d-e
■Ai
: V
3-11 Total Lead in Bank Sediment,
Upper Clark Fork. . . « 3 -4 6c
3-12 Downriver Trends in Acetic Acid-
Extractable Copper 3 -4 9b
3-13 Downriver Trends in Acetic Acid-
Extractable Zinc. ... 3-49c
3-14 DHES-WQB Sampling Stations in the
Clark Fork Basin. 3-61a
3-15 USGS Sampling Sites in the Upper
Clark Fork Basin 3-62a
3-16 Total Recoverable Copper Concentrations
in Silver Bow Creek 3-68a
3-17 Median Concentrations of Dissolved
and Total Arsenic, March 1985 to
September 1987 3-70a
3-18 Median Concentrations of Dissolved
and Total Recoverable Copper,
March 1985 to September 1987 3-70b
3-19 Median Concentrations of Dissolved
and Total Recoverable Zinc, March 1985
to September 1987 3 -7 0c
3-20 Total Recoverable Copper
Concentrations in the Clark Fork 3 -7 2 a
3-21 Annual Loads of Total Recoverable
Copper in the Clark Fork 3 -72b
3-22 Annual Loads of Total Recoverable
Zinc in the Clark Fork 3-72c
3-23 Total Suspended Sediment Concentrations
in Silver Bow Creek 3-76a
3-24 Total Suspended Sediment Concentrations
in the Clark Fork 3-77a
3-25 Annual Loads of Total Suspended
Sediment in the Clark Fork 3 -77b
Vlll
3-26 Annual Loads of Volatile Suspended
Sediment in the Clark Fork 3-77c
3-27 Total Phosphorus Concentrations
in Silver Bow Creek 3-86a
3-28 Total Phosphorus Concentrations
in the Clark Fork 3 -88a
3-29 Annual Loads of Total Phosphorus
in the Clark Fork 3-88b
3-30 Annual Loads of Total Inorganic
Nitrogen in the Clark Fork 3-88c
3-31 USGS Ground Water Study — Well Sites
in Upper Clark Fork where Water
Chemistry was Sampled 3 -110a
4-1 Duration Hydrograph for Clark Fork
below Noxon Rapids Dam (1951-1986) 4-16a
IX
;>•:
3nPU
IC
LIST OF TABLES
1-1 Important Tributaries in the Clark
Fork Basin l-14a
2-1 1980 Surface and Ground Water Use in
Clark Fork Subbasins 2-la
2-2 Permitted Mining Operations in the
Clark Fork Basin 2-3
2-3 Forest Land Ownership in the
Clark Fork Basin 2-4
2-4 Acres Irrigated by Ground Water
and Surface Water in Clark Fork
Subbasins 2-7a
2-5 Irrigated Acreage Estimates and
Percentages for the Eight Major
Crops of the Clark Fork Basin 2-7a
2-6 Summary of Federal Irrigation
Projects in the Basin 2-8a
2-7 Summary of State-Owned Irrigation
Projects in the Basin 2-9a
2-8 Summary of Major Hydropower
Facilities in the Basin 2-lla
2-9 Generating Capacity and Maximum
Flow Capacity of the Five
Major Hydropower Facilities 2-15
2-10 Value of One Acre-Foot of Water
Used for Hydropower Production 2-17
2-11 Inventory of Municipal Water
Supplies in the Clark Fork Basin 2-18a
2-12 Montana Wastewater Discharge Permits
in the Clark Fork Basin 2-19a
2-13 Inventory of Wastewater Treatment
Plants in the Clark Fork Basin 2-19b
2-14 Summary of Proposed Upper Clark
Fork Basin Water Reservations 2-21a
ori
a-^ roj
iD:;■e^
oA
i-- V
■■ -tr *+ f^ '
8-'
8-f
.» -».flri —-..*.
5 : -<.•
■■:> V: ■.r?'mi:"
.». r-<;
2-15 Distribution of Fish Species in the
Clark Fork Basin Excluding the
Flathead River System 2 -2 8a
2-16 Location, Length, and River Mile
Index Boundaries of Fish Population
Study Sections on the Clark Fork 2-32
2-17 Trout Population Estimates in Four
Study Sections of the Clark Fork 2-32
2-18 Trout Population Estimates in the
Johnsrud Section of the Blackfoot
River, Approximately 13 miles
Upstream from Bonner 2-33
2-19 Average Size and Relative Abundance
of Young-of-the-Year Trout Sampled
by Electrof ishing 2-34
2-20 Trout Fry Outmigration Rates
Monitored in Five Tributaries
of the Clark Fork during 1985 2-35a
2-21 Estimated Fishing Pressure on the
Clark Fork and Selected Montana
Rivers (1985-86) 2-39
2-22 Net Economic Value of the Clark
Fork and Selected Montana Rivers 2-4 0
3-1 Number of Pre-1973 Water Rights Claimed
for Major Water Uses in the Clark Fork
Subbasins (June 24, 1985) 3-2a
3-2 The Quantity of Water Claimed for
Major Water Uses in the Clark
Fork Basin 3-2a
3-3 Temporary Preliminary Decree
Issuance Dates, Clark Fork
Subbasins 3-7
3-4 Provisional Water Use Permits
Issued Since 1973 3-10
3-5 History and Status of Superfund
Investigations in the Clark Fork
Basin 3-22b
XI
3-6 Concentrations of Arsenic, Copper,
Lead, and Zinc in the Colorado
Tailings 3-32b
3-7 Ranges of Metal Concentrations
in Old Works Grab Samples 3-33
3-8 Total Metal Averages of Warm
Springs Ponds 2 and 3 Bottom
Sediments 3-3 6
3-9 Concentrations of Selected
Contaminants in Anaconda RI/FS
Transect Soil Samples 3-38a
3-10 Metal Hazard Levels for the Helena
Valley near the East Helena CERCLA
Site 3-39
3-11 Average Concentrations of Selected
Metals in Floodplain Sediments 3-44
3-12 Concentrations of Trace Metal
Associated with Fine-Grained Bed
Material in the Clark Fork
and Major Tributaries 3 -4 7a
3-13 Mean Concentration and 95 Percent
Confidence Limits for Trace Elements in
Surface Sediments from Clark Fork
Reservoirs and Tributaries 3-49a
3-14 Maximum Concentrations of Copper
and Zinc in Mainstem Clark Fork,
1970-72 3-59
3-15 Water Quality Criteria for Key
Parameters 3-65a
3-16 Federal Drinking Water Standards for
Public Water Supplies 3-65a
3-17 Analytical Techniques Used for
Heavy Metals Water Quality Analysis 3 -66a
3-18 Summary of Characterized and
Potential Sources of Contamination
to Silver Bow Creek 3-67
3-19 Sources and Effects of Nonpoint
Source Pollutants 3-92a
Xll
■ na'-'O
£I-t
ei-e
i-X-S
t,' J.
3-20 Categories and Subcategories of
Nonpoint Source Pollution 3-94
3-21 Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems
in the Upper Clark Fork Basin 3 -9 6a
3-22 Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems
in the Middle and Lower Clark Fork
Basin 3-96J
3-23 Current NPS Programs in Montana 3-97a
3-24 Active MGWPCS Permits in Deer Lodge,
Granite, Mineral, Missoula, Powell,
and Silver Bow Counties as of 11-15-88 . . . 3-104
3-25 Licensed Solid Waste Sites in the
Clark Fork Basin 3-104a
3-26 Summary of Potential Ground Water
Contamination Sources Found During
the SBC RI 3-106a
3-27 Chemical Analyses for Selected
Parameters, Berkeley Pit and
Kelley Shaft Samples 3-106b
3-28 Results of MPC Sampling of
Monitoring Wells at Milltown
Dam (Feb. -March 1987) 3-111
3-29 Summary of Bioassay Results in
the Clark Fork Drainage 3-114a
3-30 Results of Instream Bioassays
in the Clark Fork Drainage Using
Fry and Finger ling Rainbow Trout 3 -115a
3-31 Inventory of Dams by County with
50 AF or more Capacity in the Clark
Fork Basin 3-126
4-1 Estimated Arable Land in Subbasins
of the Clark Fork 4-4
4-2 Timber Management in National
Forests of the Clark Fork Basin 4-14
Xlll
V;;-
4-3 Time Periods when Flows Exceed
50,000 cfs, Clark Fork below
Noxon Rapids 4-16
4-4 Comparison of Streamflows with
Claimed Rights and Estimated Actual
Water Use for Irrigation 4-17a
A-1 Travona Shaft Contaminant-Specific
Water Quality Based ARARs A-4a
XIV
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AF Acre- feet
AMC Anaconda Minerals Company
ARARS Applicable and Relevant or Appropriate Requirements
ASCS Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs
ELM Bureau of Land Management
BMPs Best Management Practices
BOD5 Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BOR Bureau of Reclamation
BPA Bonneville Power Administration
CDC Centers for Disease Control
CDD Conservation Districts Division
CDM Camp, Dresser and McKee
CFR Clark Fork River
cfs Cubic feet per second
DFWP Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
DHES Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
DNRC Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DSL Montana Department of State Lands
EC Electrical Conductivity
ECC Energy Content Curve
EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EQC Environmental Quality Council
ERA Expedited Response Action
EWI Equal Width Increment
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Flip Flathead Indian Irrigation Project
FLCC Firm Load-Carrying Capability
FS Feasibility Study
XV
•"\A
^5<;;..
CXi
r *.
GIS Geographic Information System
gpd Gallons per day
gpm Gallons per minute
HJR House Joint Resolution
HLA Harding Lawson Associates
IPC Institute of Paper Chemistry
kwh Kilowatt hour
LOEL Lowest Observable Effect Level
MAPA Montana Administrative Procedures Act
MBMG Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology
MCCHD Missoula City-County Health Department
MDA Montana Department of Agriculture
MEPA Montana Environmental Policy Act
MGD Million Gallons Per Day
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram
mg/1 Milligrams per liter
MGWPCS Montana Ground Water Pollution Control System
MMPI Montana Mining Properties, Inc.
MMTC Montana Mining and Timber Company
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MPC Montana Power Company
MPDES Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
MRI Montana Resources, Inc.
MSD Metro Storm Drain
MSU Montana State University
MW Megawatt
NAE National Academy of Engineering
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NBMI New Butte Mining, Inc.
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NPS Nonpoint Source
NRIS Natural Resource Information System
NWPPC Northwest Power Planning Council
O&M Operation and Maintenance
XVI
'i'^.t'
OSM Office of Surface Mining
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PCP Pentachlorophenol
PER Preliminary Environmental Review
ppb Parts per billion
ppm Parts per million
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
PURPA Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act
PWA Public Works Administration
RC&D Resource Conservation and Development
RI Remedial Investigation
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RIT Resource Indemnity Trust
RM River Mile
ROD Record of Decision
SBC Silver Bow Creek
SC Specific Conductance
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SHWB Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau
STARS Streambank Tailings and Revegetation Study
SWCB State Water Conservation Board
TSS Total Suspended Sediment
ug/g Micrograms per gram
ug/1 Micrograms per liter
UM University of Montana
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USES United States Forest Service
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
uses United States Geological Survey
VSS Volatile Suspended Sediment
WETS Western Fish Toxicology Station
WPA Works Progress Administration
WQB Water Quality Bureau
WWP Washington Water Power Company
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
XVI 1
a ^Wii
f I ^i^-
INTRODUCTION
The Clark Fork of the Columbia River had been seriously
polluted even before Montana achieved statehood. Historical
accounts of the early mining camps indicate the upper Clark
Fork and many of its tributaries were used as sewers for
mining and smelting byproducts and domestic waste. Because
of its poor condition, few efforts were made to protect the
river. In the 1950s, new federal water pollution control
legislation required wastewater treatment. Wastewater
settling ponds were installed at the headwaters, reducing the
river's pollution load, and the river began its slow
recovery. Now, as Montana approaches its first centennial,
the Clark Fork no longer runs red with mining wastes, and
trout thrive at the headwaters, but its recovery is far from
complete.
New attention was focused on the basin in November 1983,
when the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
(DHES) Water Quality Bureau (WQB) proposed to issue a
modified wastewater discharge permit for the Champion
International pulp mill located west of Missoula. In the
controversy surrounding the WQB's decision, deficiencies in
water quality and fisheries data were recognized.
The data deficiencies magnified the need for a basin-
wide study of the Clark Fork. Diverse sources, including
environmental groups, private citizens, the Montana Environ-
mental Quality Council, and members of industry, encouraged
state government to conduct a comprehensive investigation of
water quality in the Clark Fork drainage. These groups urged
that a study be developed to identify major water quality-
related issues and problems and to provide government and
local leaders with a broad range of choices for making future
resource management decisions.
In April 1984, Governor Ted Schwinden announced the
initiation of a long-range comprehensive study of the Clark
Fork Basin. He said, "Montanans must make responsible
decisions affecting the Clark Fork Basin in the future. We
need a solid base of information upon which we can act, and
it is imperative we pull together the fragmented studies now
underway." The Governor encouraged all groups and indi-
viduals with interests in the Clark Fork Basin to help fund
and define the nature of the study. Funding for the Clark
Fork Basin Project was initially provided with a grant of
$200,000 from the Anaconda Minerals Company and later with
funds from the state Resource Indemnity Trust Fund.
Additional funds for the many individual investigations have
come from a variety of public and private sources.
I-l
PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND GOALS
The Clark Fork Basin Project is a special program in the
Governor's Office in Helena. The project coordinator,
assisted by an environmental specialist, has worked with an
Interagency Task Force to develop the goals and scope of the
project. The Task Force is composed of scientists from
federal and state agencies, the Montana State University
System, the State of Idaho, and Regions VIII and X of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . A Citizens Advisory
Council appointed by the Governor in 1984 has also provided
assistance in identifying issues and priorities.
The Clark Fork Basin Project has provided administrative
continuity to existing or planned Clark Fork studies, has
identified what additional information is most urgently
needed to understand the water quality and fishery problems
facing the basin, and — most importantly — has developed an
action plan for the resolution of water-related resource
problems within the Clark Fork Basin.
Although there are four Superfund sites in the upper
Clark Fork Basin, the focus of the project has been on non-
Superfund activities, including many that are unrelated to
hazardous wastes. However, Superfund and non-Superfund
issues often overlap and must be considered jointly in water
quality management and land reclamation. Important data and
basic information collected by investigators throughout the
basin are useful for Superfund purposes. Through coordina-
tion with all agencies, the Clark Fork Basin Project has
provided a link between Superfund and non-Superfund activ-
ities and has provided technical assistance on some issues.
Many of the interrelated issues are discussed in this report.
As part of the federal-state coordination effort, the
Clark Fork Data Management System has been adopted to manage
the vast amount of technical data that has been collected in
the basin. The system is implemented through a cooperative
agreement between EPA and the DHES and managed by the DHES
with coordination support provided by the Clark Fork Basin
Project. A Geographic Information System (GIS) component is
managed by the Montana Natural Resource Information System
(NRIS) located in the Montana State Library.
The data management system uses an IBM PS/2 Model 80
Personal Computer dedicated exclusively to the project. The
facilities are located in the DHES office in Helena where a
full-time operator is available to perform retrievals and
analyses upon request of agencies and organizations
associated directly with the Clark Fork Superfund sites. The
system is also accessible through a PC LAN network serving
1-2
the DHES-Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau. Telecommun-
ications equipment effects rapid data transfer and remote
access.
It is intended that all data relevant to Clark Fork
Superfund sites eventually be incorporated into the data
base or referenced in the data base and maintained on site in
hard copy. Data will be recorded in a standard format
compatible with the system. Contractors working directly
with EPA and DHES on Clark Fork Superfund Projects, and who
elect to adopt the Environmental Information System or a
compatible system for data management, may receive routine
updates of the data.
The goals of the Clark Fork Basin Project were iden-
tified and listed in a project work plan prepared in June
1985 (Johnson and Knudson 1985) . The plan provided a general
description of the basin's aquatic resources, a summary of
environmental issues, and a description of information needs.
The specific objectives of the project were to 1) conduct an
analysis of the quality of the Clark Fork's aquatic re-
sources, 2) determine feasible alternatives to maintain and
enhance the Clark Fork's aquatic resources, and 3) develop an
action plan to maintain and enhance the quality of the Clark
Fork Basin's aquatic resources.
REPORT CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION
This report describes the present status of the Clark
Fork Basin and outlines actions needed to restore and
maintain water resources for future needs. The report has
been developed by the Clark Fork Basin Project with the
assistance of ten work groups and an interagency task force.
Chapter 1 provides a brief history of the basin's
development, including events and activities that led to
existing environmental conditions.
Chapter 2 describes current water uses in the basin,
including some indication of how these uses cost and benefit
Montana.
Chapter 3 addresses the many environmental issues
affecting the basin's water resources. Historical actions
have seriously affected the Clark Fork headwaters. Emphasis
is given to recent investigations and monitoring efforts
designed to identify specific problems and solutions.
1-3
Chapter 4 focuses on future water uses in the basin.
Special emphasis is given to water rights, water reserva-
tions, and water availability questions. The chapter
recognizes the conflict between water quantity and water
quality and the ultimate conflicts that must be resolved.
Chapter 5 provides a distillation of the specific issues
and proposes alternative actions to address these issues.
The specific strategies and actions are intended to guide
future management efforts.
The Appendix is a summary of comments received at the
three public meetings held in the basin plus the written
comments received during the comment period. Responses are
provided where appropriate.
1-4
CHAPTER 1
HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE
CLARK FORK BASIN
This chapter describes the Clark Fork Basin and provides
a chronology of the major activities and events that have led
to current environmental conditions in the drainage.
INTRODUCTION
The Clark Fork originates at the confluence of Silver
Bow and Warm Springs creeks in the Deer Lodge Valley of west
central Montana (Figure 1-1). The river drains over 22,000
square miles, including nearly all of Montana west of the
Continental Divide and a small part of northern Idaho. The
Clark Fork flows north and west from its headwaters for
about 340 river miles through a variety of terrain, including
broad, semi-arid valleys, high mountain ranges, and steep-
sided valleys. It terminates at Lake Pend Oreille in
northern Idaho, approximately seven miles west of the
Montana-Idaho border.
The drainage can be divided into 13 subbasins (Figure
1-2) . With the exception of water quantity issues, the six
subbasins forming the Flathead Basin above Kerr Dam are not
covered in this report because Flathead Lake and its drainage
basin form a distinct aquatic ecosystem. This area has been
studied extensively, and the Flathead Basin Commission was
established in 1983 to coordinate water quality management
programs in that basin.
SURFACE WATER
The Clark Fork is often described in terms of upper,
middle, and lower river segments because the character of
the river and the nature of the problems differ substantially
from one area to another. The upper river segment extends
about 125 river miles from the headwaters to below Milltown
Dam (Figure 1-3) . Major tributaries that feed the river in
this segment include Silver Bow Creek, Warm Springs Creek,
the Little Blackfoot River, Gold Creek, Flint Creek, Rock
Creek, and the Blackfoot River. Below the Milltown Reser-
voir, the average annual discharge of the Clark Fork is
approximately 3,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) . Streamflows
in this segment are determined by weather conditions,
geology, and irrigation. Most of the annual flow occurs
during spring runoff, which is quite variable both in timing
and volume (Casne et al. 1975).
1-1
CLARK
FORK RIVER
BASIN
SondpointA-
^j^Iate Pend Oreille
Kolispell \J ^
Noxon ^
t/)\.
} -4 "^ \
M
^-<v^^ \ )7 Poison
^^'^-~^. Regis \ / c5
:r^ .
^ FORK
\
/
\, Missoula
f ^ (
0 10 20
1 — ! 1-
N
30 40 50 Miles
—i 1 1
1 ■•**
/ o
/ ^
Hamilton ^
•) ^
•**
1 / ("Deer Lodge
J A A® { ,
( Anaconda l„^ I
"" Butte
^'
Prepored by Monlono Slate Librory
Clork Fork CIS Project
FIGURE 1-1. CLARK FORK DRAINAGE OF WESTERN MONTANA
JS -,i,.^£)J)
1-la
Note: The shaded subbasins
within the Flathead
system are not
discussed in detail
in this report.
Source: DNRC 1986.
FIGURE 1-2. SUBBASINS OF THE CLARK FORK
1-1b
Upper Clark Fork
and
Blackfoot River Basins
Miiltown
0cm
Lillle Blackfoot River
&
Cottonwood Creek
Warm Springs Ponds
Silver ^^~-^^ ^--^
^"^^ Anaconda ^V M '"°"" ^^'""^- Berkeley Pit
East Fork Anaconda Ponds! f
""'" Opportunity Ponds ^-^eap-^j—®/ Butte
N
Prepared by Uontono State Librory
Clark Fork CIS Project
Oliver Bow Creek
,
"N y
I
0 10 20 30
40 Miles
1 1 1 ; , 1
FIGURE 1-3. UPPER CLARK FORK AND BLACKFOOT BASINS
l-lc
The DHES recently reclassified Silver Bow Creek to a
Class I stream (DHES 1988a) . The goal of the state of
Montana is to have these waters fully support the following
uses: drinking, culinary, and food processing purposes after
conventional treatment; bathing, swimming, and recreation;
growth and propagation of fishes and associated aquatic life,
waterfowl, and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial
water supply. Although Silver Bow Creek cannot currently
support most of these uses, the goal is to gradually improve
water quality. An analysis will be performed during each
triennial standards review period to determine the factors
preventing or limiting attainment of these uses. Permittees
who discharge to Class I waters cannot degrade water quality
below existing conditions.
The Clark Fork's surface water quality classification
varies within the upper river segment. From Warm Springs
Creek to Cottonwood Creek (near Deer Lodge) the river is
classified C-2, which means water "suitable for bathing,
swimming and recreation; growth and marginal propagation of
salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl and
furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water supply"
(DHES 1988a) . From Cottonwood Creek to the Little Blackfoot
River, the water is classified C-1, which is similar to C-2
with the word "marginal" removed. From the Little Blackfoot
River to the Milltown Dam, its classification improves to B-
1, which is water suitable for C-1 uses plus drinking,
culinary, and food processing purposes after conventional
treatment.
Heavy metals from waste sites associated with former
mining and smelting operations in the headwaters are the
major water quality problem in the upper river. Although
water quality has improved greatly in the past 3 0 years due
to installation of settling ponds and treatment systems,
water quality criteria for protection of aquatic life are
still exceeded fairly frequently.
The middle portion of the Clark Fork extends about 115
river miles from below Milltown Dam to the confluence with
the Flathead River (Figure 1-4). Major tributaries in this
section include the Bitterroot, St. Regis, and Flathead
rivers. Just below the confluence of the Flathead River, the
Clark Fork becomes a very large river with an average annual
discharge of about 20,000 cfs. Like the upper river,
streamflow in the middle river is determined by weather,
geology, and irrigation.
The entire mainstem middle river has a water use
classification of B-1. The major water quality issue in
this segment is the addition of excessive nutrients from
various sources.
1-2
Middle Clark Fork,
Lower Flathead,
and Bitterroot Basins
CD
Flaihead
Lake
Kerr Dam
^/.
'^ts
FlaU
^'^e}\
^ad
y.
SI. ^
Regis
^^\Suoerior
N"^" fliver
\ Alberton Huso^
Frenchtown
V^ Missoula
if-
e**
Lolo(
l^oVo Creek
N
10 20 30 40 50 Miles
*» [ Stevensville
Homilton
Como
Prepared by Mcnlona Stale Library
Clark Fork CIS Project
Painiei hocks
Lake
FIGURE 1-4. MIDDLE CLARK FORK, LOWER FLATHEAD, AND BITTERROOT BASINS
l-2a
The lower river extends from below the confluence with
the Flathead to Lake Pend Oreille in Idaho (Figure 1-5) .
Important tributaries in this section include the Thompson,
Bull, and Vermilion rivers and Rock and Prospect creeks.
This segment differs greatly in that 60 of the approximately
100 miles of river are impounded by the Thompson Falls, Noxon
Rapids, and Cabinet Gorge dams. When the Clark Fork reaches
the Idaho border, it is Montana's largest river, with an
average annual discharge of 22,360 cfs (United States
Geological Survey 1987) . Streamflows in this segment are
governed by weather, geology, and irrigation, and to a great
degree by reservoir and dam operation.
Waters in the lower segment are also classified B-1.
Many of the water quality problems of the lower river segment
stem from the flow regime of the reservoirs.
Water quality problems in all sections of the Clark Fork
and in some of the tributaries are discussed in detail in
Chapter 3 .
GROUND WATER
Information on ground water is limited in some parts of
the Clark Fork Basin. However, in many areas, ground water
is widely available and represents a valuable resource. It
is used mainly for domestic purposes and to a lesser extent
for livestock, irrigation, public and municipal, and in-
dustrial purposes (Casne et al. 1975; Nunnallee and Botz
1976) .
In the Deer Lodge Valley (headwaters to Garrison) , the
majority of ground water occurs in pore spaces between grains
of Quaternary and Tertiary sediments, with a smaller amount
occurring in fractured bedrock. Generally, water in the
Quaternary rocks is unconfined, while water in Tertiary
sediments is confined. The water table is only about 5-10
feet below the surface in the floodplain alluvium adjacent to
the Clark Fork, whereas it may be from 10-150 feet below the
surface in alluvial fans and terraces (Konizeski et al.
1968) .
The ground water resources in the Deer Lodge Valley are
recharged by precipitation and snowmelt runoff, infiltrating
irrigation water, and tributary streams that lose water to
the ground water system. Normally, the Clark Fork gains
water from the aquifer system, although during runoff, it
usually rises high enough to provide some temporary recharge
to the ground water. Ground water discharge from the Deer
Lodge Valley occurs via evapotranspiration; effluent seepage
1-3
Lower Clark Fork
and
Lake Pend Oreille Basins
I
Sandpoint
Lake
Pend
Oreille
10
&
N
20 30
Cabinet / ^
Gorge LbuU River
Reservoir J)
^^yf\i^ Cfioci Creek;
Noxon ^v
^V
Moxon, ^
Y
Rapids J' Vermilion
Reservoir ^*W^ /■ ^-^
^
,A /\/ River
Vs
^
V
Thompson Foils -"V""
•-
J
^^ospeci Cte*^
\
^^\^^^
Thompson Falls ^ P'ai"s
Reservoir ^ — sT
40 Miles
-* '■ Prepared by Montono Slote Librory
Clerk Fork GIS Project
■I
FIGURE 1-5. LOWER CLARK FORK AND LAKE PEND OREILLE BASINS
l-3a
into streams, springs, seeps, and drains; and pumping from
wells (Konizeski et al. 1968).
In the Missoula Valley (Missoula to Huson) , the geology
generally consists of a bottommost layer of Precambrian
metasediments; a middle, thick (about 2,000 feet) layer of
Tertiary sediments; and a thin (less than 200 feet) layer of
Tertiary to Quaternary coarse sand and gravel that is
exposed at the surface on the valley floor.
Although all three are water-bearing formations, the
upper layer (called the Missoula Aquifer) is by far the most
productive and is the major source of ground water in the
valley (Missoula City-County Health Department 1987) .
The Missoula area depends heavily on the Missoula
Aquifer for its water. The primary source of drinking water
for Missoula Valley residents, the aquifer also supplies two
municipal water systems, many small community water systems,
several large industrial users, and private well owners.
Stone Container Corporation's pulp mill is the largest
individual water user in the area, with a pumping rate of
24.5 million gallons per day from 12 large wells. Other
sources of discharge from the aquifer include evapotranspira-
tion and base flow to the stream (Missoula City-County Health
Department 1987) .
Sources of recharge to the Missoula Aquifer calculated
by the Missoula City-County Health Department are: over 50
percent from streams that lose water to the aquifer (the
Clark Fork alone provides 46 percent of the annual recharge) ,
24 percent from lateral flow from adjacent sediments, and
smaller amounts from precipitation, urban storm water runoff,
septic system drainfields, and irrigation and Water line
leakage. The Clark Fork loses water to the aquifer over a
three-mile segment.
MINING
Gold was discovered in the upper Clark Fork drainage in
the early 1850s, although it was not developed until the
early 1860s. The most successful diggings were located at
Gold Creek, Butte, Bearmouth, and in the Little Blackfoot
River drainage. Although placer operations in the upper
Clark Fork were never major producers, these activities led
to the discovery of the silver and copper veins that shaped
the later history of this region (Horstman 1984) .
As placer operations expanded, the demand for water to
work the diggings increased, leading to the organization of
independent water companies. Flumes and ditch systems were
1-4
constructed, and a water rights system was established.
Eventually, gold miners turned to hydraulic mining, washing
away entire stream banks and beds with high pressure hoses
(Horstman 1984) . Although this method of gold extraction was
quite effective, it had the unfortunate consequences of
destroying the structural integrity of the streams and
placing large amounts of tailings into circulation. In-
variably, these tailings were drained into the nearest major
watercourse, which, in many cases, was Silver Bow Creek or
the Clark Fork. Thus began over a century of environmental
degradation from which the drainage is still recovering.
The easily mined placer deposits in the upper Clark Fork
were depleted by the 1870s. Some attempts were made to
develop silver deposits in the area, but with limited
success. However, with the advent of rail service in Montana
in the early 1880s, silver mining boomed, particularly in the
Philipsburg district and in Butte. The boom peaked in 1890
but crashed in 1892 when the Sherman Silver Purchase Act was
repealed. Mine tailings and smelter slag were left behind
along the streams of the upper Clark Fork Basin (Horstman
1984) .
In nearby Butte, copper had become the commodity of
interest. The Butte silver mines had yielded rich copper
deposits, but copper did not become valuable until electric
lights and the telephone were invented and rail service was
available. By 1882, copper mining was booming in Butte, and
the industry soon outgrew the available water supply. In
1884, Marcus Daly built a smelter and reduction facility
(Upper Old Works) along Warm Springs Creek near present day
Anaconda, adding an additional smelter (Lower Old Works) in
1887. William Clark constructed a reduction works on Silver
Bow Creek in 1886 (Horstman 1984) . And so the volume of
waste reaching the Clark Fork escalated, consisting of not
only mine and smelter by-products, but also wastes from
timber treatment plants, meat packing plants, and raw sewage
from the towns that grew with the industry.
In Anaconda, copper ore processing activities quickly
outstripped the capacity of the Old Works smelting facili-
ties. The Washoe Smelter was built across the valley and
became operational in 1902, and the Old Works were shut down
in 1903. In the following years, smelter activities
expanded, including the construction of a 585-foot stack
(1919) ; operation of an arsenic recovery plant, a sulfuric
acid plant, a beryllium processing plant, and an arbiter
plant (a short-lived plant that utilized a hydrometallurgical
refining process) ; and reduction of fugitive gas and
particulate emissions through various improvements. Opera-
tions at the Washoe Smelter ceased in 1980, and the complex
was demolished between 1982 and 1985. A multitude of wastes,
1-5
including slag piles, flue dust piles, tailings, and the
Anaconda and Opportunity tailings pond systems that cover
nearly 4,000 acres, were left behind. In 1983, the Anaconda
Smelter site was placed on the EPA's National Priority List,
and Superfund remedial investigations began in late 1984.
These activities are ongoing and are addressed in more
detail in Chapter 3 .
In Butte, milling and smelting activities continued
until about 1910, by which time the Anaconda Copper Mining
Co. had purchased and shut down all the major concentrators
and smelters in the area except the Pittsmont Smelter (which
operated until 1930) (MultiTech 1987a) . Thereafter, nearly
all the ore was shipped to Anaconda for milling and process-
ing, and Butte became known mainly as a mining center (Tetra
Tech 1986a) . The numerous underground mines in the Butte
area (estimates range from about 50 to over 4 00) were either
closed down or purchased by the Anaconda Copper Mining Co.
(which became the Anaconda Company in 1955) between 1917 and
the mid 1970s. The company started the Berkeley open-pit
copper mine in 1955, and it built the Weed Concentrator in
1964 to mill and concentrate ore from the Berkeley Pit and
the underground mines still operating in the area. These
concentrates were then shipped to Anaconda for smelting.
The company shut down all underground operations in 1976, and
production at the Berkeley Pit ceased in 1982. The company
(renamed the Anaconda Minerals Company [AMC] in 1977) , ceased
operations entirely in 1983 when the East Berkeley Extension
Pit was closed. Some of the company's Butte properties were
purchased by Montana Resources, Inc. (MRI) , in 1985, and MRI
resumed mining and milling in 1986 (MultiTech 1987a) .
In 1983, the EPA placed Silver Bow Creek and contiguous
portions of the upper Clark Fork on the National Priorities
List as a high-priority Superfund site. Remedial investiga-
tion studies for the site were initiated in late 1984 and are
ongoing. In 1986, the Silver Bow Creek Superfund site
boundary was officially extended to include the city of Butte
and the stretch of river between the Warm Springs Ponds and
Milltown Dam. Superfund activities in the basin are
discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.
FORESTRY
The mines and smelters at Butte, Anaconda, and Philips-
burg, and the Northern Pacific Railroad created a large
demand for lumber. In the upper Clark Fork region, much of
the activity took place on the Blackfoot River, where logs
were floated down to sawmills on the Clark Fork. By the
late 1880s, the timber stands closest to the mills were
depleted, and logging operations were extended farther
1-6
upstream. Eventually, the Anaconda Company entered the
lumber industry directly to satisfy its timber needs. Most
of the Anaconda Company's logging took place in the Bitter-
root, Blackfoot, Little Blackfoot, and Mill Creek drainages
(Horstman 1984) .
Since the early lumbering days, the forest and wood
products industry has expanded to become the economic
backbone of western Montana. Major lumber companies, such as
Champion International and Plum Creek Timber, have extensive
private land holdings in the Clark Fork Basin and also
utilize timber from state and national forest lands. Plywood
manufacturing plants, pole plants, and the pulp and paper
mill are important employers in the basin.
The wood products industry has experienced extremes in
market conditions during the past decade. Major fluctuations
have occurred due to changes in the housing and construction
industries, foreign market prices, mechanization, and timber
supplies (Keegan and Polzin 1987) . Despite the changes, the
forest and wood products industry remains strong with near-
record production and sales in 1986.
AGRICULTURE AND RANCHING
The first permanent white settlement in Montana was in
the Bitterroot Valley in 1840 (United States Department of
Agriculture [USDA] 1977) . In the upper Clark Fork region,
the gold boom days of the early 1860s created a market for
agricultural products. By 1879, hay and grain crops were
well established in the Deer Lodge and Flint Creek valleys.
The potatoes and other vegetables that grew there supple-
mented produce from the Bitterroot Valley. Although farmers
in the 1870s and early 1880s were geared toward local
markets, commercial agriculture arrived in the Deer Lodge
Valley in the later 1880s. By the 1890s, this area was quite
progressive in its farming practices. Irrigation played an
important role in agriculture beginning in the late 19th
century, and mechanized farming appeared in the 1930s
(Horstman 1984) .
The U.S. Dept. of Commerce (1982) reported 1,828,350
acres of rangeland and pastureland (excluding pastured
woodland) for Silver Bow, Deer Lodge, Powell, Granite,
Missoula, Sanders, Mineral, Lake, and Ravalli counties in
1982. Precise figures for current irrigated acreage in the
Clark Fork Basin are not available. The Montana Department
of Agriculture (1987) reported that agricultural land use in
those same counties in 1986 consisted of 226,910 acres of
irrigated cropland and 52,800 acres of nonirrigated cropland.
However, the irrigated cropland figure does not include
1-7
irrigated pasture, therefore, it is probably underestimated.
The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
(DNRC) (1986) estimated that approximately 411,000 acres were
irrigated in 1980 in seven Clark Fork subbasins. However,
this figure reflects conditions during the peak of irrigation
development in the early and middle 1970s, and likely
overestimates current conditions.
Cattle ranching in the upper Clark Fork drainage started
in the late 1850s when several enterprising men began
rounding up stray animals that were abandoned by settlers on
the Oregon Trail. They wintered the trail-worn cattle in the
Beaverhead and Deer Lodge valleys, then herded them back to
the Oregon Trail in the spring, where they traded one fresh
animal for two trail-weary ones. Sizeable herds were built
up in this manner, and other stockmen moved into the area in
the late 1850s. Hundreds of cows grazed in the upper Clark
Fork valleys by the mid-1860s. By the early 1870s, the
mountain valley ranges became overcrowded and overgrazed,
and there was increasing competition from dairymen and
farmers. Although the Deer Lodge Valley continued to support
substantial herds, many stockmen began moving their herds
north and east onto the plains (Horstman 1984) .
In subsequent years, the cattle industry endured various
setbacks, including loss of livestock attributed to pasture-
lands contaminated by Anaconda Smelter emissions, severe
droughts, hard winters, overgrazing, and depressed markets.
However, cattle production is still the major focus of
agriculture in the basin today. Although the number of
ranches and the number of persons employed in agriculture
have steadily declined in the last few decades, the size of
farms and ranches and their productivity have generally
increased.
A sheep industry was also present in the upper Clark
Fork region, beginning in the early days of the mining camps.
There were more than 5,000 sheep in Deer Lodge County by
1875. Operations expanded in the 1890s, and by the 1950s,
Deer Lodge was the Rambouillet sheep capital of the world.
However, large scale sheep operations ceased after the mid-
1950s when Australian wool producers began to dominate the
markets (Horstman 1984) .
1-8
HYDROPOWER
The first hydropower development in the basin was at the
Blackfoot Milling and Manufacturing sawmill at Bonner. Built
in 1885, the low timber dam provided power for electric
lighting at the mill and later provided additional electri-
city to the Missoula power system around 1890-95. The
Milltown Dam, or Bonner Development, completed in 1906-07,
was an outgrowth of this earlier power system (Horstman
1984) .
When the Milltown Dam was completed, its generating
capacity was 2,400 kilowatts. In 1926, a fifth unit of 640-
kilowatt capacity was added to make a total plant capacity of
3,040 kilowatts. Repairs were made to the dam system
following a major flood in 1908, and additional modifications
were made in 192 0. The Montana Power Company (MFC) purchased
the dam, power plant, and water rights in 1929 (Horstman
1984) .
The original Flint Creek development on Flint Creek,
eight miles south of Philipsburg, was started in 1890 by the
Flint Creek Electric Power Company but was never completed.
In 1899, the Granite-Bimetallic Consolidated, a local silver
mining company, established a subsidiary, the Montana Water,
Electric Power and Mining Company, which completed construc-
tion of the dam, flume, and powerhouse in 1890. The plant
began full-time operation in 1901. Around 1906, the
Amalgamated Copper Company took over the Flint Creek dam and
power plant. The Anaconda Copper Mining Company (successor
to the Amalgamated Copper Company, which disbanded in 1915)
eventually carried out some major alterations at Flint
Creek. It raised the dam five feet in 1919 by constructing a
concrete cap along the crest of the masonry dam. The added
height allowed the structure to impound floodwaters in
Georgetown Lake that were usually lost over the spillway.
This additional water was piped to the smelter in Anaconda.
The Montana Power Company acquired the Flint Creek
project in 1935. The dam has a generating capacity of 1,100
kilowatts and Georgetown Lake has a capacity of 31,000 acre-
f6et.
MPC currently owns Kerr Dam, located on the lower
Flathead River about four miles southwest of Poison. The
dam, built in 1938, is a "peaking power" facility, which
results in wide fluctuations in discharge rates. The rated
capacity is 180,000 kilowatts.
The Thompson Falls, Noxon Rapids, and Cabinet Gorge dams
impound the lower 60 miles of the Clark Fork in Montana. The
Thompson Falls Dam was built between 1913 and 1917 and is
1-9
currently owned and operated by MPC. Its rated capacity is
40,000 kilowatts. The Cabinet Gorge Dam, built in 1952, and
the Noxon Rapids Dam, built in 1959, are owned and operated
by the Washington Water Power Company (WWP) . Maximum net
generating capabilities are 554 megawatts and 230 megawatts,
respectively. The Thompson Falls and Cabinet Gorge reser-
voirs are run-of-the-river impoundments, while Noxon Rapids
has limited storage capacity.
WATER RIGHTS
Congress perceived that the West could be settled only
if its water resources were developed. Water management in
the 19th and early 20th centuries was guided by the goal of
reclaiming the West. Without irrigation, few crops could be
grown to provide the food necessary to support extensive
settlements. In addition to being a mode of transport, water
was also central to the mining activities that drew the first
large numbers of people to the region.
Water diverted for placer mining activities in the early
1860s was initially governed by the regulations of individual
mining districts. The ditch companies in the Gold Creek area
were among the first to hold water rights. Water use in
Montana is generally guided by two legal principles. The
first principle is known as the prior appropriation doctrine,
"first in time is first in right." A user's right to a
specific quantity of water depends on when the use began.
The first person to use water from a source established the
first right, the next person is free to use what is left,
and so on. The second principle is that the water user is
entitled to divert only as much water as he can beneficially
use.
The doctrine of prior appropriation was formalized into
Montana territorial law in 1865-66. In 1865, the use of
water for irrigation was authorized by the territorial
legislature, and by 1884, water for irrigation purposes had
been deemed a public use that could not be obstructed by
private landowners (Horstman 1984) .
A water right had to be conveyed by deed, and a
defective conveyance of a water right was considered
abandonment of that right. However, in the early days of
settlement, land was transferred by simply giving possession
or with a bill of sale, and there was no law requiring a
record of water appropriated. The territorial courts were,
therefore, quite busy with water rights litigation between
1871 and 1889 (Horstman 1984) .
1-10
Until 1973, Montana water law did not require the
centralized recording and administration of water rights.
Water rights were use rights (established by diverting and
putting the water to beneficial use) , filed rights (estab-
lished by posting notice, filing at the County Clerk and
Recorder's Office, then diverting the water to put it to
beneficial use) , or decreed rights (resulting from court
adjudication) .
The Water Use Act, passed by the Montana legislature ifi
1973, created a centralized records system for water rights
and set up a permitting system for future appropriations.
Under the permitting system, a person has to apply for and
receive a permit from the DNRC to appropriate water. There
are exceptions to the law for stock water purposes, small
ground water flows, and small storage. The applicant must
prove that there are unappropriated waters in the source of
supply and that the proposed appropriation would not
adversely affect existing right-holders. Under the permit-
ting system, the DNRC must deny the permit if any one of the
criteria is not met. The act also established a system by
which the state, any political subdivision of the state or
the U.S., or any agency of the U.S. could receive a reserva-
tion of water. The reservation could be for future or
existing beneficial uses or to maintain a minimum flow or
quality of water. The reservations were to be approved by
the Board of Natural Resources.
Another important phase of Montana water law began with
the Water Use Act's mandate to recognize and confirm all
water rights that originated prior to July 1, 1973. The
current procedure, known as the statewide adjudication, was
mandated by Senate Bill 76 in 1979 and required anyone who
held a water right prior to July 1, 1973, to file a claim
with DNRC by April 1982. The Water Court administers the
adjudication program, which involves claim examination,
including providing opportunities for appeals and objections
and issuing preliminary and final decrees.
RECREATION AND TOURISM
The Clark Fork Basin is a valuable local and regional
resource for outdoor enthusiasts. The area offers many
recreation opportunities with its mountains, clear lakes and
tributary streams, and abundant wildlife. For these reasons,
recreation, tourism, and outfitting for fishing and big game
hunting are increasingly important industries in the basin.
Much of the activity and growth in the recreation industry
has occurred on the Clark Fork's major tributaries.
1-11
Three tributaries to the Clark Fork are classified as
Class 1 streams (highest fishery resource value) . These
include Rock Creek (near Missoula) , the Blackfoot River, and
Fish Creek.
Rock Creek is one of the most highly valued and popular
trout streams in Montana. The subbasin is nationally
renowned and supports heavy angling pressure during the
summer season. Because of this pressure, special restric-
tions have been enforced in recent years.
The Blackfoot River drainage is extensively used for
fishing, floating, and camping. Many Missoula County
residents use the Blackfoot for recreation, accounting for 60
percent of the total use. Fishing is the primary activity of
more than 80 percent of those using the river (Walker 1977) .
A recreation corridor was established on the river in 1975
(Blackfoot River State Recreation Area) whereby local
government and landowners cooperate in managing the river for
recreation. The Blackfoot River is the most frequently
floated river in west central Montana.
Fish Creek is a tributary with high quality trout
habitat that drains directly into the mainstem Clark Fork
about 20 miles downstream from Missoula. The stream is an
important spawning area for trout and it is heavily used by
regional fishermen.
A significant fishery also exists in the 2,850-acre
Georgetown Lake on Flint Creek. Georgetown Lake receives
extremely heavy angling pressure both summer and winter.
Fishermen's catch rates are among the highest in the state.
Other important tributaries of the Clark Fork that
support a trout fishery, but may be somewhat less productive
because of altered habitat, poor streamflow, or other
factors, include the Bitterroot, St. Regis, and Thompson
rivers. These streams are all rated as Class II (high-
priority fishery resource value) .
Fishing and other water-related recreation are probably
below their potential on the mainstem, likely due in part to
water quality degradation that limits the fishery in many
reaches of the river and the high level of development
adjacent to and near the river (railroad tracks, interstate
highway, frontage roads, high voltage power lines, etc.)
However, the mainstem of the Clark Fork throughout most of
its length is rated as a Class II stream, and it does
provide significant recreational opportunities, primarily for
fishing, boating, or rafting.
1-12
FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
Historically, the Clark Fork was a major corridor and
spawning ground for fish migrating out of Lake Pend Oreille,
Idaho. The lake supports a fishery of national renown,
including westslope cutthroat trout, bull trout, rainbow
trout, lake whitefish, and kokanee salmon. All of these
species once had spawning migrations into the Clark Fork
drainage (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1966; Vanek
1972) .
Residents who fished the lower Clark Fork in Montana
prior to construction of Cabinet Gorge Dam indicated that it
was generally unproductive except during the seasonal
spawning migrations out of Lake Pend Oreille. Of particular
importance was the snag fishery for kokanee salmon at
Thompson Falls and Heron Rapids, 68 and 15 miles upstream
from Lake Pend Oreille, respectively. Mature bull and
cutthroat trout were readily caught in many of the tributary
streams and in the mainstem near the mouths of these
tributaries (Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
1981) . The fall kokanee salmon migration probably lasted six
to eight weeks (Graham et al. 1980; McMullin and Graham
1981; Vanek 1972). Lake whitefish were captured migrating
up the Clark Fork during autumn (Vanek 1972) , and mountain
whitefish also provided an autumn fishery (Gaffney 1956;
Malouf 1975) .
Indian historians referred to the significance of trout
migrations in the Clark Fork. Salish Indians used weirs to
catch migrating fish in side streams of the Clark Fork such
as Graves Creek, Deep Creek, Beaver Creek, and others
(Malouf 1975) . Fish made up as much as 30 percent of the
Salish diet with bull and cutthroat trout the most favored
(Malouf 1979) . The Salish also fished for migratory bull
trout near Missoula. In fact, the Salish name for the
Missoula, Milltown, and Butte areas refers to "bull trout"
that were caught there. The construction of Thompson Falls
Dam at river mile 70 blocked the ascent of bull trout up the
Clark Fork (Malouf 1974).
''-'-' A sport fishery was virtually nonexistent in the upper
Clark Fork until pollution abatement programs were imple-
mented in the headwaters in the early 1970s. Since then, a
significant trout fishery has developed, but its quality is
quite variable.
Although some progress has clearly been made in
addressing the fisheries' problems, the Clark Fork is still
well below its potential. Today, rainbow and brown trout
probably rank as the most abundant and sought after trout
species in the basin. Cutthroat and brook trout are locally
1-13
abundant in tributary streams. Mountain whitefish are
abundant throughout the drainage and provide a winter
fishery. Bull trout are found throughout the drainage in
small numbers. Kokanee salmon and rainbow trout provide a
large portion of the fishery in Georgetown Lake. Lake
whitefish are common in the lower two reservoirs. Warm water
species such as yellow perch and largemouth bass are found
locally throughout the drainage. Northern pike are found in
the Clark Fork below the Flathead River, including the lower
three reservoirs.
The basin is widely known for its big game hunting.
Elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, moose, mountain goat,
bighorn sheep, black bear, grizzly bear, and mountain lion
are the big game species currently hunted in the basin.
Numerous species of upland game birds are also hunted. Most
important among these are blue, ruffed, and spruce grouse;
Hungarian partridge; and pheasant. Several species of
mammals classified as furbearing and/or predatory are hunted
or trapped for their pelts. Notable among these are mink,
muskrat, marten, beaver, otter, wolverine, bobcat, lynx,
coyote, and weasel. Many species of waterfowl inhabit the
basin or stop there during migration and provide substantial
hunting recreation. In addition, a large number of nongame
animals inhabit the basin, including some classified as rare
or endangered, such as northern Rocky Mountain wolf, bald
eagle, and peregrine falcon.
IMPORTANT TRIBUTARIES
The many tributaries of the Clark Fork are an integral
part of the environmental conditions in the river basin.
Snowpack and precipitation at the higher elevations of the
tributary headwaters control streamflows in the mainstem.
Land uses such as timber harvest, mining, and agriculture in
the tributary basins can significantly affect the rivers'
water quality. The primary benefits of most tributaries are
the inflow of clean dilution water and their role as spawning
and recruitment areas for the Clark Fork fisheries.
Table 1-1 describes and summarizes the features of
important tributaries of the Clark Fork. Additional
information on some of these streams is found in the text of
this report.
1-14
CQ
O
o
tD
yj
25
n
•<
:ia
OS
Cb
a
Cl.
CxJ
U3
o
g
t-H
z
g
r-H
C/1
U)
hH
V5
CD
t/)
<
=J
3
Q
i<
OS
a
J
u
g
g
T
£ 5
O n 0> ^
oi o 3 c o
C O --• M
•H a) h i-<
o A ^ a ta
Di 4J ^-> WJ -H
CD
+-•
(0
U-i 'O 'O
o «
>H <— 4 (0
■»-> ♦J 0)
-H C 1-1
W L to
£ 3 *j
Eh U -H
O «
V -3 -o
03
B
•H
10
a> o «
B
10
0)
0)
D>
> 4->
>
TT
i^
; howe
like
ponds
0)
B
1-t
x:
t-i
U-i
o
»— 1
M
•s
O
^
^ 3 8i
(>M
<v
0)
B :3 a>
••-'
>
4-J
a s 5
•H
U
5
s
15
pi Li
i <2
t
01 c
01 01
a
-s
O 0) (0
tj IM -u
0) tH
0)
in B
•i-i o
U B
S 5 §
•u
3
to o
&
•*->
to 'H
o> >
B ID
•H 0)
ti x:
cu
en n
E 0)
ic to
■>-■ 3
C 10
O V
u
•a
rH 3
l4
-s
d)
■»-> -U E
10 ta (3
» Hi
B U
Hj O ■I-'
O -rt to
-^ B
B 10 S
o oi 5
•H -H t3
to l-i
t^ u m
0) hH 0)
> --H
3 i -g
§
01
^
to
M
C
0)
a>
■*->
+J
>
to
o
>,
X-i
■S
4-1
&
o
J=
(V
to
>1
Dl
J3
0)
rH
3
M
-H
<D
O
•H
•g
U
0)
-S
IM
>
0)
s
9
B
JS
.<»
r-t +> a 5
4-> (0 o ja
B I-.
2l-> « (U
9) 4-» O
9 <o 3 X
u s ca a)
o
i-i
a.
]?
•H (0
—I
B
<»
i
E-i
0) o
2. '
T3 1-H
to B
Di 10
B J3
•H tj
Ul +-'4-'
o. x: j3 -H
en t3> oi -p
3 -H 10
E o 10 x:
§ %
J
-C +J
5
a
-8
E
^
t^
(0
4->
3
i-i
a
to
3
a
^
g-
CQ
s
i-i
s
+-»
o
•H
S
•H
u
l-i
■<
u
>
01
O
1
J3
(t-i
•H
4^
<«
O
•H
s-
to
ti
s
10
J=
4-*
10
*€
»
•H
g
I-I
■^
B
<1>
-t-*
0)
<«
s
■U
3
•M
1
rH
i-H
14
1
1
4->
a
11
B ^
10 re
D)
3
§
(J
to
*H
-a
B
(0
5
E
u
^
3
-^
•
1
3
to
s
g>
■H
10
CO
u
to
s
to
0)
•H
%
1
is
—1
'g
g
r-t
10
10
U-(
to
|4
a-
r-1
0)
4-1
«
B
to
s
en
s
1
ro
<i
u>
fN
^M
.-4
io
vo
o
*-<
1- 14a
1
8
+J
+->
:a
1
§
o
■t-i
^
(0
t
^
r-i
u
01
OQ
>!
<3i
♦J
rH
>
s
V
r-H
•H
r-i
(tl
U
4->
U
to
c
4->
>t
is
o
•H
+J
Tl
•H
tJ
•H
■r^
-f-)
a
(— 1
^
W
•H
&
a.
;3
.-( > a H
(0 O i-l (0
3
n
u
a
o
to
(Q
i
r-H
O
l-l
M VI o nj
o
10
0)
u
u
I
CO
•H
$
>H
ti
+->
§
•H
(0
s
?
0)
t3i
73
&
■^
10
c
§
1-4
,
•g
•H
10
13
<D
§
o
■a
S
■U
■H
>-i
(0
b
(D
Q.
<D
-o
o
j:
to
l-l
<0
tli
-♦-»
^
s
^
1
TJ
-:;S
c
•H
■s
s
•
1
O
§
r-H
T3
"S
>1
g
■H
0)
s
ti
g
+J
to
10
(0
^
to
a
i-H
^
nj
0)
CTi
c
-o
j=
M
L4
•H
o
<D
C
O
-t-J
O
O
^
u
U
a.
B
0)
(0
T3
CT-
•H
T3
■
T)
0)
X!
3J
C
C
-u
s
■S
o
(0
•H
B
T3
10
1.4
3
+j
C
•H
§
+J
(4-1
l-l
F— 1
i
to
Q)
•H
U
«— 1
■H
o
c
-g
^
"S
B
"§
4->
10
•H
b
J3
(1)
Di
+->
O
o
U
-*-»
4->
^
■ H
rt
<D
c
w
Di
(0
3
-C
IM
T3
o
C
10
i~t
to
10
tM
§
•H
s
<u
u
+J
0)
•H
b3
+J
•H
rH
CJ>
M
ki
d)
■m
£ 3
y M CO
« 10 l-l
i! l-l 0)
3 •IJ
L4 U <0
I ^ "^
x:
u
•H
-4-'
u
>0
l-l
■♦J C3t
p (0
s
10
•S, t:!
ti3
1-3
10
0)
g.
10
■H
Id
10
l-l
0)
g
o
>
rH
V
o
(0
Uh
en
Tf
10
r-i
B
-l-l
to
10
H
3
«>
3
•H B CO
B
O
to 4-> 10
I
a
J -H tj
•H J3
O DI
■n E
10 (1)
>i-i
2 ■§
•g
B
■IJ U
o 3
to ts
b B 3
(0 -H
0) JQ
01 S
rH O.
to
to
<1>
J= B
■ O
&
Li -v -tJ
a" <P rH (0
jj t3 a) *j
(0 rH > t
3 10 Si
- Ij *
tJI >
&^
3
s
♦J
l-14b
X >
is
OS CQ
e& o
g
UI
12
U3 W
S H-
1
in the area
good quality
arge. Gold
s especially
e as a con-
r of young
the Clark
Jl!
U 0)
1
? £ g
t<
C Jl! •
V
•S S ::
s
Jrf O -H
>w
$ M 3
Si
^ -r-l r-( O O
U 111 ^ V 4->
0) <0 CO J<! (0 3
o O
_ c u
s
•H (8 0) 3 ^ x:
J£
•O (0 01
M
rH x: -tJ
<2S
(0 iH U L4 10 U --I
+J (0 O <-> > +^ »»-4
o
s g s
O I
I "
01
B Q
10 >-i
U3
ET 2
0)
CO >
•H C
J
•a
■w o
c >
3 10
I 8
o> e
^1
c
a
I
to (0
0) c
C -H
•g s
10
_ a) ij
T3 cog)
0) u 10 a.
•rt O 0) rH o.
rH u-i c a. 3
O. -tJ S IJ 0)
{Q 'H 0) jn
CO C <— < E
10 ® o o c
J3 (5, 0> <«-l -rH
S 1
O
a. >.
3 rH
kl
10
«
c
o
a.i
2
•H
c
01
in u
a 10
o ja
•H
<-> 10
10
-8
*->
0)
CO
I
>
>1
g
1
o
o
i
U
CO
♦^
5g
>1
§
rH
00
0)
u
u
CO
+J
«-l
0)
CTV
j3
X!
Eh
H
t-t
C rH
r-H
£
•g ^
oxim
ream
barr:
all
s.
U 0)
<u x:
S ci
rH
*. 5
IM
<o
^ ?
*H
♦J
§ B
U -^ tw
o
rH C
(P rH
1-4 M-l
C
i S
13. A ^ C
<0 3 Sh ^
^
M
o
a
•rt
>
U
a
O
CO
•iJ
5
.2
^
*J
Oi
x:
•I-*
c
§■
■!->
^
01
>
•g
(0
>
•H
$
•H
T3
•U
CO
kl
U
O
tj
c
o>
D>
3
(B
o
-8
T3
+J
<0
rH
c
M
-H
-O
cS
CQ
CJi
0)
c
J-)
•r^ •.
-o
10
M C
§
73
15
S"
g
•H
rH
u
B
c
^ 3
O
-g
l-l
8 -s
•H
o
•n
-)-> u
(0
i
CO a
<t>
0)
u
> C-i
u
(0
0)
■H (0
0)
rH
x:
rH jS
u
o.
■iJ
1-14c
l-H
I
CO
o
a:
o
o
«:
^
s
^
«<
u
cc
b^
o
U,
U3
u
U
g
h-t
a:
2
n
en
u
3
s g
i
t/1
c
M
1
1
•H
o
•H
1—1
>
:3
o
IJ
o
r-1
o>
0)
4-»
^
^
>i
s
9>
■fJ
-t->
p-f
u
g
o
F— t
>1
o
+J
2
•H
0)
t
u
,
(i>
rH
Ij
0)
j<:
s
<u
+->
u
D
&
5
•H
s
0
M m ■— I t^
3
c o
01
0)
o
0)
c
(0
-a
(0
01
l-l
0)
U IS
g .2
•H
43
m
•H
■P
:a
•H
3
-I-'
<D
C
o
a^ o*
c— I 0)
> 1—1
■(-'
6-1
c
W
0)
-(->
T3
c
r-i
•H
O
a>
a>
i4
u
01
o
3
tM
1
1
03 C
X! -H
p. J3
8 ^
J3
-O ID
o <o
U E-i
C 10
+J C
as
0) Tj
en
c
O 0)
•H X!
g ti
+J 3 0)
CO "O fi
0) o S
> ti
•H o, c
r-i O
» ID •I-'
u s: ta
to)
c a)
■u ID 73
t>i M B
33 Di 10
4-J
to
01
^
i
CO
"S
O
c
+->
-tJ
?■
■fJ
0)
1— (
o
•H
.
s
^
CU
o
•I-*
^
,
§
0)
1
«
ID
s
t-l
0)
-o
•H
3! ^
h->
o
4-*
1
•H
•H
M
(U
c
•H
Ih
iJ
>i
X!
id
(0
1
CO
0)
CO
>
0)
l-l
o
i—t
CO
■*-<
-tJ
+J
4^
s
g,
§■
-H
8
o
^
u
O
•p
g
01
r— 1
3
c
1
1
t/}
^
!d
u
3
1— 1
c
^
c
x:
•g
0)
4-t
u
a>
5
i!
L4
C
0)
•H
+J
-*-■
0)
j»:
>
0
•H
>
1— 1
O
CO
5
(1)
1— 1
a>
)-i
o
u
V
£
(0
IM
$
•iH
(— 1
l^
b^
Di
o
o
c
o
s
xn
■4-*
n
U
4->
O
u
c
'J"
a)
b.
ID
t;
rt
U~i
0)
Tl
10
0)
0)
3
• H
CO
%
+J
tn
10
u
13
CJi
J3
+->
x:
&
♦J
-H
^
u
•iH
!rf
•H
0)
3
r-1
CO
•H
4-»
c
4-^
3
U-<
Lj
a
CO
r-t
-s
(0
1
o
3
•H
>^
• H
1
a
ID
C
rH
^
9
^
,2
x:
c
r-1
ID
c
o
r-l
It-I
s
r-1
o
■H
8
'S
i-H
(0
•
•
•
l-14d
o
<_> OS
5 £
Eh
M
d
g
o
o
H
g
u
2
bL,
b
Cd
u
U
15
*H
5
u
l-(
w
en w
(/> «
S a:
•Z a
£ 3
g
£
(0 CT d -^
E -
•ii £ - —
y w Q) -tJ w
o -rf i^ gj -H
-§
J1
(0
c
1
i
to
o
U 00 > ^
5 .5
1
.11
$
4J rH
u
10 U
U
•g^
^
2 tS
<-> o
o ci
(J
o ^
c _
S 1
I iH
i-H V
<v is
> a
I
O -H O '-H
E
1
t
O
m
<— 1
r-^
b.
01
u
.^
n
01
H-l
!3
01
.-^
C
1—4
•g
0
u
r-t
■g
10
^ V 0)
y 3 u
l-14e
t..
i-
O
Oi OQ
ce o
u an
a
3; D
«
u
M
ts
W
«:
0
B
«s
oe
Q
J
U
g
B
£ S
:^ ^
9E Vi
a
(Q
u
(0
-H
0)
0)
0)
<B
>
i-H
0
x:
+J
0
+j
^
■«->
i
V
u
^
§
4->
t3
<i>
>-l
(M
8
<—»
-t-"
0
1-1
0
0
10
Cl.
(4-1
^
U
>
V
s
jn;
t>1
.s
0
M
c
la
rH
8
It]
'0
0
•r-4
•H
1
0
•H
CQ
•H
•!->
tj
+>
>
3
s
3
0
rH
0)
rH
^
a.
^
4->
0.
^
0}
.9
>j
TJ
•!->
0
0
u
^
0)
U
i
0
1
1
0
•H
4J
■a
■S ■"
"S
s
c
T3
Oi
a
•H
§!
c
0 1
J3
'O
u
? S
s
^
"O
§ "S
w
(0
<— 1
.5
0)
i
c
•H
(0
°
(V
<1>
=3
a B.
B
§
<1>
■H
i
Q
•H -P
,«
jS
§
rH C
0)
>1
XI
C
T3
c
x:
-t->
•H
4-*
+J
C »
■P
oi
« (0
0
i
»
4J
U M
■^
.0
0
•g
4-'
0)
-t->
8
§
1 ^
s
£■
2
(0
C
00
§5
1
^3
S
+-> +>
c
0
> --H
CT
1-1
>
IH
c
A
"S
•H
gu
•H
c
■■^ .s
•H
to
1
-t-J
•H tj
<x>
ro
•H
U-l
E-i
+J
'H
0)
(—1 .r-l
J<!
-t-!
4-»
s
■H
oe 10
a
T3
0)
<1>
a
M
S to
r-l
t:
^
»-t
g. »
u
u
S
w
•H
§ §
^
^
CO
V
■H
<U
C
C
u
tM
0
• iH
0
TS
s
0
0)
2
0
&=!
(0
0)
+J d
x:
•H
0
+->
(0
0
X! CO
(1>
^H
0)
3
IM
3 >1
■i
S-i!
^
CO
^^
8 a
III
t— (
r-1
^
1
r-4
fe
0)
T3
w
>
B
•H
in
(0
0
Ul
M -a
0
•H
■ H
0)
1— 1
c
^
u
m
■»-»
0
T3
s
■tJ
4_| T3
i^
0
M
• H W
-fH
N rH
1^
0)
•H
u
0
0
r— I
0
0)
Q.
•^ to
>
4)
U
0)
:-i
CO
M
(0 rt
M
>
u
10 n
01
w
*J
c
3
(0
C
10
•H
>
0
■*j
■ H
S, t^
^
5
i!
8
U "H
3
0
ii
0
^
CO -H
g
(0
x:
e
•H
s
P3
•«
t_>
•H 0
s
■H
§ 1
Q
l-l
0)
M
s? -^
&
•
•
•
•
1
8
5
^
u
10
g
0-1
1
•H
•H
4-*
M
0!
t4H
r— 1
U
4->
V
M
0
rH
D.
a
^
5
ID
g
i
B
0)
0)
x:
is
n
tl>
^
,
■<H
III
B
Oi
rH
10
§
c
S
t>t
4->
•H
a>
M
>
+j
rH
4-1
10
r!^
-a
0)
0
rH
•H
•h
•H
i
t4
Ul
M-l
0)
0
8
B
01
u
ID
Ul
4-'
4->
4-'
4-1
S^
0
U
•4-1
1-1
0
• H
0
Ul
0
8
2"
to
B
u
D»
0
4->
• H
n
■IJ
Q.
-4-1
0)
:a
D>
oj
bi
0)
.s
0)
0)
3
C
0.
3
E
x:
•H
4-1
JS
la
Ul
4e
1
•H
^
J3
+->
^
3
0
§
•H
+-*
u
Ul
10
r-\
t3
4-1
01
a
c
t— 1
0
c
1-1
^
U
1-t
to
0
01
Ul
ID
ID
0
4-1
Ul
•rl
u:i
r-*
a>
0)
4J
0)
rH
ID
«
>
10
3
w
0.
i
3
>
U
^
>
OQ
U
x:
0)
r-\
U
to
a)
0
*H
u
+j
1<-I
•H
g
•H
Ul
^
§
4-'
z
OQ
1
x:
x:
4-1
T3
CO
cx:
0
OS
■(-'
U-t
0)
•H
is
4-1
B
r-i
0
c
(0
J2
(0
X!
rH
0
uj
3
4J
m
-s
i
0
■H
n
■»->
TJ
B
■M
+J
Ul
*J
+-■
rO
w
10
x:
0)
1
01
is ^
0)
8
10
>
8
.3
8
tH
01
8
■«
s
rH
B
• H
i
to
4-1
—1
u
B
10
€
fe
3
3
+J
^
r-H
X)
I0
:a
-;£
:a
.
0
0,
10
„
rH
%
1J
g^
T-\
to
0)
S
1
5
u
0
xs
u
Jit:
♦J
XI
0)
«
M
(0
0)
1
Di
10
M
10
u
B
4-1
0
l
I4H
4-1
0
Ul
r-H
Ut
4J
s
CO
g
t
rH
^
CQ
0
m
s
-S
0-
HH
to
=
?
B
•H
0
Ml
•
•
1
•
•
•
•
g
(U
V
1
ID
M
CO
l-i
CO
i— 1
is
>-1
<D
Ul
Ul
U
IM
<4H
0)
(0
4J
u
rH
B
a)
0
a
0
0
•H
M
u
+j
(1>
^
<U
-£
>
4->
10
Mh
01
+J
0)
(1)
0^
□
x:
B
t4H
s
1
Ul
4-1
0
§
c
•H
>
U-4
a
0)
CJ
■4-J
U
-g
to
r-^
ID
10
0
ID
•H
>
«
u-t
•H
•H
i
(1)
«
01
B
.-t
<2
4-*
•H
T3
r4
0)
+J
•H
u
(tj
M
rH
■IH
>
Di
M
c£
3:
•i-i
U
XI
0)
^
Ul
<0
+-►
+J
10
ki
•S
0
"O
T>
C
Ul
LO
4->
E
4-1
c
0
c
T3
3
^
(B
•H
•r4
0
t~
tv
to
0
Ul
1
*H
to
•H
§
B
1
10
CO
0
«— t
X
a>
x:
4->
HI
01
-tj
+-•
Ul
10
•r-t
rH
+j
tx
4->
B
>
•H
L4
s-
i
M
8
1
rH
3
i
M
(1)
-1-1
is
><
10
^
to
01
B
t>i
^
•H
,
•H
OS
■1
i
rg
0
•H
F— )
0)
:a
0
M
i-H
<V
X)
£
B
*H
ja
10
0)
a.
XI
•H
•H
01
XI
•H
+J
•H
01
HI
4-1
to
C
g*
2
is
0
10
,
2
is
'w
8
■a
0)
i
-O
rH
•H
'S
t_)
s
Ul
a)
u
8
.S
1
0)
rH
s
.— 1
o<
4-»
r-(
tM
n
>
0.
+-»
a)
a
-i->
rH
to
Ul
•g
ID
0
:a
4-1
•g
-H
=1
n
t4-l
0
3
x:
u
0
0
4-»
0
■H
-§
x:
E
-•-'
(0
-Q
§
0
.□
u
(U
4->
to
a
u
0.
0
E
•H
0)
T3
01
■H
(i>
(0
^-l
W
0)
Il>
0)
G
-S
!0
to
ID
0
B
01
<^
S
CO
S^
x:
Ut
§
«— 1
Ul
x:
rH
>*-.
to
x:
X3
Ul
<i>
0
-r-l
Ul
f—\
Ul
•H
ID
x:
-r^
+J
-(J
M
c/}
l*H
(0
4->
EH
OQ
to
»
-tJ
EH
JO
u
0
4-1
13
E-i
ca
t*H
4J
4-1
4-1
1
•H
^
i
4-1
to
B
T3
%.
^
to
Ul
•H
§
m
V
0
• H
Ul
T3
Ul
1<H
U
•H
B
01
01
•S
§
•o
g
Ul
Ul
-H
X3
4-1
>
•H
§
4-1
3
-S
01
Ul
§
•H
0
131
Ul
4-1
0
4-1
8-
rH
4-1
U
B
to
S
Ul
CT
-a.
ID
ID
B
•a
■H
"S £
4-1
g
B
0
Ul
0
•g
4-1
4-1
rH
Ul
■S
■H
b
0
0)
■H
4-1
to
8
8
rH
to
to
1*4
U4
rH
0
9 -s
Ul
5
Ul
s
ID
■H
is
^
><H
Ul
4-1
rH
1
0)
>
•H
B
4-*
rH
1
to
ID
t»1
8
C_>
Ul
cx:
•H
Sh
ID
to
r-\
4-1
•-\
rH
4-1
(3>
•H
0.
3
CQ
•H
10
M
!3
X
■r4
4-1
s
ja
>
4-1
P
01
ID
Ul
B
-a
•H
10
to
to
4-1
to
Ul
J!
Ul
i
Ul
01
I
m
10
D
«-H
•H
■a
4->
4-1
E-*
x:
J3
'O
3
•
Ul
to
•
to
^
iH
X3
to
b
Ul
•r-l
0)
.3
B
Ul
4-1
1
0)
•H
Ul
U_l
0
ID
^
to
^
>
0
•H
01
4-1
B
01
B
0
01
,
>
-rH
3
0)
>
x:
i
•-\
E
§^
•H
&
0)
to
OS
S
4-1
U
s
.5
U
.B
4-1
Ul
to
%
cc
g-
■■3
^
s
^
to
■ H
4-1
rH
0)
■6
4J
to
o>
+-•
•H
a
a
i"
8
-g
Ul
10
B
4-1
X!
c
8
3
rH
s
u
U
IS
p
Ul
3
^
01
0
•H
4-1
a
0
+-<
0
Ul
>
rS
to
:a
(N
J3
t_)
0
•H
3
Ul
£
a
rH
i
.S
(D
to
g
-3
4-1
<u
(0
144
Mh
0
fN
>1
to
01
4-1
0
0
■H>
rH
to
•rH
g
fN
0
to
r-t
rH
4-1
ja
s
Ck<
•1.
ID
<D
r-t
•H
4-1
ID
r-\
r^
U
•H
4-1
01
^
r-i
a>
ID
-t-»
■g
ID
>
■»->
CO
to
ro
OQ
01
TJ
c
u.
a>
CQ
u
(0
01
0^
01
a
•rH
9
1
0)
r-t
3
g
4-1
to
§
is
•H
>
s
is
01
U-l
1
01
U
01
• H
Ul
2
4-1
h
•g
§
rH
^
-H
I44
%
^
s
•H
0
t4H
nH
0
(2
g
to
•H
§
j3
4-1
g
Ul
•H
g
s
l-14f
aa s»
oc
CQ
cc
O
o
oe,
u
cu
u
!5
<<
z
M
o
s
W3
u
Ciu
a
U
u
HH
c/>
w
Ul
Ld
cn
3
M
1
u]
g
g
g 5
S
4J O H C I-
)^ (V 0) 'H >i +>
(-1
3 .tJ
■§
s
O h l4
♦J a> a) ^ _ .
1-14g
O
DC o
(V
(0
c
£
s
s s
s
l-14h
M
E-i
I— I
E>
M
G
oe, 00
g s
u a.
o
O
iC
UJ
ss
t— *
r<
u
OS
bj
Q
U.
U
U
O
P
HH
K
2
h- 1
w
U
t— 1
U3
3C
3
> 0) S
0) O M +-I T3 -t-"
•S
"2
1>
>
5
T3
4> 0)
U T3
O
O J3
8.
0) t3
t s
i
•1-4
>
W
•rH
1
% I
r-^
"H
(0
.
t>-.
t
Oi
fO
o>
B
4)
1
CO u
£
rH
o
«-H
•H dj
•H
h
•H
r-H
M
M
0)
o
•M
10
g
^
0)
ta
rH
U-l
10
>
10
^ "S
u
^
(V
•H
M
■1-'
•H
3 -H
CJi
*— 1
l-l
0)
Ui
"S
■ H
U
^
•H
>
•H
o
8
U M
♦J
U
rH
u
•r-1
u to
5" £
1
i-H
•H
5
8
rH
U-l
1
S
•H
5
"■"^ tji cu
i-H >
o
^
♦J
•H
3
i
M in
1-14i
M
xn
a
3
<—(
■%
(0
a j!i u
■g
ID c
u o
■§ ■t-'
II
.■6
1
1-1 ra (0
1
c
o
3 3 o n
-I o M m
3 a. <o +->
o o u
tH 'T3 4-» M-l
10 J3 » 0)
n
T3
-§
»
,
a
M
o
(>i
"9
o
O.
rH
^^
S
•H
•H
•H
1i
,
-(J
IS
g-
& s
>
s
•H
3
+J
a>
(V
1—1
g
ts
g -8
5
>
T3
0)
3
l~l
+->
10
g
■4->
rH
o.
Dl
O
S
(0
(+-(
0)
•H
i!^
0)
10
4J
j=
r— 1
X!
■l->
(0
(1)
W
(0
<1>
r-\
L4
>
• H
M
■1-'
u
3
0)
0)
^-1
J3
10
0)
a.
>
+j
r— f
0)
w
>
a
M
»-i
M
t^
X.
u
o
-r-t
u
0)
(1)
0)
0)
x:
+-•
■P
14-4
>
t3
a
Vl
g
s
5
03
c
^
^
■H
•
•
1
t3
•
O
1
s
u
a
a)
1
^
•H
1
,
•rH
4J
0)
o
r-H
C
U
Lj
-3
0)
CO
*i
o>
o
3
•H
l-l
•H
0)
XI
rH
a
3
+J
M
o
5]
10
0)
10
■tJ
u
c
^
X>
i-H
-t-J
a»
§
0)
+J
>
M-l
10
•H
10
■i
•H
U
a>
c
u
M
m
•H
»
U
Uh
Ui
>
CD
3
t+-l
OC
0)
tyi
CT
1/3
O
+-»
s
t/i
>
5)
o
>
t>i
•H
(0
c
n
u
rH
u
CD
-H
c
■o
10
4-'
-!->
• H
0)
0)
0)
r~i
s
&
u
J3
U
i/i
M
•H
10
JC3
•H
10
M
o
«
U
s
0)
(0
x:
0)
rH
Dl
n
a)
u
»»
3
%
^
a>
:^
cn
0)
J3
^
W
J3
W
(0
■H
3
+j
(0
?
rH
J^
■P
u
c
rH
OJ
-4->
0)
g-
l4
O
0)
c
5
■tJ
fe
s
-4-J
IT3
^
0)
o
u
^
,
^
l-l
■H
r-t
14-4
•H
i
W
■H
c
■d
>
(0
8.
CO
4->
>
D>
£^
u
Cu
(0
u
■o
o
10
s
+J
■H
0)
s
C/]
u
■H
Oi
■1-'
O
+-»
l-l
u
u
4_1
C
Oi
M
tx
5^
M
3
-*J
rH
M
a-.
M
C/1
*J
1
t
B
■§
.3
0)
^
01
>
to
o
(0
a
1
0)
*->
10
u
>
2
rH
•H
«
t/3
1^
g
I
x;
10
■5
a
g
^
g
2
J
i-i
5
-§
0)
1-4
3
•H
-H
S
s
•H
O
»^
i-H
g s
1
-IJ
^
c
M
c
o
3
S
a
o
•H
5
M
+-I
-t-'
-l-»
-a
10
u
c
"O
(U
<D
10
c
10
l-l
o
13
,
-g
rH
0)
n
o.
tl
u
0)
T3
■l-l
o
^
w
10
M
K
3
Dl
o
-H
■H
10
■O
M
T3
•H
g
M
0)
•I-'
-a
D>
•H
+J
rH
&
10
•$
>1
•H
^
CTi
ja
kl
C
•H
■H
o
8"
o
l-l
14
•c-1
•H
l4
<D
1
g
J
•t-l
•H
l-l
i!
x:
O
+J
X!
id
f^
1 8
10
"D
4-1
s
^
%
Ul
01
■ H
3
C
Ul
4-»
rH
-M
1.1 III
c
x;
■g
01
j«;
ID
l-l rH
o
-iJ
o
1.1
nH
:S -g
z:
3
c
o
C&<
O
ON
OJ
b.
«
t~
3
^
-M in
c
rH
jn:
(C
o
w
l-l
Hh
Id
g
^
M
3
o
c
rH
O
Xh
o
-H
a -)->
o
■H
u
U
a.
Uh
1
1
II
i«-i
o
+-I
IH
m
■f-i
•H
1
0)
x:
0)
,
+j
x:
4-1
TJ
•4H
0)
10
4->
(T
o
c
-S
01
c
•H
+->
C
-C
0)
■*-»
w
J3
10
4-'
^
c
01
♦J
<tH
^
ID
£
t-^
•r4
o
f—i
ID
•g
3
&
b-.
ki
VI
HH
CT
0)
01
•H
U
1
•-a
s
4-1
IS
l-l
•H
1
4-1
10
2
1
jj
10
3
0)
4-'
01
ID
Oi
1
>
•H
l4
^
ID
rH
01
0)
DC
i
• H
•»H
U
1-14J
CO
CO
g
g
ca
o
a
£ g
i ^
o a
i 5 1.
(9 5 c
u 0) p. c x-
O tl M M -H
a o w o a g
go. (D Dl :3 □)
- 01 o> --^ S "^
S "= tj a o
O* •iH -»J Ot *w
i
10
g-l
S
♦J
^
0)
w >
T3
c
1
r-(
4-> 10
g
•H
♦-»
s
1
f— 1
rH
c
■H
13
^
a §
1)
4)
^ g
^-^
D
>
>i
1
■«J
■o
[/]
r-l
-s
r-l
a
o 2
c
3
a>
•H
•s
(0
•H t>i
o
r-l
'H
o>
•H
0)
g r- 1
n-
a
M
c
•H
c
0)
Ul
§ ^
1
01
3
;£
3
U (4-1
01 o
a
c u
o o
B
0)
0)
0)
B
(0
s" 3
s
o a 10
ro (0 S
I u
i 1
"S
c
G
CO
0>
o
10
>
>
01
0
01
u
H
g
2
•H
■«-'
0)
>
M 1-1 ua -H 4-'
01 o _
> T-l Ij T3 J<
fO
ij m
»♦-» 4-> 00
u <o I
O ID
\£ (4-1 (T\
'T O --I
> -H 5 .a
ki >-< 0) n >
O ♦J 0) J3 0) •
P<o:xciL.>(o<-'a
1-14k
04 oa
5 o
5 oc
D
XC
u
OS
c^
Q
Cli
u
T*
[_)
HM
o
5
u
M
m
ac
E>
W
U]
u
tr
en
•c
=>
s
>a:
oe
Q
i-}
g
g
s s
g
S (0 S
> O >-
.-I r-l O
a (», -u
M o u
^1 §•
r-1 to
O *J (U r-t
+J C -C U
(0 ^
>. o e
rH .H a) »
0) (4-1 -O 4-"
•H c Ij c
rH & CTI 'H
ii
o o
§ 8
o o
•H Cl.
O 3 JH!
O i-l Ij
•H ID
-« T3 r-H
m o
$ r-H
M 9 <U
o e x:
•H (-■
(U c
-s
c
D1 1-^
C rH
•r-l OJ
i4-< x: >
o
4-»
i
^
s- g s
B
r— t
•H
J<l
o
duri
rodu
■ dis
c
i
O
1
3 ^
m
J3
0! T3 i-H -tJ
O
U
a
^
Ul
T3
1
•H
O
t
ID
rH
§
*J
Ul
B
§
Di
10
•4-'
-M
r— t
10
-C
u
=3
01
.2
C
■H
w
§
a)
o
•H
U
^
M
♦J
1
0)
1i
r-H
§
<u
l|
>
c
i
g
1-1
c
t4-t
+-»
1— 1
3
TJ
rH
+J
<v
!— t
w
o
o
ja
w
i
■u
o
§
u
3
>^
M
•rH
■(->
• H
U
■*->
IM
w
w
J^
M
1-1
B
0)
OJ
a)
^
+->
B
0)
M
u
■«-'
^
V
x:
l-l
0)
+J
O
4-*
^
+J
3
-f-)
>1
-t-»
<u
>-i
ID
•H
ID
B
O
•H
C
0)
4-»
o
0)
•!->
■H
c
ai
Si
3
1
f-H
o
10
-1
-o
10
m
•H
3
*J
U-l
-§
.3
■iJ
3
^ ^
8
i.
ILl
1^
>i
rH
3
c
U
+j
• H
rH
o
XI
Uh
0)
3
§
§
w*
g
t>i
.a
o
B
in
a)
a)
Ul
■s
10
a>
O
3
CJi
a)
:S
t4-l
M
Ul
J3
^
•H
ID
B
i-i
•H
E
o
M
D>
a.
£
£
+J
■fJ
r-i
.H
o
•
IQ
J3
•
•
1
o>
Vi
•H
o
§
x:
u
ra
g
E
.5
U-l
&
<_>
10
O
Q
+j
£
■'2
>H
0)
4-»
C
•H
M
m
i
(0
ra
•H
U
J3
-H
■!->
»
J3
(0
"S
•H
B
OJ
S
a)
•H
l4
<t>
t4-l
M
J=
+J
>
m
•rA
o
3
c
r-l
is
^
cn
10
(U
3
1
•fJ
r-i
c
TJ
':£
o
a)
i
8
^
§
•
s.
H"
E
g
s
•H
•H
-rH
B
tTi
.— 1
u
•g
8"
^
a;
a)
cn
T3
^
D>
§
01
S
a)
r— 1
IH
3
M
:§
"S
73
1 ii
C
ID
10
8
•
o
a>
t-H
X3
(0
CN
v
^
IH
^
u
03
rH
X!
-M
•rt
i-H
01
t
s
n
ID
1
1
•H
10
01
.
^
•g
a)
j>e
01
ID
+J
1
ID
• V
•rl
01
$
o
u
rH
01
c
g
a;
K
l«H
s
B
o
rH
10
0)
a
a)
3
u
a)
CS4
ID
X!
•H
IH
r-i
O
o
3
Cl.
"S
■f-J
■u
i-i
■l->
rH
^
IH
^
s>
(*H
(^
tJ
IM
B
a
g
■g
^
fe
^
•H
rH
3
^
O
U
1
u
s*
1
ID
Vi
i
1
CU
o
01
4-»
1
a>
$
t^
1
•
•
•
1-141
o
g
g
g
u
s
b.
Q
Om
ta:
U]
X
IJ
t-
t-l
s
g
u
t-t
w
5C
=
o b o
go *J
* 1-1 in 4)
f-i o is a) -t-"
E .2 S ia $ "S
> ij a ^ w
I S S i! 5 -g
B
•H V
10
>: Si
u *->
£ s
ia ^
o
l-l
1
!3
P
OJ
t..
3
n
O
S
<— 1
O* 'O 'H I— 1
a .H 4 CO
3 > <0 -l-i
o ^ CO
O. 4-' S
x:
ID C
a> E
J3 >»J 1-1 -r-
<V -«-> O l-l
e4J 1-4 C
*» '4 K
>« hH 10 p
> J= b
up Xi
O. B U
•H O
.-( to C «-
0) »
S '"' S. *'
4->
»
ki
ii
(0
>-
1—)
u
^
>1
O
•H
K
>
•H
10
en
1
£
8
•H
g
-g
CO
fe
•H
11
M
S T3
fc
TS
3
c»^
(0
•H
l<-l
g
b:
2
10
>
•H
g
C
r-l
^
t:;
_j^
V
n
•H
u
(0 3
OS
>
jx:
o
8
g
^
^
-8
4j a;
U
?
2'
1—1
8.
to
2
a
0)
•fH
C J3
•»-*
•H
B
ti
•H
c
11
0) •»-'
E
•rl
cH
i
1
ID
8
&5
^
s
B
•g
rH
1
1
%
•
t^
Li
i S
CO
% g-
<o
x: u
0)
ID
r-l IJ CO
10 •1-'
+J o ^
10 ^ "M
S CO III
.—I
0)
3
CO
so
(0
10
u
a) Di
-s
■s
in a>
•r-l 0) W
C *J
•g||
u >« 5
u u
to O. T3
— ' 9- S
^ 10 10
CO
0)
o
3
to -a
Q B
^ §
-8
■rH
1-1
21
>i -rH TJ
rH CT r-l
is ^-3
Id r-l ja
r-l
10
g
•H
i-l
1
I
■g
,
"g
♦->
.S
E
CO
CO
■!->
u
O
*J
m
•H
§
u
0)
•o
V
C31
o
!3
Ui
10
C
ti-i
10
>-l
■H
^
o
B
1— 1
B
r-l
0)
2
O
•r4
S
g
U
15
4-1
10
='
•H
3)
ll
a>
1.1
OJ
O
o
1
fi
•g
10
r-l
O.
1
O
£
¥
•
_^.
CO
1
J:
S
B
t;
■H
■M
J3
ii
o
••H
10
M
+J
•r4
en
10
&
o
■51
g
§
M
E
8
u.
CO
Si
ii
^
0)
0)
i£
— 1
0)
■s
>
^
10
u
a:
U-i
U
4-J
5
E
o
i
B
<u
O
re
+J
■r-l
O
01
4-*
*-»
■*-»
X
M
Ul
g
10
■s
:S
g :S
5
S
£
1- 14m
W M
PC >
D M
o
«<
u
C£
Cb
Q
b^
u
U
X
o
E-
M
i
s
CA
u
M
to
3:
3
I
g s
1
w
£
+*
1
t4
»
0
+J
(U
01
0)
1
•H
5
*J
•s
■U
c
4->
+i
2*
"S
•H
C7>
■s
(—1
J3
10
•H
1-t
• H
a
g
c
<D
g
•H
CJ
+J
a>
J<!
■ H
13
4-»
kj
T)
0
U
0
C
lU
(0
0
5
g
M
c
0)
£
IM
s
10
id
J2
*->
^
rH
.-H
1
4-t
3
0
^
•H
0^
<0
c
to
tx
1—1
J<!
n
0)
^
3
c
4-1
0
c
c
f— 1
"M
Id
T)
<u
u
to
•H
:<
U
•t-t
•H
^
oe
1-1
0
-M
c
1-1
N
0
C_)
(0
.—1
t_>
Cl.
C
0
B
z
to
-»->
;j
C_J
J=
<u
<U
•H
T3
^
0)
c
0)
ai
Jli
■fJ
^
-♦-»
13
0)
1
s
1
C
+-I
^
-»->
k4
5
1
n
i
^
w
^
1
(0 l^
^
2
^ -1
10
0
0)
a> IV
u
i—t
■H rH
-t->
jk:
+->
T3 ^
01
8
C
0)
-e
OS
D>
01 0
m
1-14n
^
U 1-4
i B
U. as
S ,-3
cx: o
Eb
u
o
O
■«
^
a
\^
«:
g
b.
u
U]
t-J
g
f— t
a:
s
h-*
tn
u
^-t
en
£ 3
o 3 n
<« J5 -rt
? b
u
5 .S I
^
a i:) ^ ^
= 215?
to
m
0)
5
<a
+J
TS
!>i
0)
>
o
•H
C
W
■*->
•fH
ca
?
IS
*«H 1-1
U
L4
(0
b
i -2
§>
W
o
c
W
s
01
>
•H
iH
o
rH
•f-t
■^
+j '— (
K
.r^
U
•H
<0
3
cc
8 §
1)
+^
o
4^
-H
•e
c
T3
(0
-♦-'
3i
o
^ O
0)
.»H
L<
c
jC
•H
•f-4
S
1^
V
<v
•IJ
C
(D •*-'
a>
u
-O
*J
0)
g S
— t
04
8
01
a
o
^
1S s
r-1 C
i g g
a) ■►J '-I
»© '3 'H
4-> 31
10 >
b g
01 4>
IH U
Q eg
Li B (7>
a • 5 00
c CO S
rH — 4 U »
ID DO
U W > r-l
O 'H m (4-4
oo
>4H I
O <N
o» '-^
(0
1-4 u
S! 13
10 0)
-3
c
s
1.1
8
T3
0)
5 'S
□> O. HI
S C ITJ
lU
(0
(1)
o
I
c
10
8
—I »
10
0> .r-t
i 3
"8
I.
— 1 X
l-lAo
CHAPTER 2
CURRENT WATER USES, ACTIVITIES, AND AQUATIC RESOURCES
The Clark Fork flows through diverse terrain that
supports a variety of land uses. Many of these land uses
depend heavily on the river system, utilizing surface and
ground water for consumptive and nonconsumptive uses. This
chapter provides a description of current land and water uses
along the mainstem Clark Fork and its major tributaries. The
relative benefits and costs of some activities are discussed,
although there are limitations on quantifying these benefits
and costs. The amount of water in acre-feet (AF) used for
different purposes varies considerably among the seven Clark
Fork subbasins covered in this report, as illustrated in
Table 2-1. This chapter also describes the aquatic resources
in the basin, including macroinvertebrates and fisheries.
MINING
From the late 1800s until the early 1980s, mining and
metal processing industries were the mainstay of the economy
in the upper Clark Fork Basin. The largest employer, the
Anaconda Minerals Company, shut down its smelter operations
in Anaconda in 1980 and its mining operations in Butte in
1983.
The closure of these facilities marked the end of an
era, but the recent rise in prices of copper and precious
metals has spurred renewed interest in mining throughout the
basin. Several companies are now in the exploratory phase,
and others have submitted conceptual plans or permit
applications to regulatory agencies (see Chapter 4) . A few
companies are currently operating in the basin, the largest
of which is Montana Resources, Inc., in Butte.
Montana Resources. Inc.
MRI purchased most of the Anaconda Minerals Company's
Butte holdings in December 1985 and assumed its permits and
liabilities for the permitted mine area. MRI began open pit
mining of copper and molybdenum in June 1986. It currently
employs about 320 people in Butte, and the expected life of
the mine is 13.5 years. In the course of the operation,
approximately 200 million tons of ore will be processed and
80 million tons of low-grade waste rock will be removed from
the top of the ore body and placed on permitted waste rock
dumps .
2-1
£
o
CO
^
8
o
I
CM
l-l
s.
12
u
o
o
u
u
4)
jj
-*
r^
(^
m
«
x>
m
v<
o
«
m
m
<»>
1/1
9'
w
o
1-(
00
lO
oo
r^
r-
vO
i-H
f^
A
*•
•4
M
•o
PM
-i
fH
r^
— <
f-H
CO
•H
2:
!3
§
00
CI
^
'"
o
o
u
R)
■H o b,
^ o <
b. Ck: —
o
;< b.
a >i Eh
u
l4
O^ <^ CO -4
m f^ irt irt
rH 0> 00 0>
•O ^ «n
00 in r»
in
s
«
CO
in
O
00
in
O-
tH
?^
1^
<o
00
r^
m
iC
-H
1^
<«
rH
m
r^
<»•
00
r^
CO
•^
m
O
a
o
»H
rH
rH
CO
IH O O
s
•4
m
O
oo
t^J
CM
r^
rH
oo
OP
rH
O
CO
CM
lO
o-
CJ
in
•o
00
oo
m
8 ■=* 12
2 S
CO r-l *H ^
5 3
S
o
CM
CM in p
r^ 00 a
r-l ^ CO
CO CM rH <0
5 0i O CM
lO rH rH
f-l ^ —4 in
O CM
00 »o CM r~
o> 00 ^ r^
in <f 4- o
<^ o ^
^ J ■*
r**
m
r^ -< ^
00
■*
to CO o>
>o
CO OS 4
<o
CM
CM
Ot 4 O in
CO CM rH in
»o in in CM
00
CM
O CO O
m CM
r^ c CO
J- e^i -3
O" rH CM
o
CO
o o >o
^ tO
3 CO
00
CM
O W »
g
1
ts
u
»4
^
•H
■H
»
:»
t3
0)
4) U
i
4J
<d
s s
g
»
o
o
U 0)
o
S
T, S
•o
u
g
V
lA
3
tH
«
BO
2-1a
Trucks transport ore from the Continental Pit to the
Weed Concentrator, where the metals are separated from the
ore. Possible waste disposal sites include the Hillcrest
Dumps, the Yankee Doodle tailings pond, the Berkeley Pit and
the Pittsmont dump — all areas formerly used by AMC for
disposal of waste rock removed from the Continental and East
Berkeley Pits. Reclamation after mining will follow the
methods described for specific areas in the mining permits.
Mill tailings are currently disposed of in the Yankee
Doodle tailings pond, located near the confluence of Yankee
Doodle Creek and upper Silver Bow Creek. The pond will be
expanded from 10 acres to 16 acres over the course of mining
operations. MRI has also submitted a proposal to dispose of
its tailings in the Berkeley Pit. This proposal is under
review by state and federal regulatory agencies.
MRI is currently operating the leach-precipitation
process on a much smaller scale than AMC. This process
removes soluble copper from waste dumps that were generated
when AMC mined the Berkeley Pit.
MRI acquired large water rights when it purchased AMC's
holdings. Although the open pit mining operations require
minimal water use, MRI uses a portion of the water acquired
from AMC to operate the Weed Concentrator. This water flows
by gravity from Warm Springs Creek below Silver Lake in Deer
Lodge County to Ramsay, where it is pumped to the Weed
Concentrator. There is currently more water available than
is being used for the Butte operations, and studies are being
conducted to determine how to make this excess water
available to other users.
MRI uses approximately one to three million gallons of
water per day, most of which is recycled. Although MRI holds
a permit to discharge water to Silver Bow Creek, it is not
currently discharging to any surface water body. In light of
the recent DHES reclassification of Silver Bow Creek to a
Class I stream, MRI woula likely have to treat any discharge
to the creek so that water quality would not be degraded
below existing conditions.
Montana Mining Properties. Inc. and New Butte Mining. Inc.
In 1987, Montana Mining Properties, Inc. (MMPI)
purchased extensive holdings on Butte Hill from MRI. Several
of the properties have been resold and are now being operated
by New Butte Mining, Inc. (NBMI) . Both MMPI and NBMI have
active, licensed exploration programs while NBMI also has a
Small Miners Exclusion Statement filed with the Montana
Department of State Lands (DSL) . Both of these companies are
2-2
looking at the economic feasibility of processing old mine
dumps, surface veins, and reopening the underground mines in
Butte. NBMI has reopened several of the underground mines in
Butte. Future activities on the hill are discussed in
Chapter 4 .
Other Mining Operations
A number of smaller mines, recovering a variety of
minerals, are currently operating in the basin. They
generally employ fewer than 7 5 people, and their operations
are permitted by DSL. Most of these mines do not consume
surface water or discharge mining wastes to surface waters,
but some are nonpoint sources of pollution to ground and
surface waters. A list of these mines is provided in Table
2-2.
Table 2-2. PERMITTED MINING OPERATIONS IN THE CLARK FORK BASIN
COMPANY
MINE
TYPE OF
NAME
NAME
MINE/MILL
MINERAL
COUNTY
Anaconda Minerals Co.
Anaconda
Quarry
Limestone
Deer Lodge
Anaconda Minerals Co.
Anaconda
Silica quarry
Silica
Deer Lodge
Black Pine Mining Co.
Black Pine
Underground
Si Iver/copper
Granite
Wolverine Mining
Wolverine Mine
Placer
Gold
Granite
Giguere Industries
Giguere Industries
Placer
Gold
Pouel I
Skalkako Sapphire
Skalkako Sapphire
Placer/open pit
Sapphires
Granite
Coininco American, Inc.
Cominco American
Underground
Phosphate
Powell
Big Horn Calcium
Orummond Quarry
Open pit
Limestone
Granite
Uestmont Development
Deep Creek
Placer
Gold
Grani te
Montana Barite
Coloma Mine
Open pit
Barite
Granite/Missoula
Montana Barite
Elk Creek
Open pit
Barite
Missoula
US Mining Co.
Elk Creek Mine
Placer
Gold
Missoula
Clay Lewis
Ninemile
Placer
Gold
Missoula
US Antimony
US Antimony
(Kennedy C)
Placer/custom mill
Gold/antimony
Missoula/Sanders
US Antimony
US Antimony
Underground
Antimony
Sanders
Source: DSL 1988.
In addition to these operations, there are numerous
"small miner" metal mines in the basin. These operations
disturb less than five acres and mine less than 3 6,500 tons
of material per year. These mines generally do not involve
consumptive uses of water or discharges of waste into
surface waters, although they are required to comply with
Montana's Air and Water Quality Acts.
2-3
There are also hundreds of inactive metal mines in the
Clark Fork Basin, and many hold senior water rights for
consumptive uses. These rights are still valid, but the non-
use of water by inactive operations makes more water
available for junior water right holders (such as irrigators)
and contributes to instream water flows.
FOREST PRODUCTS
The forest products industry has played a major role in
the economy of the Clark Fork Basin. Nearly 77 percent of
the basin is forested and about three-fourths of that area is
capable of producing industrial-quality wood (USDA 1977) .
More than half of the forested area is federal land con-
trolled by the U.S. Forest Service; the remainder is divided
between state and private ownership (Table 2-3) . Most
private lands are held by just a few owners, such as Champion
International and Plum Creek Timber.
TABLE 2-3. FOREST LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE CLARK FORK BASIN
Federal State & Private Total Land
Forest Forest Area
Area (acres) (acres) (acres)
Upper Clark Fork(a) 1,713,640 606,180 3,525,600
Lower Clark Fork(b) 3.384.680 420.049 5.736.130
Total(c) 5,098,320 1,026,229 9,261,730
(a) Upper Clark Fork: Deer Lodge, Granite, Powell, and
Silver Bow counties.
(b) Lower Clark Fork: Mineral, Missoula, Ravalli, and
Sanders counties.
(c) Does not include Flathead and Lake counties.
Source: USDA 1977
Since the early logging days when most timber was
supplied to mining camps, the industry has diversified to
include several large lumber mills, plywood manufacturers,
pulp and paper mill, log home manufacturers, post and pole
mills, miscellaneous building products manufacturers, and
2-4
fuel producers. The industry is concentrated in the six
western counties: Lincoln, Sanders, Lake, Mineral, Missoula,
and Ravalli. Between 80 and 85 percent of industry activity
occurs in these counties (Johnson 1983) .
The forest products industry experienced unprecedented
growth in the late 1970s. Excellent markets and high prices
from 1976 to 1979 boosted economic prosperity in western
Montana. The growth rate followed major increases in U.S.
housing starts, but the industry stalled when housing starts
slowed down in 1979. From 1979 to 1982, the market declined
with a resultant economic loss in western Montana. In 1983,
the industry rebounded, but growth such as that experienced
in the 1970s is unlikely to occur again (Keegan and Polzin
1987) .
The sales value of wood and paper products produced in
Montana west of the Continental Divide was estimated to be
$745 million in 1986. This represents 90 percent of the
sales value of wood and paper products by all Montana
producers. Lumber accounted for 40 to 50 percent of the
sales west of the divide; pulp, paper, particle board, and
fiberboard together provided 35 percent; and all other
producers (house logs, posts, poles, and cedar products)
about 5 percent (Charles E. Keegan, Bureau of Business and
Economics Research, University of Montana, January 1988,
personal communication) .
The forest products industry, with the exception of pulp
and paper producers, does not use or affect large amounts of
water. Forest harvest and forest management, however, does
have a significant influence on the quantity and quality of
water resources. Timber harvest and associated activities,
such as road construction, can affect water quality through
increased sedimentation and elevated water temperatures.
Extensive areas of clear-cut forest land can dramatically
modify the hydrology of a subbasin with resultant changes in
streamflows. Many of these topics are addressed in the
section on nonpoint source pollution in Chapter 3.
The Stone Container Corporation linerboard mill west of
Missoula is the largest water user in the Clark Fork Basin.
Stone Container pumps approximately 24 million gallons per
day (MGD) from the ground for use in various parts of the
mill. A small percentage of the water is lost to the
atmosphere as steam, while the remainder is treated and
percolated to the shallow ground water or discharged to the
Clark Fork.
The mill has expanded in production and product types
since 1957, when it was known as the Waldorf Paper Company.
At present, the mill employs more than 700 people and has the
2-5
capacity to produce nearly 2,000 tons of linerboard per day.
In its early days, the mill was responsible for fish kills
and other water quality problems, but the mill's wastewater
treatment facilities have been expanded as the complexity and
quantity of waste have increased. Most recently, the mill
has added a color-removal system that will remove much of the
organic waste, including color and many other pollutants.
The system will be used only on a seasonal basis and will
treat only a portion of the total waste flow. It should
improve overall effluent quality during seasons when it is
operated. The discharge permit granted to Stone Container in
1986 set a goal for the company to reduce its nutrient
loading to the river to approximately pre-1983 levels. This
requirement assures compliance with the nondegradation
provisions of the Montana Water Quality Standards. The
permit requires a review of the company's actions and
progress in meeting the goal no later than one year before
the permit expires in 1991. Stone Container has made
progress in nutrient reduction, and the color-removal process
should aid it in meeting its goals.
OTHER INDUSTRIES
Stauffer Chemical Company
The Stauffer Chemical Company operates an elemental
phosphorus plant near Ramsay, about eight miles west of
Butte. The facility was built in 1950 by the Victor Chemical
Company and was purchased by Stauffer in 1959.
Phosphate rock ore is shipped by rail from Idaho to the
plant. The ore, along with other additional constituents, is
charged to two large rotary kilns that change the material
into nodules. Various types of dust and fluoride pollutants
are emitted in this process. The nodulized material, along
with coke and silica rock, is cooled and stored in silos.
Following storage, the nodulized material is fed to two
electric furnaces that vaporize the phosphorus from the
nodules. The vaporized phosphorus is cleaned of contami-
nating dust in electrostatic precipitators and then condensed
in water. It is filtered, stored under water, and shipped
out in tank cars. Elemental phosphorus must be stored under
water at all times. When exposed to air, it burns to
phosphorus pentaoxide. The reaction is immediate and forms
dense white clouds of a particulate that is very visible.
Sources of visible emissions, in addition to the slag
tapping operation at the furnaces, are the kiln stacks and
sometimes the roaster area, although there are also other
fugitive-type emissions within the Stauffer facility.
2-6
Stauffer has installed, as a result of a 1976 Board of
Health and Environmental Sciences order, abatement equipment
on the nodulizing kilns, a furnace taphole scrubber, a
phosphorus handling system, and the roaster. Prior to that
order, Stauffer had also installed turbalaire scrubbers on
various transfer and handling facilities to control dust.
Some of the equipment, notably the furnace taphole scrubber,
has not lived up to expectations and the DHES-Air Quality
Bureau was forced to issue a departmental order on the
facility in February 1987. Stauffer is in the process of
bringing the taphole scrubber stack into compliance with
state visual emission standards.
Until 1972, untreated process wastewater from the plant
was discharged directly into Silver Bow Creek. At that time,
Stauffer began construction of a closed system to recycle
process wastewater. The system was completed in 1975, and
further improvements made in 1979 and 1982 have reduced the
risk of contaminant discharge to Silver Bow Creek (CH2M Hill
1983) .
IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE
Introduction
Irrigated agriculture in seven of the Clark Fork
subbasins consists of approximately 400,000 acres of cropland
supplied with water from projects operated or managed by
private water users and state and federal government agencies
(DNRC 1986) . According to figures published by the DNRC in
1986, these projects withdraw approximately 1,764,000 AF of
ground water and surface water, which amounts to about 4 . 4 AF
withdrawn for each irrigated acre. Table 2-4 gives figures
for irrigated acreage served by ground water and surface
water in seven of the Clark Fork subbasins.
The Agricultural Statistics Service of the Montana
Department of Agriculture (MDA) has compiled crop statistics
by county for irrigated agriculture (MDA 1987) . Using the
MDA's 1986 figures for Clark Fork Basin counties, the
percentages of irrigated acreage for eight major crops were
calculated. These percentages were applied to the total
irrigated acreage figure given in Table 2-4 to estimate the
irrigated acreage, by crop, for the Clark Fork Basin (Table
2-5) .
The estimates in Table 2-5 indicate that more than 75
percent of the irrigated land in the Clark Fork produces hay
crops, with alfalfa alone accounting for nearly one half.
Just over 20 percent of irrigated lands are used for small
grain production. Potato and corn silage production together
account for 2 percent.
2-7
TABLE 2-4.
ACRES IRRIGATED BY GROUND WATER AND SURFACE
WATER IN CLARK FORK SUBBASINS
Subbasin
Ground
Surface
All
Water
Water
Sources
531
58,487
59,018
480
30,487
30,635
1,210
27,611
28,821
1,162
20,771
21,933
1,353
111,422
112,775
7,393
129,516
136,909
650
9.056
9.706
.2,779
387,350
399,797
Upper Clark Fork*
Flint Creek-Rock Creek*
Blackfoot
Middle Clark Fork
Bitterroot
Lower Flathead
Lower Clark Fork
TOTAL
* Adjusted DNRC figures (Elliott 1986) .
Source; DNRC 1986.
TABLE 2-5,
Crop
IRRIGATED ACREAGE ESTIMATES AND PERCENTAGES
FOR THE EIGHT MAJOR CROPS OF THE CLARK FORK
BASIN
Acreage Estimate
Percent of Total-^
Alfalfa
Other hay
Barley
Spring wheat^
Winter wheat
Oats
Potatoes
Corn silage
TOTAL
118,704
116,341
57,971
13,193
9,595
5,997
5,597
2.399
47,
29,
14,
3,
2
1.5
1.4
0.6
399,797
100.0
Estimated from Department of Agriculture data (MDA 1987)
Figures are for spring wheat other than durum.
2-7a
Federal Water Projects
There are five federal water projects in the Clark Fork
Basin. Information on these projects is summarized in Table
2-6.
The largest is the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project
(FIIP) , an irrigation and power project located on the
Flathead Indian Reservation. The FIIP has been operated by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) since 1910. A number of
problems have been associated with the project, and in 1984,
the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the BIA were requested by
Secretary of the Interior William Clark "to conduct a
comprehensive examination of the Flathead Irrigation Project,
to document outstanding problems, and to recommend corrective
measures." According to the BOR and BIA (1985), water use
conflicts between Indians and non-Indians exist on the
Flathead Indian Reservation. The Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes feel that they have the legal authority to
assume management and operation of the FIIP, that the project
must comply with established tribal law and procedures, and
that the project should remain under the management of BIA,
Conversely, the non-Indian water users represented by the
Flathead Joint Board have indicated a strong desire to manage
and operate the project themselves.
The BOR and BIA concluded that the FIIP and non-Indian
water users will be affected by the quantification of Indian
reserved water rights, on and off the reservation. The
impact may significantly alter the existing operations of the
project, and there may be insufficient water to maintain the
existing level of irrigation.
The project also faces a basic financial problem. The
water users cannot adequately fund the operation and
maintenance of the storage and distribution system. This
situation exists in spite of the fact that power revenues are
used to repay the original irrigation construction. Any
increases in water user assessments need to be applied to
improve the operation and maintenance of the irrigation
system. However, additional fee assessments to fund
desperately needed rehabilitation work are beyond the
financial capability of the water users. The deterioration
of the irrigation facilities is such that, without rehabili-
tation, portions of the system will soon stop functioning
(BOR and BIA 1985) .
2-8
TABLE 2-6.
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL IRRIGATION PROJECTS IN THE BASIN
Name, Location,
and
Operation History
Project
Specifications
Operation
and
Maintenance
LOWER UILLOU CREEK PROJECT
• Located on Willow Creek
6 mi les west of Hall,
Montana.
• This is a 174-acre project
with a capacity of about
5,100 AF.
• The project is owned and
operated by the Lower Willow
Creek Drainage District.
• Constructed in 1962 by
the Soil Conservation
Service.
• It provides water to lands
in lower Willow Creek and
the lower Flint Creek Valley.
MISSOULA VALLEY PROJECT
• Located southwest of
Missoula, Montana.
• Construction was com-
pleted in 1949 with assis-
tance from the BOR.
• The project consists of
the Big Flat canal and dis-
tribution system.
• Water is diverted from the
Bitterroot River and is used
to irrigate about 780 acres
7 miles west of Missoula.
• The project is operated
and maintained by the Big
Flat Irrigation District.
FRENCHTOWN PROJECT
• Principal crops are hay,
grain, and pasture.
• Located near Frenchtown,
Montana.
• Construction was com-
pleted in 1937 with assis-
tance from the BOR.
• The project consists of a
diversion dam on a side
channel of the Clark Fork
and a gravity- flow distri-
bution system that includes
17 miles of main canal and
21 miles of laterals.
• The project has been
operated and maintained by
the Frenchtown Irrigation
District since 1938.
• The system irrigates about
4,600 acres between Grass
Valley and Huson; principal
crops are hay, grain, and
pasture.
2-8a
TABLE 2-6 (CONT.).
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL IRRIGATION PROJECTS IN THE BASIN
Name, Location,
and
Operation History
Project
Specifications
Operation
and
Maintenance
BITTERROOT PROJECT
• Located on Rock Creek, a
westside tributary of the
Bitterroot River, near
Darby, Montana.
• Initially authorized in
1930, additional federal
funds requested in 1936,
1948, 1954, and 1956 for
continued rehabilitation
and repair. Constructed
with assistance from the
BOR.
• Water is stored in Lake
Como, which has a total
capacity of 36,900 AF.
• The Rock Creek Diversion
Dam about one mile below
Lake Como diverts water into
a 60-mile long canal. A
feeder canal from Lost Horse
Creek enters the district's
canal about one mile below
ttie diversion dam.
• The system irrigates about
16,668 acres. Principal
crops are grain, hay, and
pasture.
• The project is operated and
maintained by the Bitterroot
Irrigation District.
FLATHEAD INDIAN IRRIGATION PROJECT
A large irrigation and
power project located Mi^Ti^ri
the boundaries of the Flat-
head Indian Reservation.
Construction of irrigation
facilities by the BOR began
in 1907. Additional con-
struction was performed by
BIA after 1922; nearly all
of the irrigation facilities
were completed before 1940.
« Water storage and regula-
tion is provided by 16
reservoirs that have storage
capacities ranging from 95
to 27,100 AF.
• Approximately 127,000
acres are currently assessed
water delivery charges.
About 90-95 percent of that
acreage is irrigated each
year. Sprinkler irrigation
is used on approximately
70,000 acres.
• The project has been
operated by the BIA since
1910.
Sources: U.S. Department of Interior 1981; BOR and BIA 1985.
2-8b
State-Owned Irrigation Projects
The State of Montana owns several water conservation
projects in the basin. Many of these were built by the State
Water Conservation Board (SWCB) , which was formed in 193 5
during the Depression and serious drought. Most of the
projects are administered by the Water Resources Division of
the DNRC through a contractual agreement with local water
users associations. The water marketing contracts require
the associations to pay the state its investment in the
project plus an operation and maintenance (O&M) fee in
exchange for delivery of the water. Many of the local water
associations operate the projects themselves, with DNRC
maintaining a supervisory capacity.
Information on each of the five state-owned irrigation
projects is summarized in Table 2-7. Additional information
can be obtained from the publication "State Water Conserva-
tion Projects" (DNRC 1977) . Although most of the water
stored by these projects is used for irrigation, there is
also recreational use on some of the reservoirs. In
addition, various organizations have purchased water from the
Painted Rocks Project to augment streamflows in the Bitter-
root River for protection of fisheries. In 1958, the Western
Montana Fish and Game Association in Missoula, the Ravalli
County Fish and Wildlife Association, and the Montana Fish
and Game Department (now the Department of Fish, Wildlife and
Parks or DFWP) purchased 5,000 AF per year, at a cost of
$110,400 for the life of the Painted Rocks project. They
also agreed to pay $500 per year for operation and main-
tenance costs. In 1985, 1986, and 1987, the DFWP purchased
an additional 10,000 AF per year. The department is
currently negotiating for the long-term purchase of 10,000 AF
per year; recently, the Montana Power Company contributed
$250,000 to a trust fund to purchase this water from the
reservoir as fisheries mitigation for its Thompson Falls
hydropower project under the Northwest Power Planning Act.
Very recent local efforts have been initiated by Trout
Unlimited and others to acquire the remaining 17,000 AF for
instream flow purposes.
Benefits and Costs of Irrigation to Western Montana's Economy
Irrigation benefits agricultural production, and
agricultural production is an important factor in western
Montana's economy. Approximately two-thirds of all crops
produced in the region are irrigated, and 83 percent of the
irrigated land produces hay. The high percentage of
irrigated hay corresponds to the dominance of livestock
production in the agricultural sector. Livestock production
accounts for approximately $83 million annually, or 73
2-9
^ -8
1
£
to
+J
Id
c
•H
0)
a
u
^
5
♦J
g
10
u
•(->
•I-*
o
(4^
0)
•rH
•o
U
2
s.
Oi
w
m 1/1
(U ki s
M O -^J
(0 ^
t)i c> [•-< lo:
Ij -^ o
.ti § ^
I
•H O _
<0 U £
ID 10 O
■a ui
S Id
> +J
>i u
<v
t<
u
jC
0)
s
*J
M
1
c
r-1
HI
g
§
1
•H
<D
+J
u
s
t^
h
s
§
. (0
<1> 0) -■->
n u a
^ t &
O 3 V
C
C ■t-' o
O O -f
•H 0) I— I
(U +j -n -H
- l-i O g
O Ij (8
5. a. 3:
0) u
■•J +j
I u
D> <0
C h
O -U
r-l c
♦J o
(0 u
8
o
u>
kl
m
J3
r<
•H
0)
Oi
a>
o
u
•H
^'
!^
:£
Id
o
O
§
U1
g
■u
c
o.
b.
iC
b
(C
in
--..
V
o^
Lfl
Sr
<S
«*-
U-l
o
^
<D
0)
n
In
♦J
8
S
«->
O
Id
111
-S
14
g
to
♦J
0) (0
&
fi
o
•H
(0
s
B
Q
»
> B
§■
O
S
s
■^ Si
•-a
(0
f-d
,
C
•H
*H
01
u
a
•rd O
Id
dJ
o
.3
4-J
O.
Id
1
s
s.
t ^
Bl
r-d
>
•H
0) o
Id
d-'
l-l
> dd
<D
C
s<
Id
M
^ "O
3
i
§•
S
I
5
S
ID •■:
Li
O CN
•U <-d
tn m
2-9a
s
6"
(D
X)
o
£
t4
n
^
i.
I
y
OS
o
■(->
I
c
01
o
0)
H
n
4J
o
(0
en
b
H
u
^
u o.
5 P
C X
o
•H O
'J"
&
%
•s
o
CO
11
J3
(-1
0)
r-H
+J
to
M
•H
(1>
-t->
u
-a
B
£
s
ni
D>
•H
(O
kl
•H
J3
<v
LD
M
•(-'
dJ
4->
t-
t^
Id
•H
o
s
rs
m
•H
»
s
>(
a)
>i
fl
C
ja
+-•
r-^
m
3!
o
<o
r-H
h
•H
T)
Di
(0
o
+J
0)
■H
•rH
ra
-tj
1
■ij
M
*J
o
o>
M
c
o
a)
•H
•H
a)
o
•t-i
•fj
-H
o
IS
o
4J
a
•0"
^
3i
f
f
^
a
» o
10
i
u
§ 'a
u
- 0)
—I -►J
(0 10
u w o "p
•n <D c ♦J
O > -H 10
1-1 -H IB -H
CL, -a fi o
B
O
m
B
10
c
v
CT
10
0)
J3
rH
M
^
>4
4->
B
10
O
.-H
•H
O
+J
>1
*J
0)
»
•H
o
■-H
to
■1-'
i2
■»-)
JJ
-H
u
0)
O
(0
(0
<u
w
-H
■«r
u
l-l
Ui
B
T3
a>
CT\
i
1^
o
•H
D
r-\
T-H
14-4
D>
r-H
U
•H
tN
•rH
O
0
B
B
n
u
B
3
•H
u
^
(N
o
•H
4->
0)
"S
(4-1
00
O
ID
>
«<
in
S
+J
(V
5
u»
TS
«>■
M
B
T3
•H
n
Vl
B
(0
(4-4
■4J
'B
•H
2L
O
O
u
g
o
+j
0)
r— 1
to
8"
-c
-t-*
•m
*H
0)
<V
^
O
OJ
to
■i->
>
5
•H
u
l-i
(V
ID
3
C
t*J
Cu
o
a<
-o
U
XI
TJ
X
a
I
"S
>1
o
B Tr
(D r--
<i> n
o --^
'-4-I Caj Q
x:
M O
O 3
t/J to
01
O M
C/}
^^^
•
(0
'•.^
un
0)
o
<*
>-l
u
ci3
u-l
s
o
v^
o
M
>
U
u
f—i
£
$
•s
8i
s
(0
(4-1
4-"
4)
h
»
0)
♦J
o
to
10
+J
0)
CO
3
1.1
•H
to
o
CT>
4J
10
Ij
CO
o
IV
10
•4->
U
u
s
o
n
B
.s
3
u
rH
13
a>
0)
bi
4->
III
w
4-»
<«
10
■H
10
nj
D>
f-l
J3
CJi
T-(
■H
o.
tj
•rH
vO
U
^
U
.— 1
M
3
u
4H
to
Q.
•H
O*"
^ OS PO
1
to 01
0) 1— I
r-i iH
31
^ Hh
$ °
L4 4-1
t_> to
(0 10
(0 a B
2 r^
>
B
■o 8
S IH
^J <4-4
o
3 (3>
iH B
to 73
B B
O 3
CJ l4-4
3
CQ
♦J
2
o
B
o
o
x: (TV
2 S
&
to
•iH
X
in
IT)
2-9b
o
-S -8
i
M
■^
M
•H
a
M
<u
3
5->
U
m
M
10
+-»
4->
OT
O
O
t^
i s
t-l
I
0)
s.
o
c
s
9)
-I S 1«
4)
>« in
(0 o
3 00
a
W4
c
o
o
o tn
- r-
oo "
rH
a>
S G o
(0 h 0) -H
q i4-i d) ui
0 cu u to
c -rt v '3
o > c
■3 .s
10
•H Q, -H
ix a,
Ij 3 O
c
o
c
I
5
10
0)
■a
in
o
5
•H
I
2
m
g
en
2-9c
percent of total marketing receipts for agricultural
production in the region. The agricultural sector, in turn,
accounts for approximately 1 percent of total income in the
region and employs about 5 percent of the work force. In
some counties, however, agriculture accounts for as much as
9 percent of county income and 19 percent of employment.
Irrigation not only increases average production but also
stabilizes production during drought periods. Thus,
irrigation has had a stabilizing effect on the livestock
industry and agriculture in western Montana.
The value of irrigation to each operation depends on
many site-specific factors and is estimated to range between
$5 and $60 per acre-foot (Frank et al. 1984). Based on the
low-end estimate of 230,000 irrigated acres and a crop
requirement of two AF of water per acre (MDA 1987) , the total
value of irrigation to western Montana lies between $2
million and $28 million per year.
The cost of irrigation to western Montana cannot easily
be quantified. The direct costs associated with irrigation
and crop production are not necessarily costs to Montana or
the Pacific Northwest. Most of the needed labor, equipment,
and material can be purchased in western Montana or in the
Pacific Northwest. Therefore, while irrigation is a cost to
the individual farmer, workers, retailers, and manufacturers
in the Pacific Northwest benefit from this business.
Irrigation depletions affect other beneficial uses such as
fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, and recreational
opportunities. Each new depletion can also further reduce
hydroelectric generating capabilities. These impacts
represent the primary costs of irrigation to the region.
Approximately 1.5 to 2.0 AF per year are consumed for every
acre irrigated (MDA 1987) . In most of western Montana,
depletions should tend to be on the lower end of this range
given high elevations and relatively high rainfall, which
reduce net irrigation requirements. However, in some areas,
such as the Flint Creek and Rock Creek drainages, the soils
are quite porous and require more water to derive an
irrigation benefit. Based on a range of 230,000 to 400,000
acres of irrigated cropland in seven of the Clark Fork sub-
basins, total consumption is estimated to range from 345,000
to 800,000 AF per year.
The cumulative impacts of water quality degradation in
the Clark Fork Basin associated with irrigation are not
quantified and will be difficult to quantify in the future.
However, general water quality impacts are known to include
increased sedimentation from streambanks and overland runoff,
decreased channel stability and headcutting, increased water
temperature related to decreased streamflows, increased
nutrient levels that occur as a result of a combination of
2-10
both irrigation and fertilization of cropland, increased
salinity, and a potential for decreased dissolved oxygen
levels associated with an increase in algae growth.
The tradeoff between instream uses, such as power
generation, and irrigation uses has become an important
issue, as power demand occasionally exceeds hydropower
system capacity even though system capacity has increased.
The lands currently under irrigation will probably be
maintained, given the large capital investment associated
with irrigation development. However, in addition to any
other development costs, future irrigation developments may
only be justified if the net benefits exceed the lost value
of power generation and other interests associated with
depletions. For the Columbia River Basin, this would mean
that the net benefits of irrigation are greater than $4 0 per
acre-foot consumed (see next section) .
HYDROPOWER
As a headwater state, Montana is an important con-
tributor to the regional hydropower system of the Columbia
River Basin. The average quantity of water flowing from
Montana at the Montana-Idaho state line is about 26 million
AF per year, of which about 16 million AF per year flow in
the Clark Fork. The Montana water contribution (total flow
minus 8.3 million AF entering from Canada) is about 57
percent of the upper Columbia River flow and 11 percent of
the average annual streamflow at the mouth of the Columbia
River (Wright Water Engineers and DNRC 1982) .
There are four hydropower dams on the Clark Fork
mainstem and three hydropower facilities located on major
tributaries in Montana. The mainstem dams contain very
little storage capacity and have little influence on seasonal
discharge patterns. Two major storage projects on the
Flathead River system, Kerr and Hungry Horse dams, do have
potential to alter seasonal flows in the Clark Fork. A
description of the basin's major hydropower facilities and
their operations is pfoyided in Table 2-8.
System Operation
The organizational structure of the Columbia River
hydroelectric power system has evolved over a period of 40
years. Although utilities in many parts of the United States
have formed interconnected power pools on a regional basis,
the degree of integration among major producers and consumers
in the Northwest is unusual.
2-11
(A
U
M
1 t
T3
i-i a
•l-t
u m
(0 M
b <u
§
•H
>i
+J
■u
S
•s
•H
t4-l
a
•H
5
S*
o>
a
•H
g-
1^
5
E-1
HI 01
I
(0
a)
>i 0)
•H 10
(0 CO
^ 0)
g .9
o
•t->
M
1
rH
•H
2
5
O
10
c
rH
2
(-1
0)
tH
t_>
o
iM
L>
O
u
C
c
a;
o
o
3
'S s
'^
o
g
o
TS
>i
g
c
g
^
2
M
g
10
U
i
2
§
^
•H
^
0)
+->
S
rH
4-*
b^
g
CL4
^
b
■H
^
s
S
8
L-I
M
tM x:
O
V
C
JS
•H
(M
M
+J
■H
(0
S
S
4-1
(P
u
u-<
o
U
•H
+J
rH
IH
(V
•H
r— 1
(— t
0!
03
o
a>
o
A4
o
0)
^
O
•H
>l-l
w
r-)
o.
jk:
■S
■M
x:
•H
•m
■r-i
»
o
H
-t->
>4-l
•H
o<
1
(0
+-*
r^
t
2
.
•.
>i
^
>-
g
*H
W
»
(0
■u
^
L-i
(H
•H
V s
03
a>
a
I>1
oo
+->
+->
M
3
u
L^
o
•H
2*
C^ 'H
-Jj
t!
■t^
+->
00
■H
(V
4->
(0
oe
«i
r~i
4->
Ig
o
ti
G
00 4-*
•p-t
CJ
c
a>
R
tT^
■!->
X!
a
u
"2
rH
c
•H
s s
• H
J3
rH
(U
■t->
01
o
Cu
c
• H
>1
•4-'
o
3
4->
+j
C^
O
o
J3
.H
V
»
-t-"
c
+J
•H
c
0)
r— (
•H
l-i
•*->
■u
■tj
1-1
l-l
(0
>i
1
>1 rH
•H
J=
en
l4
•H
0)
r-l
0!
0)
• H
(0
'S
Ui
C_>
&
•H
fa.
S
+->
r^ O.
fH
+^
c
Q>
U
+J
A
«-l
■*->
n
s
o
3
^
y
Ol
CO
•H
•H
>
3 S
U4
•r-t
JS
O.
•H
O.
m
• H
-t-"
•H
+J
CO
01
c
^
iH
iH
•=0 (0
1-1
<i>
u
u
■g
•<
03
CO
g
§
g
(—1
1— 1
o.
g
01
T3
0>
r— )
•?
^
8
•H
,-j
s
5 §
0)
i
c
1^
§
u
o
•H
3
a.
10
s ^
1-1
a.
■r-i
fH
i
0)
iH
1
o
.r-l
$
1
I-H
1
14-1
o>
ro
<^
c
^
g
(0
O
^
•H
1
4->
n
'O
^
-t-i
r— 4
s
^
1
13
0)
0)
J3
CO
.^
1-1
-t-i
4-1
u
o
J
0)
4--
+->
>
■m
o
o
4)
i-H
g
St
r-i
O
8
•n
10
D>
O
•H
+j
>i
C
tx
&
+J
0)
r-(
•H
r-(
o.
C
Di
4->
rH
0)
1-1
4->
i*-i
(0
■IJ
O
as
(0
3
^
acS
3
CO
3
■3 -g
O Mh
CO
10 CD
0) x;
a>
4-1
x: 4-1
Dl CO
■H 3
14 E
10
•a
5
o
en
^
t
^ -^
x:
4-1
%
4-J <4-l
Dl
0>
O
3
0)
-C
o
■4H
4-1 >1
^
CO
•H 4J
CO
•H
» -H
+J
rH
U
f-
tors
capa
1
•s
^
1
P ,«
a ^
CO
4-1
TS
1
1<H
C i-H
4-1
4-1
0) rH
0)
Ol (0
CO
Ol
4-1
u
II
i
Dl
1
s
o
I
o
o
10
s
X!
O
•H
e-
0)
01
CO
c
0) oo
y ^
2-1 la
CQ
s t;
B <V
o
•H
>^
+J
+J
s
t4-t
s.
5
en
§■
•H
CT
■4^
c
(0
•fH
U
Li
C
s
•H
S"
■a
10
0) (N
a o
O XC
oo O
o
.. n
>i
■(-' 0)
•H Ol
o (0
n i-i
A o
5 t5
& r-H
10 4
U 10
O M
V 3
1/1
10
J3
C
a)
O
^
10
u
Qi
a ^
1-1
1 1
•8
I
I
1
rH C -
•H (0 ^ _
<0 » 3 Li ^
01 C C I «
CO to
•S ^
Ja o)
Li
o
0)
g,
s
1
f— 1
•S
Li
^
g
■OS
tM
><
O
10
t— 1
^
^
(D
Li
iS
g
O
§
.§
o
.1
(0
Li
O
— I OS <->
2-nb
8
S
c
•H
tx
+J
+J
s
•H
S.
3
s,
Oi
Wl
c
•H
Di
•IJ
C
re
•H
u
U
«
1
•f-(
Oi
■a
c
g
£ T3
re B
s re
VI <v
re re
•H O
-s
M O
re V
i-i CO re
0)
re Tj re 3
i-i $ 1-1
- K 0) M
S If]
■s
M
re
CO
o
^
^— s, gj
5
•H -O
5
-s
O C3> •
> C C
M -H O
CO U 4->
o d)
x3 re
^
♦J
iS
c
0)
Di
O CO
e
B
■ H
C31 O
I-I
E -H
0)
•H +->
-e
j<: re
•H
re ^
CO
B
EL S,
O
o
O
o
4-) tjl
s
B
p—t
B O.
(d
•H re
■IJ XI
Vi
M CO
•<-i
(V
> TJ
1
g s
i-H
-t->
re
CO
Oi CO
4-> U-I
■H
U-I
g
r—l 1
f-1
*j
•H U
re
•H J=
CO 0)
re
CJ
■t;
■y
c
8- 3
.-H 5
tji
as
•S
ex
0)
s
■tJ
;i^
M
re —1
g
CJ
o
-S,
ra >i
a-g
o
4->
c; V
»— 1
.ff
CO
Uh
fa
U <-H
E
•H
u
o
Si
1—! t*i
•H
*H
o
u
i
0) T)
3! -a
re
i
nH CO
3 -H
•H
o
s
> cd
j£
re
re
Si
l-t
■*->
I-H
r-t rH
o
T3 i
B
•H
i §
Ul
.2
s
»-H
U U
•H +J
§ B
■^ ^
O
2
CO
to
W-i
O C
■H
-M
^-»
w
o
E 8
-a i
re
|l
rH
3
1
5
J
§ 2
OS re
re <u
o .a
J3 *J
1
§
M u-i
o< o
re
1
CJ
o
o
o
o
5
OJ ■!-> CD
en 3 e^
re XI -H
M rH
O N .H
♦J Cu -t-l
t
■&
B
<U
re
re
CJ
a-s
re ♦J
B
is
^
0 re
u
a>
2
CO
1^
4-1 re
re
?
0
— 1 T3
+J
0. B
Uj
re
Sj re
0
Sx
M
is
■H
1
0)
i g
•H
r— 1
U-i
D>
:-! 0
U
•M
re fO
a
cr>
X
+j
3:
VJ
^3 'ti
■.-' 0
3
S
^1
v
B »
CO
J«( --I
I-I r-l
o re
u
•r-l
I
re
.-1 J3 J3
a\ +-> P
s
s .
-1-4 OX
.-I [^
<D —
$ S^
£
OC — I (K
g-
re
i
tji
:g
u
rH
0
— 1
i-H
*j
re
11)
E
v
>
•H
SI
H)
re
E
•n
E-i
•H
2-llc
^
•a:
0)
•H
*J
■H
>
2 ^
1
„
<o
s
•tH
U
CD
«
(—1
^
o
•r^
u
w
o
CT
CT
c
•H
s
•1-'
ae
in
10
Ui
rS
u
0)
^5
-H (0
& CT
cn c
•H
CT *J
a 10
I 5
■ H
Cd (0
1
•H >i
O rH
? 5'
01
!3 ^
"S
I
o u 01
U 9> t>
a, u u
o 'O «
CEO)
CT Ui .-I
u u
•H <-• m
^ « 4
•H
M
g
0)
O
O
M
10
x:
r-i
w
S
111 V u
■H It-I 'H
M
§0 ■!->
x> o Ja -ft
10 c
iH T) -H U
"O « (0 o
o
>1
eo u
U-l
■u (8 o
x: o
CT w o
i §
e» o. •1-'
0) i-H <— 1 (D
J3 r-l 0) I— I
4-> (B x: 3
Q.
>« 01 o "
O 3 +^
g
s
(0
3:
o
o
o
8 u
o o
01
I
&
CT
(0
o
o
o
r—
o
CT
x;
t
5
o
a
>1
^
(0
c
,
gi
s.
1
£
s
s
1
S
01
0)
3
in
b
*J
o
<0
u-i
+J
rH
10
o
10
o<
u
>1
s
i
i
.•s
01
r- 1
CT
(0
4J
1
•H
O
v£>
s
bh
•u
■«•
5
^ "S
O U-4 CO
(0
o
<1>
CT
10
(0 ^
EH .-H
o
ui
■<»■
X
a o
C V
CT v
01
0) o.
ates
of tl
Dai:
i
V4
o
■4-»
•H
--H
Isti
§
3)
^ a>
+J
k>
*j a *nj
u
<D V U
3
1— (
^
•n ^ D*
U-i
♦^
§.5-9
>.
>•
'-I
-H
a) -rt
1
(0
0!
? s
CT
x:
CT
C
■S
2-11d
u
01
a>
•H
■P
•H
>
T3
-H
§
ti
<:
+-■
C
(V
2
y
U
%
U
b
U to
U ♦J
C -H
•H an
*j
m u
U 0)
0) -l-i
a- J
§
•H
E>1
+-»
■*-»
s
•H
U
•H
a
•r-t
(0
U
o
s.
o>
«5
c
■H
CT
+-<
C
ID
•r-(
l-i
u
(I)
1
•H
CT.
1
l>1
o
1
" _
v o
c o
3 o -!->
o n 0)
> T-l
■m O
(0 O Ij
o<
m 5 a)
"O ^ x:
■§>
M 0)
o
CO
.
<1>
M
-o
'I-'
•H
T3
•H
§
0)
a
P.
-3
i!
+J
1-1
o
4->
g
<v
C
o
•n
O
•H
O
o
*->
u
10
1
x;
1— 1
0)
65
U-4
M
S
o
r-l
0)
o.
■r-i
O
o
M
a
O.
n
<U
n
J3
j=
4-*
a:
(U
s
id
r—i
p
a
01
<D V
*H
M
Q
(4-1
•s
■m
"y
•H cx:
1
m
a>
O
o
^ s
id
•(->
5
,
o
1
•T3
>*
rH
0)
nj
■p
o
a;
4-*
•H 0)
t>1
§
u
LT)
4-)
•H
at J3
M
0)
».
o
to
U
^ ^^
g
'^
i!
O
■<*
-tJ
rH
a
§ ^
•S
ro
a:
Dl
<4H
O
-H
s
u
"c
i»-i
r-l
4->
£ <u
■ H
O
73
rH
0)
»
>H
W
I
n u
E
nj
to
M
o
_2
ti. -3
:z
0)
[Ju
M
f—t
o
rH
Bl
(0
5
XI
o
W^
o
M
l4^4
«-l
i-H
+-'
10
X
+J
fH
O
." 1
IM
1— 1
-H
g
g
s
10
g
o
O tj
•r-t
ClL,
'x
n
'x
o
S 8"
s
s
0)
t— t
1
•rH
o
5 M
M
O
^
o
3
2
Ul
LO
s
in
S Ol
Q.
h
-♦->
CJ
S
6
t*-t
'H
E
m
-(->
•H
.!->
•H
u
!^
I
2,
to
IH
t<
u
■*
o
>^
LTJ
D< tb
EJh
(0 •<
M
kC
O
•p
3 s
-tJ
J=
cn
ty-
w o
• H
0)
0)
r-1 00
>
ON
3=
5 ^
• rH
^
O V
u
V
E-i m
p<
CN
O
•C
c
IV
0)
>
+J H-l
to
•H •H
.12
O O
M
a a
•H
s s
s
H-» to
^
to ^
•rH
o.
hJ
1 to
to
u
i ts
0)
B
° i
0)
r-(
Ol
iS g i
^
o
-M LO OO
00 cs
^
(0 fS rO
>
T3
to
0)
-s
*-> to
i3 §
0) hJ
x: c
t: £
s >
•g •«
in
ON
-s
1X3
i!
oi:
♦J
to
IH
x:
o
s
n
i
2-lle
Columbia River Treaty
The "Treaty between Canada and the United States
Relating to Cooperative Development of the Water Resources of
the Columbia River Basin," was signed in 1964, and it will
end in 2003. This agreement, a keystone in the development
of the vast hydropower system of the Pacific Northwest,
provides for both flood control and power benefits. Some key
provisions of the treaty that affect water management in the
Columbia River Basin are summarized below:
• Canada is required to develop 15.5 million AF of
storage in British Columbia available for power in
the U.S. and for downstream flood control.
9 Construction of Libby Dam on the Kootenai River in
the U.S. was approved and some inundation upstream
in Canada was allowed.
• The U.S. is required to operate downstream projects
on the Columbia River in such a manner to make
effective use of the added streamflow resulting
from Canadian storage.
• The two nations are required to divide the
resultant downstream power benefits equally.
Canada's share of the downstream benefits for the
first 30 years were sold by Canada to a group of
Pacific Northwest utilities.
• The U.S. is required to pay Canada for the flood
control provided by Canadian storage. The payment
reflects the flood damage prevented in the U.S. and
compensates Canada for the economic loss arising
from foregoing alternative uses of storage used to
provide for flood control.
Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement
The Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement is a
contract for planned operation among the 16 major operating
utilities. The agreement became effective in 1964, and it is
scheduled to end in 2003. The agreement provides operational
guarantees that insure usability of the Columbia River
Treaty storage to -downstream generating plants and specifies
the restoration Oi. pretreaty capabilities to certain plants
under certain conditions.
A fundamental concept of the coordination agreement is
"Firm Load-Carrying Capability," commonly abbreviated as
FLCC. For the coordinated system of all 16 parties, the FLCC
2-12
is the aggregate firm load that the system could carry under
coordinated operation with critical period streamflow
conditions and with the use of all reservoir storage.
To accomplish such coordinated operations, the combined
power facilities of the parties are operated to produce
optimum firm load-carrying capability. Prior to the start of
a contract year, a reservoir operating and storage schedule
is set up to provide the optimum FLCC of the coordinated
system. An energy content curve (ECC) is derived for each
storage reservoir from the same critical period operation
study that was used to derive FLCC. This curve represents
the schedule of levels that the reservoir should follow to
assure FLCC for the system. If, as may frequently happen,
the good of the system requires a utility to cut back on
releases and to hold storage for later use, thereby reducing
its present generation below its FLCC and perhaps below its
load requirements, it has the right to call for and receive
interchange energy from a party with excess capability.
Later, when the first party's storage is scheduled for
release, it will be able to return the energy. Provision is
made to pay for any imbalances in such interchange energy
exchange accounts that may remain at the end of a contract
year.
The Coordination Agreement provides that, upon request,
a project is entitled to the energy that it could generate at
its plants if upstream reservoirs released all water above
their energy content curves. The upstream party can either
release the water, or, if it has surplus energy and wishes to
conserve its storage for later use, it may deliver energy in
lieu of the water. An intent of coordinating the system is
to maximize use of the water resource, minimize waste, and
consequently defer the need for new generating resources.
Northwest Power Pool
The Northwest Power Pool is another institutional
arrangement governing the operation of the regional power
system. The Northwest Power Pool was created in 1942 as a
result of the War Production Board order directing utilities
throughout the U.S. to cooperate to increase electric
capacity. After the war, the utilities continued the
coordinated operation on a voluntary basis.
The Northwest Power Pool is a strictly voluntary
organization, a confederacy of autonomous electrical systems.
It is not a formal operating pool managed by a separate group
of officers. The operating organization of the pool consists
of an operating committee and a coordinating group.
2-13
Major functions of the Northwest Power Pool are: to
coordinate power generation to insure that each member can
meet its requirements; to schedule maintenance outages to
the extent possible so that the region's needs can be met at
all times; to control the whole system and ensure that proper
voltages and frequency are maintained; to coordinate communi-
cation among members; to represent the Northwest as a group
on the national level; and to collect data for future
planning on a regional basis. It is important to both the
region and the members of the pool that these functions be
carried out to insure an efficient and smooth operating
system.
Headwater Payments
A third component of the operational organization is
the provision for headwater payments. Downstream dams are
required to make payments to owners of upstream storage
facilities based on the benefits received from the release of
upstream storage.
For each reservoir, a computation is made to determine
the cost of storage, which includes the capital costs of the
dam, operation and maintenance costs, taxes, interest,
depreciation, insurance, interim replacements, and joint use
costs. The cost of storage does not include any costs
associated with power production at site. The computed cost
may be bound by a predetermined cost limit adjusted each year
for every reservoir. The headwater payments are determined
by the smaller of the computed storage costs or the cost
limit.
The portion of the costs payable by a downstream dam
depend on the portion of the benefits received. An assess-
ment is made to determine the total energy available from the
storage at the upstream reservoir. This calculation includes
the power generation produced at site and the generation
produced at all the downstream dams. Each downstream dam's
portion of the cost is the ratio of its benefits to the total
benefits multiplied by the storage cost (or the cost limit) .
Benefits and Costs to Western Montana and the Northwest
Region
"For more than a half century, electrical power has been
the cornerstone of the Pacific Northwest economy" (Northwest
Power Planning Council [NWPPC] 1986) . The extensive
hydropower system of the Columbia River Basin — the largest in
the nation — supplies about 70 percent of the electricity in
the Northwest.
2-14
Hydroelectric development in the Clark Fork Basin
provides a significant part of the electrical energy
generated by the WWP, MPC, and the BOR. The five major
hydropower facilities in the Clark Fork Basin have a total
maximum generating capacity of approximately 1,332 megawatts
(MW) (Table 2-9) . On average, however, these five plants
generate approximately 600 MW of power. In comparison,
hydropower facilities in the Northwest have the capacity to
generate approximately 20,000 MW, and on average generate
16,400 MW (NWPPC 1986). Thus, these five facilities account
for approximately 4 percent of the average hydropower
generation in the region. In addition to power generation.
Hungry Horse Reservoir provides substantial headwater
benefits associated with its large storage capacity,
3,468,000 AF, and its location in the basin. This storage is
released to augment streamflows that are then used to
generate power by the downstream facilities.
The facility owners listed in Table 2-9, as members of
the Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement, operate their
hydropower facilities in concert with others in the Northwest
to maximize the utilization of water discharges for optimum
energy production and minimum wastage, thereby deferring the
need for new energy resources.
TABLE 2-9. GENERATING CAPACITY AND MAXIMUM FLOW CAPACITY
OF THE FIVE MAJOR HYDROPOWER FACILITIES
Generating
Capacity
Maximum Flow
Facility
Owner
Max
Avg
Capacity
fMW)
fMW)
rcfs)
Hungry Horse
BOR
328
107
55,000
Kerr
MPC
180
128
14,540
Thompson Falls
MPC
40
34
11,120
Noxon Rapids
WWP
554
199
50,000
Cabinet Gorge
WWP
230
130
36,000
Source: NWPPC
1986.
Hydropower plants provide benefits to the local area
through employment and dollars spent in the operation and
maintenance of the facilities. In addition, the nonfederal
facility owners pay generation-based taxes on the production
output of the plants and property taxes, which contribute
significantly to the local tax base. In addition to revenues
gained from hydropower production, damming of the Northwest's
rivers provides additional benefits associated with irriga-
tion, navigation, flood control, and diverse recreation.
2-15
The power production from hydropower plants is used Vf
the utility owners to meet the requirements of their
customers. Undeniably, the people of the region have come to
expect the availability of electrical energy when they
require it. The dependability of hydropower generation
contributes greatly to the reliability of the region's power
supply. Hydropower plants such as Noxon Rapids and Kerr Dam
are also important for load control, which is necessary to
insure that the generating system responds to instantaneous
changes in the customer's demand for electrical power.
The Northwest currently is capable of generating more
power, on average, than there is demand. This surplus may
not continue into the next century, however. In the 1986
Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan, the Northwest
Power Planning Council estimated that between 1990 and 1996,
the demand for power will exceed the region's generating
capacity, on average, and new generation capacity will be
required.
Residential uses of power in the Northwest account for
approximately 36 percent of current regional power demand.
Industrial uses account for 39 percent of regional power
demand. Commercial uses demand 20 percent, and irrigation
power requirements account for most of the remaining 4
percent (NWPPC 1986) . In western Montana, industrial demand
for power accounts for 64 percent, residential 21 percent,
commercial 13 percent, and irrigation 2 percent (Bonneville
Power Administration [BPA] 1985) .
Water for power production has contributed greatly to
the economic well-being of the region, as cheap hydroelectri-
city has been a significant factor in encouraging industry to
locate in the Northwest. Low energy costs help businesses
that provide much needed jobs to local areas, which in turn
allow the people who work and live here to enjoy the many
other qualities of the region. The existing hydroelectric
base contributes greatly to the comparatively low electrical
prices that exist in the Northwest. The capital cost to
replace the hydropower facilities of today with new thermal
plants could be eight to ten times more than the original
construction cost. Because the "fuel" for hydropower
generation is water, and the cost has not been subject to
price fluctuations, the region has enjoyed a large measure of
rate stability. This situation should continue in the future
to the extent that these hydropower developments are
maintained.
The economic value of Clark Fork water used for power
production is difficult to measure because many factors are
involved. One way to measure the value of hydropower is to
estimate the cost of replacing hydropower generation with
2-16
the next best alternative. Based on work conducted by the
Northwest Power Planning Council, the current replacement
cost (excluding construction) for hydropower is approximately
2.5 to 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour (NWPPC 1986). Replacement
power provided by new thermal power plants may be three to
four times higher than these rates, however. Using site-
specific power factors that relate power generation to flow
and converting this flow to a volume of water, the value of
an acre-foot of water passing through the hydropower
facilities in Montana and the Columbia River Basin can be
estimated. Table 2-10 shows that every acre-foot of water
consumed in Montana will cost the region approximately $50,
excluding hydropower facilities in Montana.
For the Montana hydropower facilities, the location of
the depletion is important. For example, if the depletion
occurs in the Flathead drainage below Hungry Horse Dam, the
lost value of an acre-foot depleted would be approximately
$11/AF, or $61/AF for the entire region.
TABLE 2-10. VALUE OF ONE ACRE-FOOT OF WATER USED FOR
HYDROPOWER PRODUCTION
Incremental Value
Cumulative Value
for
for
Regional
Location
Montana Facilities
Montana Facilities
Value
($0.025/kwh to
($0.025/kwh to
($0.025/kwh to
$0.035/kwh)
$0.035/kwh)
$0.035/kwh)
Hungry Horse
$7 $9
$15 $21
$50 $70
Kerr Dam
4 5
8 11
43 61
Thompson Falls
1 1
4 6
40 56
Noxon Rapids
3 5
3 5
39 55
MT-ID Border
..
.-
36 50
(Based on at site and HKSUM factors from BPA)
Source: John Tubbs, DNRC, Helena, April 1988, personal communication.
The BOR recently completed a planning study analyzing
the effects of future irrigation development in the Clark
Fork Basin and the potential for Hungry Horse Reservoir to
mitigate these impacts (BOR 1988) . Analyzing the effect of
120,000 new acres of sprinkler irrigation development, the
study found that depletions would result in a loss of 261
million kilowatt hours (kwh) per year. This translates into
a financial loss of approximately $6.5 million per year,
assuming the current rate of 2.49 cents per kwh. The
estimates shown in Table 2-10 above compare favorably with
2-17
the BOR's more detailed estimates. Using the same assump-
tions about the location of developments, depletions, and
electric rates, there was only a 20 percent difference in
the calculation of losses ($7.84 vs. $6.5 million).
The potential for storage at Hungry Horse to mitigate
these losses was found to be limited. The BOR study found
that, while total generation within Montana could be
restored, there was great disparity in gains and losses at
each of the hydropower plants. There were substantial
generation gains at Kerr Dam (MFC) resulting from releases
from Hungry Horse, but the effect at Noxon Rapids (WWP) could
not be mitigated. This is because Noxon Rapids has the
capacity to use almost the entire annual flow of the Clark
Fork. Using storage to reshape the timing of these flows
increases generation at Kerr by making flows usable that
might otherwise exceed plant capacity and be lost to spill.
Furthermore, the BOR points out that there would be
significant impacts associated with changing the operation of
Hungry Horse Reservoir. "An increase in winter releases
would increase the risk that Hungry Horse would not refill in
the spring. This could affect the reservoir fishery and
recreation use. Additional restrictions on Hungry Horse may
cause other headwater projects in the Columbia River system
to be drafted more heavily in the coordinated system
operation, as the Northwest utilities reformulate their
system operation to maximize the FLCC based on new deplistions
and contractual constraints."
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIES
Public water supplies in the Clark Fork Basin are
derived from a number of sources. The majority of the
communities use ground water as their primary source of
water, but a few rely heavily on tributary surface water*
In the Missoula area, the public water supply is obtained
primarily from the Missoula Aquifer, which is partially
recharged by the Clark Fork. An inventory of municipal water
supplies in the basin is provided in Table 2-11.
The DHES-WQB administers the Safe Drinking Water Act,
and, in conjunction with public utilities, it monitors these
public water supplies to insure that bacterial, chemical, and
radiological contents remain within safe limits. WQB
personnel review and approve all construction and modifica-
tions to public water systems and conduct annual inspections
of each system.
2-18
C/}
CQ
Eh U)
CQ E-i
l-H M
M Ul
M
Ul
U OS
8 §
>
b:
u
w
u
z
CD
o
•«
l-l
CO
^
3
<s
^
S
Cu
tH
2
a v u
4j <- a)
a) E- -1-;
3 §
I
^ (V S 3
a, ^J +J 01
^ 3 e-1 >
U 03 VI 0)
-O 0) Pi
•2 -I 8" 02
C C 9 S
o
o
o
o
o
o
s
1)5*^
* S y
rO U-^ ro
(U
• • Ld X
l-l (U
1 s|
(V
'DOM
§(S )-(
i«-i (1)
O h t*.
Ij D 0)
o cn £
«
l-l
o a>
o o>
o (0
- o
u
s
2
I
r-i
&
s
t.
in 3
S '
3
(4-4 S
o
g .H
•H B
4-1 UJ
ID JC
a »
o
.
+->
Id
-^
M
f
3
.-H
1
1
o.
-tj
01
B
n
<v
O
u
c
l-l
■H
10
r-i
o
u
(0
>
o
o>
t4
0)
ti
n
g
£
"S
V
•H
o
^
1"
r^
(0
^
« Q
.-H E-l
'^ i
^ ^ %
ns o U
gnu
2 ■§ §•
^_^
• O
B '^
P
§! o
5 Q Q
CO
•'^ 5E SB
r-i ic ac
o t>- o
O 10 o
O "O o
§ 8
4 mi
day
2.75
900,
per
320,
120,
60,C
^.
.. 01 ..
O 14 S l-l
^ i y
H ii
i "
O S f^ +->
i r-( •!->
<• 6 rH B
i -< C
i B
o 3 (0 -H
i:^ m t3i 3
°
3 (0 -H
s
3 -H
en 3
TJ-
III II I
2-18a
01 -H
>1 >
05 -H
U E
S B
i .
01 —
01
Q, O I— I
01 rH
3 «
l-l
s
2
11
o
o
o
%
2
04
M l-H
OS ij
SN
a.
o
s»
g
OS
Id
o
V}
u
s
g s
s
►-4
s =
i 1
"^
s s
g
5
u
V4
2
S
B
I
■s
g
•H
V
s
•H
Li
s
5
J=
*
tj
w
M
s
s
•H
■-I
«— 1
s.
2L
•a
o o
o -u
o w
n .H
3
ID
r— I
0)
g
t>1
(0
+J
XI
OS
s
i
kl
1
g
^
^
o
ui
u
M
s
0)
o
IS
t^
b.
o
8
I
Si
(N
s
"3
£
1^
s S
o o
8 8 S
CO ('l »-l
III
— 1 t/J 3
8 S
O IS
8^
I
8.
o
o
o
IB (N
£
2L
s.
s.
S.
H
•H
•H
•"
a, .
a •
cx •
Q, ■
>H
>i
>1
>i
- ■!->
N 4-»
*• +J
- "
W -H
M 'f-l
Is
3 M
I1
11
Oi Ol
&, Ol
a Ol
CL Ol
2.
B
Id
&
+J
Ol
§
s.
g
(0
•».
1-1
o
o
3
g
r-(
m
ro
I1
rH .-H
a< Ol
a. •
II
ig i
* "8
5 S
•H
2 fel.
*1
%
S in
I .
i-H n
o B c>i o gi 3
S - . 5 1 «
^. s
2 8.
2- 18b
'&
on
u
Eh
i
^
l-H
U)
t->
td
«C
M
S
t_)
1-3
(-H
U3
U
o
«s
3 Eh
o «e
«2 3
>
oe
u
w
CaJ
z
o
M
E-t
O
»:
^
D
kS
04
3
1
(0
i
•H
O
^
1
.9
><
+J
CQ
^
s
•H
rH
XI
1
g c
8.
•H
PQ H
M M
IS ri
G*
w u
1-1 «s
Q b
cu
1
O
^^
r-l
(0
(1>
Ol
l-l
o
2.
Q>
«
V
^
o
-t-"
(N
n
U (^ ••
(U M
■VJ 01 0)
gCT ♦J
C [0
•H »
<1> IH
U G, TS
ID C/1 C
fj 3
y ^ 2
en a: o
s
•iH 0}
to S
•H O rH
I
I
I
O
O
o
u
V
■M
o
1—1
s
B
13
• •.
3i
tj>
M
<u
•rH
u
8
g
c
o
Ul
o
0)
f-H
in
CO
1—1
^
<11
(0
ro
IH
D>
IH <N
J3 +J
0) -H $ g
10 -H (0 IH
o e a H-"
+j O 0) (0
W O IH »
g :a
c
11
II
(0 w
ai.
O D>
O (0
O U
V O
IT) 4->
CS M
■U
s
o
I
1
u
&
OJ
c
u
Lj
^
$•
&
2- 18c
INDUSTRIAL/MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
A number of industries and municipalities discharge
wastewater to the Clark Fork and its tributaries. These are
point source discharges that are permitted by the DHES-WQB
under the Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(MPDES) . A list of MPDES permittees in the Clark Fork Basin
is provided in Table 2-12. These industries and municipal-
ities discharge a variety of substances to the Clark Fork and
its tributaries, including nutrients, organic wastes, and
sediment. An MPDES permit for wastewater discharge is
designed to protect all beneficial uses of the receiving
water. It is designed to assure water quality protection
when streamflows are as low as the minimum consecutive 7-day
average flow that may be expected to occur on the average of
once in ten years.
Nearly all of the cities and towns in the basin have
wastewater treatment plants, although a few of the smaller
communities such as Gold Creek, Clinton, Bonner, and Noxon
are served solely by septic systems. The wastewater
treatment plants range from fairly simple lagoon systems to
more elaborate secondary treatment facilities in the larger
cities such as Butte and Missoula. An inventory of WWTPs in
the basin is provided in Table 2-13. All of the operators
(except Anaconda, whose system does not currently discharge
to state waters) are required to monitor their discharges and
report to the DHES-WQB. These monitoring reports are
reviewed by WQB personnel to ensure compliance with permit
requirements. Regular inspections of the facilities are also
conducted by the WQB.
Among the larger dischargers in the basin, the two that
have raised the most controversy are the Frenchtown pulp mill
(previously owned by Champion International Corporation, now
owned by Stone Container Corporation) and the Missoula WWTP.
In 1983, Champion International applied for a permit that
would allow it to discharge a portion of the wastewater into
the Clark Fork year-round, rather than only during spring
high flows (as stipulated by its previous permits) . Although
the WQB was initially inclined to approve the permit, public
concern over the lack of scientific data to support such a
permit modification resulted in the issuance of an interim
two-year permit and the initiation of a number of scientific
studies. The WQB analyzed the information gathered during
the two-year study period and issued a draft environmental
impact statement (EIS) late in 1985, recommending renewal of
the permit for five years. Public concerns over the EIS led
to the issuance of an addendum to the EIS, wherein some of
the disputed issues were clarified. A five-year permit for
the pulp mill was finally issued in November 1986. The
2-19
TABLE 2-12. MONTANA WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS IN
THE CLARK FORK BASIN
Permit
Permittee Expiration Date
Anaconda Company 1-31-88*
Montana Resources, Inc. 2-28-88*
Butte WWTP 5-31-93
Rocker Water & Sewer District 5-31-93
Montana Warm Springs State Hospital 5-31-93
Montana Galen State Hospital 1-31-91
Montana Fish & Game Washoe Hatchery 8-01-89
City of Deer Lodge 5-31-93
Town of Philipsburg 5-31-93
Town of Drummond 5-31-93
Missoula WWTP 3-31-93
Champion Building Products 3-31-93
Stone Container Corp. 9-30-91
J. R. Daily 3-31-92
Lolo WWTP 10-31-92
Stevensville WWTP 12-31-88
Town of Stevensville 12-31-88
City of Hamilton 6-30-93
Town of Darby 5-31-93
Town of Alberton 5-31-92
Town of Superior 5-31-92
Montana Power Company, Kerr Dam 6-3 0-89
City of Ronan 9-30-88*
City of St. Ignatius 9-30-88*
Montana Fish & Game Jocko Hatchery 8-01-89
Charlo Sewer District 6-30-89
Town of Hot Springs 1-31-90
Town of Thompson Falls 11-30-88
Western Materials, Inc. 3-31-90
Dillon Exploration 10-31-93
*These permits have been administratively extended,
Source: DHES 1988b.
2- 19a
O OS
b. o
a: u
u w
b. 3
v> as
0)
1
s
S.
•H
<D
— i
H*
a
t>
M
5
•-a
1
^
1—*
V
o
•H
LP
o
rH
g
^
S
S
1— 1
?.
>i
U-4
-3
is
4J
o
i
0)
i
•H
u
1-*
3
S
Ol
<s
?
i
z
o
H
S
t^
M
Cu
<¥
aa
^
^
z
>
t"?
M
1-1
CD
[^
o
o:
1
S 10
§,:
m <s
ki -)->
0) o
■ij -1-1
S i-H
s
.5 ^
?
10
5
I
C
0)
3
C
§.
.f-4
CQ
IS o
d) in
■« oo
II
-8
•H
U
8
'*' P
rH <B O
~^ £31 « -^
S" ^ S o
o & o
O ro
in 10
en O rH O
- — -M 0)
o
9
X « Q
O. E-i OD
•H
s
in oi
<ri in 1*
^b in
m o rH
a S S o
s
1^-
5 5
1
-g
»i r--
$.1
i-H
.H C
O .H
5 c
-^ S"
5
■K> -H
w
C -1-1
C *J
8 2
Curre
1993.
2 K
Oi o
2-19b
n
t/1
15
E-i
<C
3
u
E-I
C/}
I
s
OS
U Oi
o g
[i3 U
o
M
E-i
«
to
O
OS
M
td
Cb
E-i
l-H
<S
O
3
[d
CLi
Ul
g
g
>
M
U
cn
o
Cd
u
Q
oe
s
I— 1
(0
o
1
I
&< §
•H
(0 "(3
>4-l C
>
§
o
I
cu
I
o
•H
CU
5"
2-19c
g
S3
CO
U SB
C6 O
2g
£ C3
g
g fc
E
a. cd
A
Ul
g
OS
^
w
1
i.
u (x:
^
M b3
fe
[J 3
U
1
CO SB
el(
5E >
CD M
M U
1
52 E;^
■J p
<« M
b. X
SO 10
*J M-i
X ><^
1
o
c/>
en
E-i
o
- 4-1
t/VH
ESS
(0 rH 0)
c
i- i
•H
>
i" ?
O Ul
•H C
Si &
I
^ -8
^1
c
iS -8
2- 19d
U3
CO
o
s
EH
•C
»
U
a:
hH
Cd
Pu
Eh
M
i«
U
3
u
CL.
u
g
s
>
cs
M
hH
U
m
U
b3
Id
^
g
c
o
o
in
C r-H
O O
>1
I
1
3
8
IM (N
o
o
tH
•H
(N
» O
+->
^
a
i!
^ =&
-g
rH
o
o
■t-l
-g
■H
^ r— (
t«-l
u
LO V
rH
M
l»
-rH
o
•rH
§1
^
g
r— (
8
1
M
S
o
0)
t»
cn
n o
r—t
cri
V M-(
3
(0
1
n
r~\
•H
>
1
» -H
r-i
tJ
>I3
Li-i
t-l
(0
VD
O rH
t*H
1
O C/3
c><
-o
f-1 o
<t-l
o
3=
2 ^
«C
X
t4-l U
Ca}
rO
a
Cl.
r-
a.
Ij
■p
OJ
3
0!
O
o
^
»
o o
(3
o
■*-> LD
r— 1
U3
U-l
n
-O -H
(V
1^
•H
1
CD
•H
W
Q
3
Id a
0) o
>i
-s
i
CT
73 -H
rH
e
_ +J
•(->
a>
in
•H
1 ,3
c
Dl
f—t
>
<1>
ro
•H
■I-' 3
M
u
o
0)
»1 Q.
>i 0
y 8
%
M
O
CD
O
CO
<s
•H
o:
1
■U
c
•H
1— 1
•H
■H
-♦J
O
m
m
M
p^
14-1
s,
+->
-tj
ff
H
B
rH
(U
c
H
n
10
O
<i>
5"
BJ
M
$
2-19e
a.
u
c
>M ii
^
^
t/5
<M £
'3
8
8
i
O 2
r— t U-*
Q U-i
O Ul
•H
g" i"
II
en CS o,
E-, Cf ~-
•1-1
M
*i4
8- ?
in \n
8
^ n
— (
in
S
s ^
£
I T-H — ( ..
§
o
u
•< M
i
•H
a
2
<i>
•>->
s .
^
? S
•H Cm
>
1
8 1
Q> — 1
CO
Oi O
♦
1 n
V -C
Oi u
II
o
CO n
2-19f
w
.J
m
£
CI
WJ
g
M
EH
s
g
£ £
M
J
g g
U
r3
J
OS
C<u
2
o
M
E-
<<
«
O
OH
h-t
u
C>4
E-
M
•«
o
3
u
a<
en
g
g
>
M
Ul
OJ
O
u
Cd
Q
«
s ^
s
1
B O
1
I
■!->
O
- "M
s
+J
-8
■H
2
C^ "8
S" S"
2 ^
? f
in
^ &
&
g
+>
■H
B
^J
g
0)
2
S"
£
S.
.— <
a.
o
S. <n
B
£ -g
2-19g
g
g
$ CO
t
a
-8
U
o 2
en o M
M Q
5.^ s
si
"I"
;a
3
i:
2^-
f
(0
5 d
(11
I •
.5 ^
S .3
(0 IS
in
in
<7>
.s
2-19h
3
^
£
U Id
Vi 06
fC
w
o
s
■a:
3
CLi
M
g
S
>
o
hH
M
Cd
»
u
Ci3
Cd
o
oe
M OS
cj en
■9 0)
II
<D CO
^
5
f—t
o.
o
»X1
00
+J ON
C —I
2 J2
•H
>t-l
•H
IS
%
- oo
C ON
8 -^
« c
1
1
•s v,e
(9
4J -H O
(0 tJ >M
rH -H
§
o
O ^ rH
i
ro
en -1
ti
^
•S ^lhS
t-1
MOO)
in
1
a S ""
0)
^H
O 13
^
0) «-i a
+j
ID
05 0(0
.g
s. ^
M Vi
8 o^
5 S
(3 -H
s o
<U Vi
^ 4-1
k4
u
0)
CN
>
(0
lo:
CO
o
Id
c --<
i V
(D T3
1^ ID
-I-'
M
^-
(0 *J
1 -
8 -[3
Oj >0
o
iS
1
•H
rH
1-1
c
+J
S
c
S'
s
s
-tJ
I
H
c
Cx3
S
O ^
rO
in
g 12
10
en
-3
u u
^ I
C <D
0! U
U -H
^ &
U 0)
£
o
10
0)
§
2
2-19i
^
5 £
b. O
S
C/5
M
t-l
■«
O
3
Cu
E-i
1-4
>a:
O
3
U
CXt
^
K
>
U)
M
HH
ba
E2
'd
o
BC
d
o
- -to
Ih M to CT
.H a >-. 10
>. U O U Ul
a « -H o
• w <j P^ i-"
g 3 i^^
.2 c: ■? 8,
s t^ i 8 "i
H 0) a » '"'
«-> >M E n n
J3
♦J
I ^
M '3
"8
° 8
^ -S
^g
1 •
IS
T3
•8 -a
^
o. o
fe £
t>^
Ci
3 V^
^ —t
t>-i ■-(
1 ^
-1 10
•H +J
J S
5 2
1
^ I
•H
•H w a
m in V
M o
§ » -H
(0 i-H O
•H
I
i"
I
■a
s
8 '
3 &
g"
g"
in
Tj* in CT>
S 12 =
S ^
Li
1%
O *J
IS <^
t— (
8 •
r-H
1-1 .H
5 Li
O.
?8
2
a
CO in
"O o
•H
9!
i
t/
01
v
rH
+->
c
(V
g
.5 i!
4->
u
b4 in
(V -«-'
ta
p--^
01 (N
S ii
>^
g
>
w
1— 1
« O
ac ca
I
1j
i
2-19J
g
a
en
u
2
5
g
S
S
g
2g
a:
E-
El
n
m: ui
•c
cj OS
3
M U
b Eh
b
M as
O
t-> 3
Ul
ai E2
«
CO g
i
g 5
M M
1
Q 06
M
V)
S
10
8
rH
O
0)
g
s
t4-t
+j
*t
B
X
(0
B
D>
w
-H
m
f>i
Eh
>i
i-i
J3
u
$
|g
S
-s
cn 10
u
0)
+->
Q O i-H iH
« 1— I o x:
0< <4-( u u
-g
s
•H
1-1
s
o
ro o crv
u
ii
o
■H
i"
I
0) >
^ 8
■5! fcj
^1
•S B
In
C 00
.-H
+J
1 0)
Oi Ij
J3 Oi
o a
O T)
f-t o
■!-• 3
^ <0
-3 M
M O
C T3
O 0)
O L4
;d 51
•H +J
■u o
V a
■U 10
•fH
a a>
(0 >
t-i »*.
a iH
73 -H
•H 00
a\
-H 4^
o r-
t~-
y &
O <0
ID (Tl
a\
b. .-H
f-f
U 0)
2-19k
5
U3
OS U
U) Id
a
g
S
g
1^
g
S
£
g
CA
J
^
i
£
3
>J
tx^
E-1
t-l
i<
U
3
b3
Ou
tA
g
g
M
l-H
U
w
«_>
u
u
o
OS
tj to
I
I
2 S ^
O 0) -H
M >■ O
•a
i
4i £
8
1^
^
I
g"
o
H f^ o
ro 1
in ic
O CO
St/J X
1-1 ft
en *— i
i"
i"
u
%
o
^ tr> a> r- 1
5-
o o
in
. U r-t
B) IH ft.
I i §
^ in cs
a
.§
4->
tch-t
udge
ID
Is;
(0 f— 4
:3 -3
O IS
+-• (0
U 01
to a
5 ^
1-
^ C
I ■%
o ra
O. -rt
o a)
•
♦
♦
2-
191
>> !
£
10
c
o
a
<a
8"
u
•H
a
•a
g
tn
g
g
>
M
M
U
W
O
Id
U
a
OS
s
u
u
n
^
f-H
1
p,
»-
oe
s
ri
CQ
u
•«
<«
M
E-i
b.
X
0)
11 ^
5. 2
2
o
0)
o +->
o. a
CI.
(0
5
is
r-l
10
CO
^
8-
(1)
3
tn
4J
o
♦J
T3
Eh
ji:
•H
4->
'H
o.
^
•H
01
V
w
*J
Qi
u-iE
<-i
•H
1
U
O
u
<0
c
<— t
s
o
o
"2
m
10
■ H
+-»
i
u
■fJ
^H
01
o
0)
o
V
■f'
a
u
(0
0)
•H
•H
+j
^
u
f— t
B
10
3
o
s
t(
!^
5
r-1
+J
rH
^
0)
•H
Bu
<4-^
o
U-(
(9
c
<4-l
i
r-H O
d, in
.
i <^
1
^ 1
r-4
:§
1—1 i-i
-g
.— 1 rH
C3
rH
u
s
o o
•H
M
8
5 rag
5 mg
C 4->
10 o
ra
t>
rO O
CTN
•^ n
tn
s _
rH
1
T-H
VO
>
T-4
^
■1—1 r-i
r-H
(N(0
s
S ^
=E
1
2 S
=§.
1— 1 J3
0) o
Si d
CO
0) <— t
OS U
■K
J .
fci
gr
>i VD a^
s,
£
■u CTi r-
tj
•H i-H cr»
10
CO
r-( rH
j=
<D
■H C
u
IH
O -H C
M
■rH
rH
fi c •"
^
e-
■S
V .s -s
C 4J -H
C
a)
4J
CO
§ " s
£
1 S
S,2
£!
.S
a< o E
^
o
2- 19m
a
«3
o
OS
n
^
6-1
s
M
E-<
s
Ol
o
Qi:
M
u
Cb
tH
M
xC
O
at
U
Oi
U3
^
g
>
l-<
U
U
U
a
o:
>1
Is
•a
rH
u
0)
43
T3
5
o
g
t-i
4-'
V
a>
C
X
+j
o<
IS
r-t
4-*
■§
C/3
•H
P
c
a
•m
^
01
:m:
g^g
Q
a!"
+j
&
•H
+J
M-l
•H
o
o.
C
VI
c
o
1 1
ft) C ^
? I I
4-* <4-l
■H <M
C w
o o _
rO O <T<
»-t I
in ^i)
Q W _
g g2 =§.
•H
s
I
in in
Tf n <r
s
^
1
U-4
.•
s
4-*
CO
s
,
0)
M
■e •
o>
a
a
B
o
l^e
>
•H
0 r-i
8
r-H
« d
oc
o
2-19n
8
I— I
t
•H
•U
E-1
«C
M
CJ
oa
M
u
bu
i-i
M
cS
U
3
u
Oi
CO
g
z
o
M
M
U
(n
t_>
Cd
U
M OS
«S t-l
I?
s
g
(0
U VO
>
I* o
c
•H
J3
■1-'
•H
3
I
& 8,
Q>
w
o
1
B
g
ac3
1
^..
m
<Ji
m'
•H
t>1
f-H
to
<D
+^
Li
+J
0)
;1
•S
^
<U
•t-i
<0
l-l
H
s
4-'
J3
U
1
o
r— (
+-»
5
£
SI
0)
M
s
o
b
4^
*H
•H
•a
•H
o
c
4^
>
IM
0)
(0
a>
•r-*
U
0)
n
L4
u
<V
V
Ul
1
1
o
1
I
I
2-190
CI t/1
^
g
JJ
s
rO
^
t-«
1
e
M
U
»-3
l-H
9
O
•«
6-<
u<
1^ s
o ■-<
o x>
o
CO -H
O i-H
^
-2 12
I g
S S u-i
I
en
12
n
u
a>
■4->
—1 o
i
3
c
00
00
o
i I
-8
•H
kl
I
O
ro O
in
1
I
w ?
g.
i!
1
•H O
a> 4->
■H b.
g
S* g
•S >-
t^
$ »
^
s.
> 1(1
Q) 1— 1
2-19p
permit stipulated that wastewater could not be discharged to
the Clark Fork during low-flow periods.
The discharge permit for the Missoula WWTP expired on
September 30, 1987, but was administratively extended into
1988. The WQB prepared a preliminary environmental review
(PER) in January 1988 and issued a notice in February 1988
of its intent to issue and/or review the permit. The
tentative permit drafted by the WQB contained interim (one-
year) biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and total suspended
solids (TSS) effluent limitations that were less strict than
National Secondary Standards. These interim limits were
intended to allow the city to remain in compliance while
making changes that should solve the problem of periodic
treatment plant upsets. The tentative permit also limited
the amount of phosphorus discharged to no more than 1982
levels and required the city to conduct bioassays on the
plant effluent.
There was a considerable amount of public reaction to
the tentative state permit. Many people felt that the WQB
was holding the city to a different (more lenient) standard
for discharging than the one applied to Stone Container
Corporation when its permit was renewed. There was concern
over the interim BOD5 and TSS limits and over the possibility
of increased phosphorous loading to the river. Although the
plant will be held to 1982 phosphorus limits, those limits
are considerably higher (593 pounds/day) than the plants
actual phosphorus discharge in 1986 (275 pounds/day) .
A final permit was issued by the WQB in July 1988 with
an effective date of August 1, 1988. The interim limits for
BODc and TSS were removed from the permit. Final effluent
limitations for BOD5 and TSS are equivalent to the National
Secondary Standards. A lower phosphorus limit has been
imposed as a goal, along with conditions requiring additional
studies to be done that will result in examination of various
phosphorus-reducing alternatives .
WATER RESERVATIONS
Introduction
Montana's 1973 Water Use Act allows public entities,
such as conservation districts, municipalities, counties, and
state and federal agencies to reserve water for future uses.
These include diversionary and consumptive uses, as well as
instream flows for the protection of fish, wildlife, and
water quality.
2-20
The main advantage of a water reservation over an
individual water use permit is that once approved, the
reservation sets aside water for a particular use. Thus, the
reservation law allows for the planning and allocation of
water for future uses. Those entities eligible to use
reserved water have a longer time period (up to 30 years or
more) to put the water to beneficial use and still maintain
their early priority date. By comparison, water use permits
must be put to beneficial use within a few years.
To justify the need for a reservation for irrigation or
domestic uses, an applicant must prepare a water use plan
that identifies future water users and their estimated water
needs. This information explains why the water must be
limited to a specific future use and why the applicant is
ineligible to appropriate water by means of a permit. The
reservation statute and rules require the applicant to fully
support the purpose, need, amount, and public interest of a
proposed reservation. Reservations for instream flow are
limited to 50 percent of the average annual flow on gaged
streams. The statute assigns administrative responsibilities
to the Board of Natural Resources and Conservation. The
Board, which is made up of seven citizens from around the
state, is appointed by the governor.
The Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) requires ah
environmental impact statement for actions of state govern-
ment that have the potential to create a significant impact
on the environment. The EIS examines the environmental,
social, and economic impacts of the reservation.
Upper Clark Fork Water Reservations Proceedings
The DNRC has received two applications to reserve water
in the upper Clark Fork Basin above Milltown Dam. One
applicant is the DFWP, which wishes to reserve instream flows
in the mainstem of the Clark Fork and 17 of its tributaries
(DFWP 1986) . The other. Granite County Conservation
District, is seeking to reserve water for irrigation use by
developing a storage reservoir on the North Fork of Willow
Creek between Drummond and Philipsburg. Table 2-14 sum-
marizes the reservation applications.
A draft EIS on the reservation applications in the upper
Clark Fork Basin was issued in November 1988 (DNRC 1988a) .
Following a 60-day comment period, the final EIS will be
prepared and distributed. The DNRC will then publish the
notice and receive written objections to the reservation
applications. If the DNRC determines that the objections are
valid, a formal contested case hearing will be held. The
Board will probably make the decision on the upper Clark Fork
2-21
TABLE 2-U.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED UPPER CLARK FORK BASIN WATER RESERVATIONS
Stream Name
Length of Stream
Reach (miles)
Flows and Volume of water
Requested Year-Round
Instream Flows for Water
Qual i ty Jan 1 to May 1
A) DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE
AND PARKS (instream flow)
Clark Fork mainsteM
Reach 1 37.8
(Warm Springs Creek to
Little Blackfoot River)
Reach 2 28.1
(Little Blackfoot River to
Flint Creek)
Reach 3 35.8
(Flint Creek to Rock Creek)
Reach 4 17.2
(Rock Creek to Blackfoot
River)
180 cfs
130,314 AF
400 cfs
289,587 AF
500 cfs
361,983 AF
600 cfs
434,380 AF
None
None
None
None
Warm Springs Creek
Reach 1
(Confluence of Middle
Fork Warm Springs Creek
to Meyers Dam)
Reach 2
(Meyers Dam to mouth)
Barker Creek
Storm Lake Creek
1
15.3
16.6
5.1
10.0
50 cfs
36,198 AF
40 cfs
28,959 AF
12 cfs
8,688 AF
10 cfs
7,240 AF
3 cfs
2,172 AF
For all Clark Fork
tributaries, all of the
instantaneous base flow,
subject to existing, law-
fully appropriated water
rights until such a time
as mine waste reclamation
allows copper concentra-
tions entering the Clark
Fork above Warm Springs
Creek to reach acceptable
levels in downstream
reaches. Flow is requested
at each stream's confluence
with the Clark Fork.
Cable Creek
5.8
10 cfs
7.240 AF
Twin Lakes Creek
7.5
13 cfs
9,412 AF
Lost Creek
Racetrack Creek
Reach 1
(Confluence of North
Fork Racetrack Creek to
USFS boundary)
Reach 2
(USFS Boundary to mouth)
19.9
9.3
10.8
16 cfs
11,583 AF
26 cfs
18,823 AF
3 cfs
2,172 AF
2-21a
TABLE 2-U (COMT.).
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED UPPER CLARK FORK BASIN UATfR RESERVATIONS
Stream Name
Length of Stream
Reach (iwiies)
Flows and Volume of water
Requested Year-Round
Instrean Flows for Water
Oual i ty Jan 1 to May 1
Dempsey Creek
Little Blackfoot River
Reach 1
(Blackfoot Meadows to
Dog Creek)
Reach 2
(Dog Creek to mouth)
Snoushoe Creek
Dog Creek
Gold Creek
Flint Creek
Reach 1
(Georgetown Lake to
Boulder Creek)
Reach 2
(Boulder Creek to mouth)
Boulder Creek
North Fork of Flint Creek
Stuart Mill Creek
Harvey Creek
17,1
17.4
26.9
9.2
15.5
15.0
28.0
15.7
15.4
7.5
0.3
14.6
3.5 cfs
2,543 AF
17 cfs
12,307 AF
85 cfs
61,537 AF
9 cfs
6,516 AF
12 cfs
8,688 AF
54 cfs
24,61$ AF
50 cfs
36,198 AF
45 cfs
32,578 AF
20 cfs
14,479 AF
6 cfs
4,344 AF
14 cfs
10,136 AF
3 cfs
2,172 AF
in»«V t -.-, ■•<!,:;, i ;i ji.
B) GRANITE COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT
(for supplemental irrigation)
North Fork of Lower
Ui How Creek
1
up to 15.4 cfs
up to 11,165 AF
10 cfs is requested if historic diversions to Storm Lake do not occur. If historic
diversions are resumed, the flow request is 3 cfs.
Source: DNRC 1988a.
2-21b
reservations in late 1988 or early 1989, based on the hearing
record, the EIS, and other relevant information. Unless
otherwise specified by the state legislature, the priority
dates for the reservations would be the dates the Board
adopts an order reserving water. The reservations, unlike
water use permits, are subject to review by the Board at
least once every ten years. The Board may change the amount
of the water reserved following this ten-year review.
RECREATION AND AESTHETICS
The Clark Fork Basin provides exceptional outdoor
recreation opportunities from near its headwaters to Lake
Pend Oreille. The region is known for its unusual scenic
beauty, pristine mountain lakes and streams, and abundant
fish and wildlife. Recreation and tourism are considered
valuable economic attributes of the region, but relatively
little has been done to measure their actual use, value, or
potential.
The recreational value of a river is affected by many
factors, including public access, use levels, type of
scenery, rapids, fish and wildlife populations, level of
development, and on-site management. Public taste regarding
these and other river attributes vary so that measurements of
recreation values may differ according to the measurement
methods. The recreational and aesthetic values of the Clark
Fork Basin were described and ranked by the Montana River
Study (Graham 1986) . The study provides an inventory and
criteria to assess the significance of the river's fish and
wildlife values and recreational, natural, and cultural
features. The following has been paraphrased from a summary
of the study published by Montana Outdoors (Hilander 1988) .
The upper Clark Fork drainage (above Milltown Dam) was
ranked high for most resource values. The upper basin
contains three sport fisheries ranked as Class I (unique or
outstanding) , and 30 stream reaches were ranked as Class I
for habitat and species value. A total of 740 stream miles
in the basin were ranked as Class II fisheries. Scenic
quality was ranked as substantial or outstanding on half of
the river segments evaluated. Recreational attributes were
ranked as moderate on 47 percent, with 34 percent either
substantial or outstanding. Three of the major tributaries
of the upper and middle basins — Rock Creek and the Blackfoot
and Bitterroot rivers — all have Class I fisheries, wildlife
areas, and natural areas.
The lower Clark Fork drainage received lower rankings
largely due to the impacts of development. Fisheries values
were ranked Class I on only 1 percent of the reaches
2-22
evaluated, and only four stream reaches were ranked as Class
II sport fishery value. Scenic quality was rated Class I or
II on only 3 percent of the 1,350 miles of stream assessed
for recreation. Three-fourths of the tributary drainages in
the lower river basin were ranked Class I or II for wildlife
values. 9S"
Hagmann (1979) estimated recreational use on the upper
Clark Fork and its major tributaries (Little Blackfoot, Flint
Creek, and Rock Creek) during 1978-79. Data obtained by
direct observation and questionnaires indicated that use on
tributaries exceeded use on the mainstem, with Rock Creek
receiving the most recreational visits. Summer visits on the
upper Clark Fork focused on trout fishing — above Deer Lodge
and between Schwartz Creek and Milltown. In the winter
period, fishing was again the dominant activity, followed by
waterfowl hunting. Camping, picnicking, floating, and other
recreational activities were also reported by the visitors.
Almost 70 percent of the recreationists interviewed were
Montanans, and approximately 25 percent of all recreational
visits were by nonresidents. A majority of users rated
access and recreation site development along the river as
adequate. Four fishing access sites are located along the
river, and many private sites are accessible. Stream access
along the Clark Fork is likely to be an increasingly
important issue as greater numbers of recreationists use the
river basin.
A limited survey of recreation use of the Cabinet Gorge
and Noxon Rapids reservoirs was conducted in the summer of
1986 (Schwiesow and Burch 1987) , and recreation access and
facilities were also inventoried (Schwiesow 1987) . These
surveys, sponsored by the Washington Water Power Company,
were conducted to aid recreational planning in the future.
The user survey involved a standard interview of individuals
participating in various recreational activities along the
Clark Fork from two miles west of Thompson Falls to the
Cabinet Gorge Dam, 25 miles east of Sandpoint, Idaho. A
total of 120 individuals were interviewed during the period
from mid-June to early September 1986. The survey results
indicated more than half (51 percent) of those interviewed
were Montanans, and 55 percent of those were from Sanders
County. Forty-nine percent of the total interviewees were
from one of 19 states or provinces other than Montana. Most
respondents (74 percent) used the reservoirs for fishing,
camping, and boating. Easy access attracted most people to
the sites surveyed, and 80 percent approved of the facilities
available. Many of the respondents preferred recreation
sites that offered isolation from other recreationists.
2-23
Duf field (1981) estimated the economic value of
recreation on the upper Clark Fork and its tributaries. His
study used the recreational use survey by Hagmann (1979) and
traffic surveys on Rock Creek by the Lolo National Forest.
The dollar values of these visits were estimated using the
travel cost method. The study results indicated a substan-
tial annual use value for instream uses of the upper Clark
Fork ranging between a low of $500,000 and a high of $1.4
million per year in 1979.
MACROINVERTEBRATES
Biological surveys of fishes, macroinvertebrates, and
periphyton (attached algae) have been conducted in the Clark
Fork Basin by numerous investigators during the past several
decades. Aquatic macroinvertebrates have been the most
frequently studied as bioindicators of water quality.
McGuire (1988) summarized the results of past macroinver-
tebrate studies on the Clark Fork to identify trends and
information needs. The following summary is from McGuire 's
report .
Silver Bow Creek to Milltown Dam
Macroinvertebrate studies initiated in the late 1950s
provide starting points for both long-term trend monitoring
in specific river reaches and evaluations of conditions
throughout the Clark Fork drainage. The early studies by
Spindler (1959) and Averett (1961) allowed gross comparisons
of environmental conditions throughout the drainage. They
found macroinvertebrates absent from Silver Bow Creek and
only sparse insect populations in the upper Clark Fork.
Dipterans (presumably midges and/or black flies) predomi-
nated throughout the drainage, while caddisflies, mayflies,
stoneflies, and beetles were virtually absent above the
confluence of the Little Blackfoot River.
No additional information is available for the upper
Clark Fork until Shinn's (1970) qualitative study of 12
sites from Silver Bow Creek to below the Frenchtown Mill
(now owned by Stone Container Corp.). Shinn documented
degradation in much of his study area, and his data indicated
that environmental conditions in the Clark Fork had not
changed significantly during the 1960s. Like Averett and
Spindler, Shinn found no aquatic insects in Silver Bow Creek
and few species in the Clark Fork from the Warm Springs Ponds
to Deer Lodge. He found twice as many macroinvertebrate
species at Garrison than at Deer Lodge, and attributed this
increase to dilution provided by the Little Blackfoot River.
From the confluence of the Little Blackfoot River to Milltown
2-24
Dam, the assemblage remained constant but was suppressed
compared with Warm Springs Creek and stations downstream from
Milltown Dam.
More recent investigations have documented improved
macroinvertebrate communities in Silver Bow Creek (Chadwick
et al. 1986) and in the upper Clark Fork (Canton and Chadwick
1985; McGuire 1987) . Macroinvertebrates began colonizing
Silver Bow Creek in 1975 when the Anaconda Minerals Company
began secondary treatment of the Weed Concentrator effluent
and the Butte sewage treatment plant ceased discharging
sludge into the stream (MultiTech and OEA Research 1986) .
By 1981, metal-tolerant midge species were present throughout
Silver Bow Creek, and a few other tolerant species were
established in the stream's lower reach (Gregson Hot Springs
to the Warm Springs Ponds) . Since 1981, the composition and
abundance of macroinvertebrate assemblages have been more
variable, indicating a gradual stabilization of environmental
conditions. Although much improved relative to historic
conditions. Silver Bow Creek remains severely polluted by
heavy metals, which results in an impoverished macroinverte-
brate fauna.
Similarly, severe impacts from metals contamination have
been less frequent during the past ten years in the upper
Clark Fork (MultiTech and OEA Research 1986) . However,
metal-sensitive species are still precluded from much of the
river above Milltown Dam. As heavy metals pollution has
become less severe, other environmental conditions have
become more apparent. Densities of a few tolerant insect
species have increased dramatically in response to nutrient
and organic enrichment from municipal sewage treatment plants
and nonpoint sources (natural, agricultural, and forest
practices) . This response, previously suppressed by toxic
conditions resulting from metals contamination, is now
evident throughout the drainage.
Milltown Dam to the Confluence of the Flathead River
Pollution in the Clark Fork has had a less dramatic
effect on the biota downstream from Missoula than in the
headwaters. Impacts attributable to heavy metals have been
substantially less downstream from the Milltown Dam than in
the upstream reaches where metals pollution has historically
been more severe. The magnitude, frequency, and the
duration of exposure to elevated metals concentrations
downstream from Milltown Dam have been lessened as a result
of metal-bearing sediments being trapped in the reservoir
(Johns and Moore 1985) , and by dilution from the Blackfoot
River and Rock Creek.
2-25
The middle reach of the Clark Fork supports a fauna rich
in species compared to the impoverished upstream fauna (Shinn
1970; McGuire 1987). Spindler (1959), Averett (1961), Shinn
(1970) and McGuire (1987) have reported more diverse faunas
below Missoula than above. Organic wastes from the Missoula
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) , Stone Container Corpora-
tion's pulp mill, and upstream sources have been the pol-
lutants of historical concern in this river reach (Watson
1985) . The Missoula WWTP is the largest point source of
nutrients in the drainage and, until secondary treatment was
installed in 1978, probably had the greatest potential for
creating toxic conditions in the Clark Fork downstream from
Milltown Dam. Shinn 's study indicated a sharp decline in
species richness immediately below the Missoula WWTP outfall
compared with stations just upstream and farther downstream,
although species richness was still greater than in the
headwaters .
The Institute of Paper Chemistry (IPC) began an annual
biological assessment of environmental conditions near the
Stone Container Corporation's (Frenchtown) mill in 1956 to
detect impacts from the mill's effluent and settling pond
seepage (IPC 1957-1984). During the mill's first year of
operation (1958-59) , the untreated effluent had a significant
localized impact on the fauna. Spindler and Whitney (1960)
documented a fish kill and a shift in the composition of the
benthic community, while the IPC (1962) found reduced
densities of sensitive insect species and reduced species
richness below the mill outfall. The subsequent recovery of
the benthic community was documented (IPC 1962) when effluent
treatment was initiated a year later. Other than the
deleterious effects during the first year of operation, the
paper mill has generally had minor impacts on the Clark Fork.
During the 1960s, slight reductions in species richness were
sometimes noted near the effluent outfall, and organic
enrichment was documented immediately downstream. Wastewater
treatment at the mill has been improved several times, and
since 1975, impacts have been limited to nutrient enrichment
(Rades 1985) .
While the IPC studies were designed to detect impacts
from a single point source, they also provide valuable
information for evaluating overall environmental conditions
in the river between Missoula and Alberton. Although the IPC
annual reports did not usually address environmental
stresses, they did show some evidence of stresses throughout
the study area. For instance, in 1959, 1963, 1964, 1967,
1974, and 1975, reduced macroinvertebrate densities, species
richness, and/or shifts in relative abundance were evident at
most stations. Perturbations at IPC control sites appeared
greatest during high runoff years and, therefore, may have
resulted from elevated heavy metals concentrations during
2-26
runoff. Conversely, during years when runoff was relatively
low (e.g. 1966, 1969, 1973, and 1977), investigators
typically noted indications of nutrient enrichment (increased
macro invertebrate densities and biomass) at sites upstream
and downstream from the paper mill. These findings suggest
that biologically significant heavy metals contamination has
occurred in the Clark Fork below the Milltown Dam during high
runoff years, and it occasionally has extended downstream at
least as far as Alberton.
Confluence of the Flathead River to the Idaho Border
Because scant data are available for the Clark Fork
downstream of its confluence with the Flathead River, only a
few generalizations regarding environmental conditions in the
lower river can be made. Heavy metals contamination does not
appear to have been a problem in this reach of the Clark
Fork in recent years. Hornig and Hornig (1985) and McGuire
(1987) reported increased abundances of several mayfly and
mollusk species considered intolerant of heavy metals below
the confluence of the Flathead River. The benthic com-
munities described in these studies suggest that nutrient
enrichment is not a serious problem at this time. Stream
regulation, particularly fluctuating flows, appears to be the
most limiting factor to maximum benthic production in the
lower Clark Fork.
FISHERIES
Introduction
The fishery in the Clark Fork has passed through many
stages in the past 140 years. Beginning as a varied and
productive fishery, it was devastated by human activities in
the watershed. Now it is a slowly recovering system.
Although the Clark Fork fishery today is greatly improved
over what it was just a few decades ago, its recovery has
been erratic, and the fishery is considered to be far below
the carrying capacity of the river.
In recent years, the DFWP has initiated several
investigations to determine why the Clark Fork fishery is
poor relative to other rivers of comparable size, such as the
Blackfoot River. Information that has been obtained includes
population estimates, spawning ground surveys, recruitment,
bioassays, and fish stocking survival. In 1987, the DFWP
intensified its efforts to obtain information needed to
guide management decisions.
2-27
The following sections provide a suTtimary of the current
fishery in the upper, middle, and lower segments of the
Clark Fork. Fishing trends in the basin and benefits and
costs to the region are also discussed. A list of fish
species in the Clark Fork Basin is given in Table 2-15.
Upper Clark Fork Fishery (Headwaters to Milltown Dam)
Fish Species Composition
Brown trout are recreationally significant throughout
the upper river, and rainbow trout are abundant in the
sections immediately upstream from the mouth of Rock Creek
and downstream to Milltown. A few cutthroat, brook, and
bull trout occur and are presumably outmigrants from the
tributaries. Mountain whitefish and coarsescale suckers are
common throughout the segment. Redside shiners, longnose
dace, and sculpins are distributed in suitable habitats
within the segment. Squawfish are found from Drummond
downstream.
For nearly a century, the upper river was barren of
trout due to the toxic materials released by mining, milling,
and smelting operations. Trout were observed in the river
during the 1960s, but populations of brown trout were not
established until the 1970s. Development of the uppermost
populations of brown trout near Warm Springs began
immediately after the installation of the Anaconda Company's
treatment pond No. 3 in the late 1950s. Populations of brown
trout throughout the upper river seem to have been relative-
ly stable over the 1970-88 period with the exception of the
Warm Springs area. The population of brown trout in the Warm
Springs river section (known as the pH shack section) has
increased rather steadily to the present level (Knudson 1984;
Spoon 1988) .
Trout Population Estimates
In 1987, the Clark Fork, from its origin at Warm Springs
to Milltown, was divided into segments and the population of
trout in each was estimated. Some 6,000 trout were tagged.
During the fall of 1987, spawning data on Clark Fork brown
trout were collected by electrof ishing in potential spawning
tributaries. A fish trap was placed above the mouth of the
Little Blackfoot to monitor upstream movements of spawning
fish from the Clark Fork. These efforts produced a plethora
of information that has not yet been fully analyzed.
2-28
TABLE 2-1S. DISTRIBUTION OF FISH SPECIES IN THE CLARK FORK BASIN
EXCLUDING THE FLATHEAD RIVER SYSTEM
Convnon Name
Scientific Name
Distribution
Westslope cutthroat trout
Rainbow trout
Brown trout
Bull trout (Dolly Varden)
Brook trout
Kokanee salmon
Mountain whitefish
Lake whitefish
Arctic grayling
Northern pike
Yel low perch
Largemouth bass
Black bullhead
Pumpkinseed
Northern squawfish
Peamouth
Redside shiner
Longnose dace
Longnose sucker
Coarsescale sucker
Slimy sculpin
Mottled sculpin
Burbot
Smallmouth bass
Black crappie
Salmo clarki lewisi
Salmo gairdneri
Salmo trutta
Salvelinus confluentus
Salvetinus lontinaiis
Oncorhynchus nerka
Prosopium williamsoni
Coregonus clupeaformis
Thymallus arcticus
Esox lucius
Perca flavescers
Micropterus salmoides
Ictalurus melas
Lepomis gibbosus
Ptychochei lus oregonensis
Mylocheilus caurinus
Richardsonius balteatus
Rhinichthys cataractae
Catostomus catostomus
Catostomus macrocheilus
Cottus cognatus
Cottus bairdi
Lota lota
Micropterus dolomieu
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Tributaries and reservoirs
Throughout drainage
Throughout drainage
Scattered throughout drainaf*
Tributaries
Georgetown Lake
Throughout drainage
Noxon Rapids, Cabinet Gorge
Heart Lake, Fuse Lake
Lower drainage
Throughout drainage
Throughout drainage
Lower drainage
Throughout drainage
Throughout drainage
Throughout drainage
Throughout drainage
Throughout drainage
Throughout drainage
Throughout drainage
Throughout drainage
Throughout drainage
Planted in Noxon Rapids Reservoir
in 1971
Planted in Noxon Rapids Reservoir
in 1982
Cabinet Gorge Reservoir
Source: DFWP 1981.
J*>tl:j noj.^;
2-28a
The most useful data of the 1987 study were the fish
population estimates for the spring-early summer period.
Figure 2-1 displays estimates of the numbers of rainbow and
brown trout 7.5 inches or more in total length in 31 sections
covering 135 river miles (RM) . Exact comparison with
estimates generated in previous years is not possible because
section lengths vary due to the improved mapping and
measuring techniques in 1987. Older estimates were based on
numbers of trout 6 inches or more in most cases. Despite
these computational differences, estimates from 1987 are very
similar to those from previous years.
Data presented in Figure 2-1 show that fish population
distribution varies considerably from the headwaters to
Milltown. In the uppermost sections from the Warm Springs
Pond 2 outflow to the end of the pH shack section (RM 501-
498), brown trout densities were between 1,500-2,000 fish per
mile. A precipitous drop in trout numbers to a level of
about 500 per mile, occurred between the end of the pH shack
section and the Galen Bridge (RM 498-491) . From the Galen
Bridge to below Drummond (RM 491-409) populations slowly
declined in density from about 250 per mile to 150 per mile.
A more abrupt change occurred from about Bear Creek to
Beavertail (RM 409-385) where populations of trout were about
50 per mile. Rainbow trout numbers became significant in
this section, presumably reflecting the influence of
recruitment from Rock Creek. Trout population numbers
increased substantially to about 250 per mile in the segment
from about the mouth of Rock Creek to Milltown Dam (RM 385-
366) . Rainbows were the most abundant trout, with brown
trout the other dominant species in this segment.
Trout Spawning and Rearing Habitat
Throughout the Clark Fork above Milltown, with the
exception of the Warm Springs section, trout populations
appear to be of lower density than the habitat might support.
The factors that determine trout abundance over much of the
upper river are not well known nor easily discernable. If
physical habitat in the most basic sense is present in excess
of population levels, then some other factor (s) must be
limiting population density. Either the number of trout
available from reproductive efforts is inadequate to fill the
available habitat, or something kills a significant fraction
of the population on a regular or, at least, frequent basis.
Conditions for trout reproduction in the river are
poor. Most of the upper river seems unsuitable for trout
reproduction due to siltation and other substrate deficien-
cies. Successful reproduction may occur in the uppermost
reaches of the river near Warm Springs, at least in some
2-29
0 ^ c
Z 0 ^
ir Q £
^ ■ 0 '^
2 i^v^--^^
■ o
n
■ 0
9
oo
00
o
a.
a
u
u
3
O
10
N
3 KSW.^
r
Q KW-'^\'^\''
^,\V\\\A
i 0
<
liJ
Si
r-.'>y..v,>
(\\\\\\\'
TswV-.V
IVVanv
LVsvVv\'>^
^ lil KWVVWnn''
>
T-
s
' t
o
0
i- ffl
III i» ^^\^^\V^\\^>
uJ ?i [AV\\\v
Q
J |,\\W\\\\'\''\
K\\^\V\VV>>W
PTWNW'WO^
t.XVK'^SWW;
k,-\\\Vvs\\VA\'-'VJ
(v^\\^\\v■^^'^^^'>'^'>^'>''^ ■'—'■''
(>\\\\\A.Y.VA'>\\SN\\\NS'\\\\\\\\'.\\\.N\\\V\\\\\V.V.\-.\\\\V,V.\\>
K\\\Y,^^V^\\^\^\Y^\^\\V^\A\\^\^^^V.\\\^\\V.^\\\\\\vVA^\\^^\\^A\V^^^\\\\^\\\\\>.V^
t'--\\V\\\\\\\\\\',\V\v<>\AV\S\\\>\x^\\\\\\\\\\\\\V\\\\\\\\V\''A-A\\^''N\VV\\'\X\\\\\'A\NV
iCA\\\'\\\\\\V\'\'\>j\|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\x\\W.\\x\\\\\\\\>-
E f 1 1
10
• 1 • I
Q 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
5 10 0 10
« T- T-
anii^x ±noa±
OO
atf
cu
OB
o
u.
:^
OS
<
-1
as
u
a,
a.
U
ac
H
o
M
H
Z
U
o
u
>
Z
H
O
OS
H
_]
<
H
O
H
U
2-29a
years. Numbers of juvenile brown trout were not estimated
during the 1987 survey due to the unsuitability of the gear
used, but numbers of brown trout smaller than 7.5 inches,
ages 0 and 1, were recorded. In general, those numbers vary
in concert with adult population estimates. Highest numbers
of small (young) fish were observed in the Warm Springs area.
Numbers declined generally to a low near Bearmouth and
increased immediately upstream and downstream from the mouth
of Rock Creek. Except in the Warm Springs area, the numbers
of young trout were generally very low.
During the summer of 1987, marked juvenile hatchery
rainbows were released in the low population areas below
Drummond. If these fish persist in the river, then it may
suggest that reproduction and juvenile survival is indeed a
major limitation on population levels. A few of those
stocked fish were recaptured by electrof ishing in the fall of
1987.
Eggs and sperm were taken from brown trout spawners in
the Warm Springs area in 1987 and placed in the hatchery for
rearing. Fish reared from these eggs were marked and
released in the summer of 1988, and their survival will be
monitored in future years. Assessment of timing and
estimates of numbers of outmigrating juvenile brown trout
from spawning tributaries began in 1988 and will continue in
following years.
Tributary Trout Spawning Migrations
Tributary spawning habitats appear to be limited in the
upper river segment. Warm Springs Creek has been shown to
have a run of hundreds of brown trout during the spawning
season, and limited numbers of browns also enter Lost and
Racetrack creeks. The 1987 trapping of brown trout entering
the Little Blackfoot River yielded fewer than 400 trout,
which is far fewer than the Little Blackfoot appears capable
of supporting. A similar number of river migrants were
shocked in Gold Creek where access to trout is limited to
only 300 yards of stream due to an artificial barrier. The
importance of Flint Creek for spawning trout is unknown, but
spawning substrates there are of poor quality. Rock Creek is
no doubt a significant contributor to recruitment in the
Clark Fork, particularly for rainbow trout.
In summary, available data are presently equivocal on
the questions of recruitment, available habitat, and rates of
trout mortality in river environments. However, the catch
from the Little Blackfoot spawning migration trap in fall
1987 may offer some clues regarding fish population dynamics
in the upper Clark Fork. Water quality and substrate
2-30
conditions in the Little Blackfoot seem to be well suited to
brown trout reproduction, and upstream migrants should have
access to more than 30 miles of stream. The available
spawning habitat would appear to easily accommodate several
thousand fish. This suggests that factors controlling fish
populations in the mainstem are limiting available spawners
to numbers below the available spawning habitat capacity.
Middle Clark Fork Fishery (Milltown Dam to Flathead River)
Fish Species Composition
The bulk of the sport fishery in this 119.4-mile reach
of the river is provided by rainbow trout along with a few
brown, bull, and westslope cutthroat trout. Mountain
whitefish provide an important winter sport fishery. Common
nongame fish species found in the reach include squawfish,
redside shiners, longnose dace, coarsescale suckers, and
slimy sculpins.
Trout Population Estimates
Trout populations have been estimated by electrof ishing
and mark/ recapture procedures in four study sections on the
middle Clark Fork. The study sections are located in the
vicinities of Milltown Dam, Missoula, Huson, and Superior
(Table 2-16) . Estimates in the four study sections indicate
the river supports from 175 to 402 catchable rainbow trout
per mile (Table 2-17) . Rainbow trout constituted more than
90 percent of the catchable trout population in all of the
study sections. Catchable brown, westslope cutthroat, and
bull trout were present in the river, but their numbers were
usually too low to estimate. In September 1986, estimates
of 16 catchable brown and 22 catchable westslope cutthroat
trout per mile were obtained in the Missoula study section.
The density of catchable trout is less than expected
for comparable trout streams the size of the Clark Fork.
While the Clark Fork supports an average of 200 to 400
catchable trout per mile, other large trout rivers in Montana
often support 2,000 to 3,000 or more catchable trout per mile
(Berg 1984) .
Major tributaries to the Clark Fork support larger
populations of catchable trout than the mainstem of the
river. The mean number of catchable rainbow trout per mile
in the Blackfoot River over a three-year period from 1983 to
1985 was 445 percent larger than the mean number of catchable
2-31
TABLE 2-16. LOCATION, LENGTH, AND RIVER MILE INDEX BOUNDARIES OF FISH POPULATION
STUDY SECTIONS ON THE CLARK FORK
Sectfon Description Section River Mile
Name of Location Length (mi) Index Boundaries
Milltown MiUtown Dam to 2.8 miles upstream 3.4 364.4 to 361.0
from confluence of Rattlesnake Cr.
Missoula Confluence of Bitterroot R. to 0.5 8.6 350.5 to 341.9
mile upstream from Harper Bridge
Huson Confluence of Sixmile Cr. to 4.0 4.5 328.2 to 323.7
miles upstream from confluence of
Petty Cr.
Superior Confluence of Cedar Cr. to 6.3 286.6 to 280.3
confluence of Dry Cr.
Source: Berg 1986a.
TABLE 2-17. TROUT POPULATION ESTIMATES IN FOUR STUDY SECTIONS OF THE CLARK FORK
Study Date of Fish Section Catchable Catchable
Section Estimate Species Length (mi) Trout/Section Trout/Mi le
Missoula Sept. 1984 Rainbow 8.6
Missoula June 1985 Rainbow 8.6
Milltown June 1985 Rainbow 3.4
Superior July 1985 Rainbow 6.3
Huson Sept. 1985 Rainbow 4.5
Missoula Sept. 1986 Rainbow 8.6
Brown 8.6
W.S. Cutthroat 8.6
Huson Sept. 1986 Rainbow 4.5
All Section-Rainbow Mean (X) 288
Catchable trout 7 inches total length and larger.
Source: Berg 1986a.
1,506
175
1,804
210
1,035
288
1,382
219
1,749
389
3,461
402
137
16
187
22
1,504
334
2-32
rainbow trout per mile in the Clark Fork during a three-year
period from 1984 to 1986 (Tables 2-17 and 2-18) . The com-
parison of the Blackfoot River with the Clark Fork is
appropriate because both rivers have similar physical habitat
characteristics .
TABLE 2-18.
TROUT
POPULATION ESTIMATES
IN THE JOHMSRUO
SECTION OF THE
BLACKFOOT
RIVER, APPROXIMATELY 13 MILES UPSTREAM FROM BONNER
Date of
Fish
Section
Catchable^
Catchable''
Estimate
Species
Length (mi)
Trout/Section
Trout/Mile
June 1985
Rainbow
3.6
5.225
1.451
June 1984
Rainbou
1.4
3,186
805
June 1983
Rainbow
Iwl
5.445
1,512
Mean
(X) 4,618
1,2W
Catchable trout 7 inches total length and larger.
Source: Berg 1986a.
Scales were collected from trout during population
samplings to determine growth rates and age structure of the
trout populations. Preliminary findings indicate growth
rates of trout in the Clark Fork are relatively high when
compared with trout streams of similar size. This indicates
that food supply is probably not a limiting factor for trout
populations in the Clark Fork. Furthermore, it suggests that
the Clark Fork may be "under seeded" and that recruitment may
be a limiting factor.
Trout Spawning and Rearing Habitat
Visual surveys have been made in the Milltown, Missoula,
Huson, and Superior study sections during the rainbow and
brown trout spawning periods in an attempt to locate trout
redds. To date, only brown trout redds have been located, in
the Milltown and Missoula sections. Because a very limited
amount of time has been spent on visual surveys, additional
observations must be made to evaluate the extent of trout
spawning in the river.
2-33
The search for trout redds in the middle Clark Fork is
hindered during both rainbow and brown trout spawning periods
by poor visibility in deep water areas where spawning could
occur. Visibility is sometimes precluded even in shallow
water during the rainbow trout spawning period due to highly
turbid spring runoff conditions. For this reason, use of the
Clark Fork for trout spawning is also being evaluated by
electrofishing during the spawning periods in an attempt to
locate concentrations of mature fish in spawning condition.
Suitable rainbow, westslope cutthroat, and brown trout
rearing habitat is found primarily along the edge of the
Clark Fork's channel. Limited electrofishing surveys of
this habitat indicated young-of-the-year trout were rela-
tively more abundant in the Milltown and Superior study
sections than in the Missoula and Huson sections during late
summer of 1985 (Table 2-19) . Young-of-the-year trout were
relatively scarce in all four study areas (Berg 1983) .
TABLE 2-19. AVERAGE SIZE AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF YOUNG-OF-THE-YEAR TROUT
SAMPLED BY ELECTROFISHING
Study
Section
Date
Trout
Species
Average
Length (mm)
Juveni le Trout
E I ectrofi shed/Hour
Milltown
8-26-85
Rainbow
Brown
57
90
Missoula
8-28-85
Rainbow
76
(side channel)
Brown
94
Missoula
8-28-85
Rainbow
63
(main river)
Brown
--
Huson
8-30 & 9-4-
■85
Rainbow
Brown
60
77
Superior
9-5-85
Rainbow
Brown
58
81
7.1
10.1
1.7
10.0
1.4
0.0
3.6
0.3
14.6
1.1
Source: Berg 1986a.
2-34
Tributary Trout Spawning Migrations
In an effort to evaluate spawning periodicity and
sources of trout recruitment in the middle Clark Fork, the
lower reaches of several tributaries were electrof ished or
set with traps during trout spawning periods to locate
spawning migrants from the Clark Fork.
Most members of the trout family migrate during the
spawning season in search of suitable spawning sites (Hubbs
and Lagler 1970) . Spawning movements of lake dwelling
salmonid populations into inlet or outlet streams have been
extensively documented for rainbow (Rayner 1942; Hartman et
al. 1962; Calhoun 1966; Scott and Crossman 1973) and brown
trout (Fenderson 1958; Stuart 1957) and mountain whitefish
(Snyder 1918; Calhoun 1966).
Less information is available on spawning movements of
river-dwelling salmonid populations into feeder streams.
Calhoun (1966) reported that resident rainbow trout popula-
tions in streams tend to move upstream, and if possible into
tributaries to spawn. River-dwelling brown trout in Ontario
normally seek tributary streams for spawning purposes (MacKay
1963) . Spawning movements of mountain whitefish from larger
streams into some tributaries have been observed in Montana
(Liebelt 1970; Brown 1971).
Electrof ishing and fish trapping surveys indicate
considerable numbers of rainbow, brown, and westslope
cutthroat trout migrate from the Clark Fork into tributaries
to spawn (Berg 1986a) . Significant trout fry outmigrations
from several tributaries, monitored with fry traps, indicated
tributaries provide considerable recruitment of juvenile
trout to the Clark Fork (Table 2-20) .
Lower Clark Fork Fishery (Flathead River to Lake Pend Oreille)
Fish species composition in the lower Clark Fork has
been significantly altered by habitat changes and the
introduction of new species. Of the ten game species found
in the lower Clark Fork, only the westslope cutthroat, bull
trout, and mountain whitefish are endemic. Six game species
introduced since the impoundment of the reservoirs are
northern pike, black crappie, burbot or ling, kokanee salmon,
silver salmon, and smallmouth bass. Northern pike and black
crappie resulted from illegal introductions while the other
four species were planned introductions by DFWP. Of the ten
nongame fish species, only the bullhead, pumpkinseed, and
perch were introduced by man.
2-35
o
9
60
It
0)
5
^
a,
H
(U
O _
H 2
5
4-1
D
tlO ■~~ Z
i-i o a
•p
3
i-H <V
IS .a
o 3
H Z
3
&
5
3
o
H
3
O
w
3
60 -^
(0 x:
1-1 o
0) -P
> «
< o
4J
u
H
l-H 0)
4-J ~
O
H
T3
01
5
0)
60
i-i
<v
>
<
4-1
x:
60
u
H
•a
01
3
4J
^3
4-1
o. x;
n) 60
0)
l4
4->
o
d
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
in
o
o
o
o
to
o
o
o
^
-*
o
o
d
to
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
oo
PO
vO
in
o
-*
vO
-*
to
t^
<o
<^
iH
in
in
^
-*
to
U
«
.
o
,
U
■
0)
Wi
c
u
f-H
o
VI
0)
!_1
•H
(11
r-4
§
>)
»-4
•H
x;
4-1
4J
Q
ifl
c
4J
4J
X
•H
•H
4)
s
•r4
b.
a:
Ol.
W
43
00
On
60
M
(V
OQ
o
to
2-35a
Attempts to establish a viable sport fishery in the
Noxon Rapids and Cabinet Gorge reservoirs have been mostly
unsuccessful. However, a shift in management emphasis in
1982 away from cold water fish species, such as rainbow
trout, to cool water species, such as smallmouth bass, h^fe
shown great promise for future fisheries. Efforts on each
reservoir have differed due to different reservoir condi-
tions.
Cabinet Gorge Reservoir
The Cabinet Gorge water exchange rate (or flushing time)
is currently about one to three days during spring high water
and about one week during the remainder of the year.
Reservoir fluctuations from 1953-85 were slightly different
because Cabinet Gorge was used as a reregulation reservoir
for Noxon Rapids Reservoir, which came on line in 1959.
Typically, daily and weekly fluctuations during that period
often were two to four feet respectively; annual maximum
fluctuations seldom exceeded ten feet.
Attempts to establish a sport fishery at Cabinet Gorge
Reservoir during the period of 1953 through 1963 included
planting large numbers of hatchery-reared salmonids. During
these years, a total of about 1.7 million kokanee salmon, 1.2
million Yellowstone cutthroat, 0.1 million silver salmon, and
0.5 million rainbow trout were released into the reservoir.
These planted fish provided a very limited sport fishery and
did not establish self-sustaining populations within the
reservoir.
From 1963 to the present, fish planting has been
limited to planting catchable-size rainbow trout near the
Bull River campground and eyed brown trout eggs near the
mouth of Elk Creek in an attempt to establish a spawning run.
The emphasis for fishery management has been shifted to Noxon
Rapids Reservoir because the fishery that develops there will
probably determine the fishery in Cabinet Gorge Reservoir.
Noxon Rapids Reservoir
This reservoir has rapid water exchange rates of about
one exchange per week during a normal spring high water
period and one exchange per three weeks during the remainder
of the year. During maximum drawdown of 54 feet, the surface
area is reduced from 8,600 acres at full pool to 5,500 acres.
Reservoir operation during the 1958-79 period followed
two distinct patterns. From 1958-60, maximum annual drawdown
was limited to ten feet, and from 1961-79 maximum annual
2-36
drawdown ranged from 2 6 to 54 feet and averaged 35 feet. In
1961, Noxon Rapids Reservoir was integrated into the
Northwest Power Pool under terms of the Northwest Power
Coordination Agreement. Deep, spring season drawdowns were
in response to calls for power from the Bonneville Power
Administration or other utilities. The spring drawdowns also
created up to 230,000 AF of storage space for flood control.
Initial fisheries management efforts to establish a
viable fishery in Noxon Rapids Reservoir were mostly
unsuccessful. Chemical treatment to remove unwanted rough
fish followed by planting rainbow trout fingerlings produced
an excellent fishery for a brief period when the river was
first impounded. Subsequent fish plantings have included
brown trout (690,000 fry), kokanee salmon (1,000,000 fry),
westslope cutthroat trout (926,000 fingerlings), burbot (420
adults), and rainbow trout (200,000 fingerlings). These
plants have been unsuccessful.
Fish populations noticeably increased from 1980 to 1985.
During this period, Noxon Rapids Reservoir drawdowns were
within a maximum of 12 feet. Increased numbers of game fish
and forage fish during this period are believed to be a
result of the relatively more stable reservoir conditions.
In 1982 and 1983, smallmouth bass were planted in the
reservoir, and by 1984, the fish were being caught by
anglers. At the same time, the numbers of largemouth bass
were also increasing.
A new reservoir operation plan that reduces the extent
and frequency of drawdowns was initiated in 1986 following a
meeting of the Washington Water Power Company, the Northwest
Power Planning Council, and the DFWP. In 1985, the DFWP and
WWP began a three-year pilot fisheries development program.
Hundreds of thousands of brown trout eggs and fingerlings
and over 2,000 adult burbot have been planted in the
reservoirs. The program was recently extended through 1989
and expanded to include enhancements for bass.
The fish populations of both Noxon Rapids and Cabinet
Gorge reservoirs have been periodically sampled with gill
nets since 1958. The results indicate a shift in species
composition, probably as a response to the more stable water
levels in the 1980s. Mountain whitefish, rainbow trout, and
bull trout are substantially reduced in Cabinet Gorge, while
the numbers of largemouth bass, brown trout, and yellow
perch have increased. Surveys also indicate increased
numbers of brown trout are spawning in the Bull River, a
tributary to Cabinet Gorge Reservoir.
Fish population samples from Noxon Rapids Reservoir
indicate fairly stable populations from 1960 through 1982,
2-37
followed by a marked increase in 1987. Much of the increased
catch consisted of yellow perch, squawfish, and coarsescale
suckers. Brown trout increased during 1982-87 probably due
to improved natural reproduction. Bull trout and rainbow
trout numbers have remained relatively stable, while large-
mouth and smallmouth bass appear to be increasing. The
stabilization of reservoir levels appears to have improved
benthic populations and enhanced populations of forage fish
species, such as redside shiners, yellow perch, peamouth, and
pumpkinseed. Burbot have not been taken in the gill net
samples, and special sampling efforts will be required to
determine their success.
Growth rates of brown trout and yellow perch have
increased during the 1980s. The drawdown restrictions of
Noxon reservoir is expected to result in both improved growth
rate and greater fish numbers in the future.
Fisherman Use and Benefits
The number of fishermen using a body of water is one
measure of its value as a recreational resource. Fisherman
use, or "fishing pressure," on Montana waters has been
estimated by the DFWP each year since 1982. The Montana
Fisheries Survey uses a questionnaire mailed to a sample of
fishing license holders to determine where and how often they
have fished. The data are compiled for individual lakes and
streams and summed to provide a measure of fishing pressure
in an entire drainage.
The estimated total fishing pressure on all lakes and
streams within the Clark Fork Basin (excluding the upper
Flathead River drainage) has ranged from 215,272 to 242,691
angler days per year in the four annual surveys conducted
since 1982. The fishing pressure statistics indicate
resident fishermen accounted for 83 percent of the total,
while 17 percent were nonresidents from various locations in
the region (McFarland 1988).
A comparison of fishing pressure between streams and
between segments of a stream is an indication of relative
recreational importance. Table 2-21 provides a breakdown of
the 1985-86 fishing pressure statistics for streams in the
Clark Fork Basin and for some selected Montana rivers. The
data indicate that all segments of the Clark Fork sustain
significant fishing pressure. Fishing pressure on individual
segments of the river (upper and middle river) are comparable
to pressure on the Blackfoot River and Rock Creek. Much
higher fishing pressure occurs on Montana's more famous
trout streams such as the Madison and Big Hole rivers.
2-38
TABLE 2-21. ESTIMATED FISHING PRESSURE ON THE CLARK FORK
AND SELECTED MONTANA RIVERS (1985-86)
Fishing Pressure
River (Angler days per year)
Lower Clark Fork (includes tribs.) 21,237
Middle Clark Fork (mainstem) 3 0,414
Middle Clark Fork Tributaries 6,835
Upper Clark Fork (mainstem) 17,578
Upper Clark Fork Tributaries 24,208
Bitterroot River (mainstem) 56,024
Blackfoot River (mainstem) 28,974
Rock Creek (mainstem) 27,881
Big Hole River 47,910
Madison River 108,712
State Total 1,192,658
Source: Duf field et al. 1987.
Although differences in pressure among streams may
reflect fishing success, other factors such as access,
distance to population centers, aesthetics, fishing regula-
tions, etc., may have an equally important influence on the
numbers of fishermen using a stream.
In the past, the primary indicator of the economic value
of fish and wildlife in Montana has been dollars spent by
sportsmen. Although these expenditures are important to
local and state economies, they do not reflect the total
recreational value of the resource that includes the personal
benefits one receives from hunting and fishing (Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 1988b) .
In 1985, the DFWP in cooperation with the U.S. Forest
Service (USES) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ,
initiated a two-year study to document the recreation value
of sport fishing and hunting in Montana (Duf field et al.
1987) . Using widely accepted recreation analysis methods
(U.S. Water Resources Council 1979, 1983), the department was
able to develop an estimate of how much additional amount
recreationists would be willing to pay over and above their
actual travel costs to have access to a particular site for
fishing. The study data provide net economic values
appropriate for benefit/cost analysis or where economic
efficiency decisions are being made.
The data used in the study of fishing values were
obtained through questionnaires mailed to approximately
36,000 resident (92 percent) and nonresident (8 percent)
2-39
fishermen. Fifty-four percent, or 19,271 of the surveys were
returned. In addition, a supplemental survey was administer-
ed to obtain socio-economic data from approximately 2,000
fishermen. All data were then analyzed to estimate fishing
pressure, net economic values (willingness to pay) , and
actual expenditures by fishermen on the major fishing
streams and lakes in Montana.
The net economic value for the Clark Fork and other
important Montana rivers is shown in Table 2-22. The value
per day multiplied by fishing pressure provides estimated
annual site value. The site values for the Clark Fork
mainstem indicate the upper Clark Fork is valued at about
one-half the middle river. The lower river value is the
highest, but data for this segment include tributary data
that undoubtedly influenced the results.
The upper Clark Fork is valued at a fraction of the more
popular fishing streams such as the Big Hole, Bitterroot, and
Blackfoot. The sum total value of stream fishing in the
Clark Fork Basin is estimated to be approximately $8.1
million. Lake fishing in the basin was estimated to be worth
an additional $2.6 million. The authors of the economic
evaluation consider these values to be highly conservative
but useful measures of the relative economic importance of
sport fishing in Montana.
TABLE 2-22.
NET ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE CLARK FORK
AND SELECTED MONTANA RIVERS
Stream
Value/ Day
Site Value
(in thousands
of dollars)
Lower Clark Fork (includes tribs.)
Middle Clark Fork (mainstem)
Upper Clark Fork (mainstem)
Bitterroot (mainstem)
Blackfoot (mainstem)
Rock Creek (mainstem)
Madison
Big Hole
State Total
$64.51
$
1,370
30.27
921
23.97
421
$32.41
$
1,816
65.30
1,880
61.82
1,724
$75.16
$
8,171
61.82
1,724
$57,081
Source: Duf field et al. 1987.
2-40
CHAPTER 3
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND PROBLEMS
This chapter outlines current environmental issues and
problems in the Clark Fork Basin. While water quality
problems have often been the focus of discussion in the past,
serious water quantity issues in the basin need to be
addressed as well.
Many of the environmental problems identified in this
report occur throughout the drainage. However, the nature
and severity of the problems vary in the three river
segments. The most critical issues in the upper basin are
heavy metals contamination of surface and ground water,
soils, and sediments; seasonal dewatering of the mainstem and
tributaries; and high nutrient inputs that result in
excessive algae growth. In the middle river segment, the
main concerns are industrial and wastewater treatment plant
discharges that contain nutrients and toxic compounds; a
poor-quality fishery in some reaches; seasonal dewatering of
tributaries; and loss of aesthetic qualities. The lower
river's problems stem largely from the flow regime and water
level regulation in the three reservoirs, which has resulted
in poor fisheries. Other concerns include nutrient con-
centrations, nuisance algae and aquatic weeds, and the
threat of eutrophication in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho.
The chapter begins with a discussion of the issues of
water rights and instream flow reservations. Sections on the
status of Superfund investigations, metals-contaminated
lands, surface water quality, eutrophication and nutrients,
nonpoint source pollution, ground water quality, and
fisheries, recreation, and aesthetics follow.
WATER RIGHTS
Introduction
The 1979 Montana Legislature enacted legislation
modifying the current statewide general adjudication. All
water-right holders, including those in the Clark Fork Basin,
were required to file claims on their pre-1973 water uses
before April 30, 1982, with the DNRC. Those entities
claiming Indian and non-Indian federal reserved water rights
had the option of either submitting claims to the DNRC by the
April 30, 1982 deadline or initiating negotiation with the
3-1
Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission. This commission
has the authority to negotiate the quantification of Indian
and non-Indian federal reserved water rights. Negotiated
compacts, after being ratified by the Montana Legislature and
tribal governing body, would be included in the appropriate
preliminary and final decree as part of the statewide
general adjudication.
The 1973 Water Use Act gave the DNRC responsibility for
approving provisional water use permits and changes to water
rights. A provisional permit is a right to beneficially use
water where the right has been acquired through application
to and approval of the DNRC. The applicant must show that
water is available and no adverse effect will result to
senior users before a provisional permit cna be administra-
tively granted. Similarly, a change in place of use, purpose
of use, point of diversion, or place of storage can be
administratively authorized for perfected water rights. The
DNRC will authorize changes in water rights if the applicant
shows adverse effect will not result to other users and the
proposed change is still a beneficial use of water.
The 1973 Water Use Act also required that DNRC develop a
centralized records system that included both existing and
permitted water rights. The computerized records system
established by the DNRC contains a variety of specific
information on certain types of water rights or summary
information on water rights by drainage basin. Information
on water availability for future development within specific
drainage basins is not easily obtainable. Many variables,
including water use system efficiencies, the magnitude and
timing of return flows, variations in the timing of withdraw-
als and applications, storage rights, changing hydrologic and
meterologic conditions, and the magnitude, location, and
seniority of water rights affect the supply available at any
given time. However, such information is essential for
management of water resources in the future.
Pre-1973 Water Rights Claimed Through Statewide Adjudication
A summary of the number of pre-1973 claims for major
water uses by drainage basin has been compiled in Table 3-1.
A number of claims were submitted after the filing date, and
their legal status is unknown.
The pre-1973 water right claims submitted as part of the
general adjudication were computer sorted from the DNRC's
centralized records. Six general types of water use were
identified — hydropower, fish and wildlife, municipal,
irrigation, rural domestic, and other. The amount of water
claimed for each type is listed in Table 3-2. Because
3-2
TABLE 3-1. NUMBER OF PRE-1973 WATER RIGHTS CLAIMED FOR MAJOR WATER USES
IN THE CLARK FORK SUBBASINS (JUNE 24, 1985)
Major
Water Uses
Subbasins
Stock
I rrigation
Domestic
Other
Total
Middle Fork Flathead
3
11
85
79
178
South Fork Flathead
0
1
34
89
124
Swan
60
142
286
69
557
Lower Flathead
1,143
1.133
534
161
2,971
North Fork Flathead,
548
1,470
2,493
481
4,992
Stillwater, and
Flathead Lake
Flint Creek-Rock Creek
551
723
196
241
1,711
Blackfoot
1,490
953
640
535
3,618
Upper Clark Fork
1,665
2,027
452
508
4,652
Bitterroot
2,857
5,015
545
490
8,907
Middle Clark Fork
543
977
402
537
2,459
Lower Clark Fork
296
322
368
182
1.168
9,156 12,774
6,035
3,372 31,337
Source: DNRC 1985.
TABLE 3-2.
THE QUANTITY
OF
WATER CLAIMED
FOR
MAJOR
WATER USES
IN
THE
CLARK FORK BASIN
Number of
Flow Rate
Volume
Acres
Use
C I a i ms
(cfs)
(AF)
Irrigated
Hydropower
93
203,568
Fish & Wildlifi
e 533
220,137
Municipal
117
548
276,469
Irrigation
10,961
329,393
62,
,240,779
1,937,721
Rural Domestic
3,063
829
1,
,775,115
Other
781
15,548
15.925
770,400
_L
66,
.936.932
,229,795
Totals
1,937,721
(Consumptive) 346,695
(Nonconsumptive) 423,705
Source: DNRC 1988b.
Note: The total number of claims referenced in Table 3-
1 does not equal the number of claims tallied in Table 3-2
because diversion information was incomplete on some of the
claims accounted for in Table 3-1. Claims with incomplete
diversion data were not included in Table 3-2.
3-2a
hydropower and fish and wildlife are primarily nonconsumptive
uses, the water can be re-used to satisfy appropriations
downstream and/or nonconsumptive appropriations upstream. By
definition, consumptive water rights include appropriations
of water withdrawn from the stream or ground water profile
and used generally outside an aquifer or stream channel.
Consumptive uses usually affect the flow of the river by
causing a certain depletion. Water that does return to the
stream may not do so in a timely and predictable manner.
The information in Table 3-2 suggests that the amount of
water claimed would exceed by several times the normal flow
or volume of the Clark Fork. The number of claimed irrigated
acres exceeds by about four times the 400,000 acres refer-
enced in Chapter 2. These statistics indicate that con-
siderable overestimating of water use occurred during the
claim filing as part of the general adjudication of the Clark
Fork. One reason that the number of acres associated with
adjudication claims is greater than the DNRC's estimate of
actual acreage in use is that the same irrigated acreage has
been claimed under more than one water right.
Hydropower
There are several large hydropower projects in the Clark
Fork Basin. These include the Bureau of Reclamation's Hungry
Horse Dam on the South Fork Flathead River; the Montana Power
Company's Kerr Dam on Flathead Lake and Thompson Falls Dam on
the lower Clark Fork; and Washington Water Power Company's
Noxon Rapids and Cabinet Gorge dams on the lower Clark Fork.
The hydropower claims for the five largest Montana facilities
are:
Claimant River Flow
Bureau of Reclamation South Fork 55,156 cfs
(Hungry Horse) Flathead
Washington Water Power Co. Lower Clark Fork 35,000 cfs
(Noxon Rapids)
Montana Power Company Lower Flathead 14,540 cfs
(Kerr)
Montana Power Company Lower Clark Fork 11,120 cfs
(Thompson Falls)
Montana Power Company Middle Clark Fork 2,000 cfs
(Milltown)
3-3
Instream Flow Rights
In 1969, the Montana Legislature passed a law that
allowed the Montana Fish and Game Commission to appropriate
water for instream flows in 12 "blue ribbon" streams.
Section 89-801 RCM 1947 (Chapter 345, laws of 1969) is the
authority for these appropriations. In the Columbia Basin,
these streams were Rock Creek near Missoula, the Blackfoot
River, and the Flathead River and its north, middle and south
forks. These appropriations were completed by the Commission
in December 1970 and January 1971 under the water law
procedures of that time and became known as "Murphy Rights,"
after the sponsor of the legislation. This legislation was
repealed with the passage of the Water Use Act of 197 3 that
created the water reservation process.
Rock Creek and the Blackfoot River are the only Murphy
Rights streams in the portion of the basin considered in this
report. Those rights are described below.
Rock Creek (near Missoula) . Rock Creek has an instream
flow right with a priority date of January 6, 1971, from the
mouth to Ranch Creek (14 miles), and January 7, 1971, from
Ranch Creek to the headwaters (42 miles) . The following flow
quantities were claimed under Senate Bill 76:
Stream Reach
Mouth to Ranch Creek
(14 miles)
Ranch Creek to
headwaters
Period of
Flow
Volume
the Year
fcfs)
fAF)
7/16-4/30
250
143,272
5/1-5/15
454
13,504
5/16-5/31
975
30,935
6/1-6/15
926
27,544
6/16-6/30
766
22,785
7/1-7/15
382
11,363
7/16-4/30
150
85,963
5/1-5/15
454
13,504
5/1-6-5/31
975
30,935
6/1-6/15
926
27,544
6/16-6/30
766
22,785
7/1-7/15
382
11,363
Blackfoot River. This stream has an instream flow right
with a priority date of January 6, 1971, from the mouth to
the Clearwater River (34 miles), and January 7, 1971, from
the Clearwater River to the north fork of the Blackfoot River
(18 miles) . The following flow quantities were claimed under
3-4
Senate Bill 76:
Period of
Flow
Volume
Stream Reach
the Year
rcfs^
fAF)
Mouth to Clearwater River
9/1-3/31
650
273,257
(34 miles)
4/1-4/15
700
20,822
4/16-4/30
1,130
33,612
5/1-6/30
2,000
241,926
7/1-7/15
1,523
45,302
7/16-8/31
700
65,241
Clearwater River to north
9/1-3/31
360
151,343
fork of the Blackfoot
4/1-4/30
500
29,475
(18 miles)
5/1-5/15
837
24,897
5/16-6/15
1,750
107,578
6/16-6/30
1,423
42,327
7/1-7/15
848
25,224
7/16-8/31
500
46,601
Other Claims. Under Section 85-2-223 MCA, the DFWP
filed an instream flow claim on the Bitterroot River as the
exclusive state representative of the public to establish a
prior and existing public recreational use of these waters.
use.
A priority date of July 1, 1970, is claimed for this
The following instream flows were claimed:
Stream Reach
Mouth to Stevensville Bridge 10/1-4/30
Stevensville Bridge to
Sleeping Child Creek
Sleeping Child Creek to
junction of east and west
forks
Period of
Flow
Volume
the Year
fcfs)
rAF)
10/1-4/30
900
378,356
5/1-6/30
7,700
916,146
15,000
29,745
(1 day)
7/1-9/30
600
109.462
1,433,709
10/1-4/30
500
210,198
5/1-6/30
5,500
654,390
11,000
21,813
(1 day)
7/1-9/30
300
54,731
941,132
10/1-4/30
350
147,139
5/1-6/30
3,000
356,940
6,000
11,898
(1 day)
7/1-9/30
250
45,609
561,586
3-5
In addition, recreational claims related to fish and
wildlife have been filed on 11 lakes in the Clark Fork Basin
below Kerr Dam. One lake is a pothole on the Ninepipe
Wildlife Management Area and the other ten lakes are in the
Blackfoot drainage. The following is a list of the claims:
Flow
Volume
Claimed
Unnamed pothole
rcfs
fAF/Y)
Priority Date
1.
2.0
15.0
5-4-62
Ninepipe WMA
2.
Brown • s Lake
50.0
7,273.0
5-14-28
3.
Clearwater Lake
25.0
10,399.2
9-30-36
4.
Harper ' s Lake
5.0
273.2
5-24-33
5.
Lake Alva
500.0
88,013.0
9-5-28
6.
Lake Inez
1.5
101,936.0
8-7-28
7.
Placid Lake
800.0
104,741.0
9-15-28
8.
Rainy Lake
300.0
23,105.0
5-7-31
9.
Salmon Lake
2
,800.0
242,749.0
9-13-28
10.
Seeley Lake
1
,500.0
203,091.0
9-20-28
11.
Upsata Lake
5.0
1,477.9
5-27-58
Status of Statewide Adiudication
A total of 31,337 claims were filed in the 13 subbasins
of the Clark Fork drainage. Temporary preliminary decrees
have been issued in seven of the 13 subbasins as part of the
statewide general adjudication (Table 3-3) . A temporary
preliminary decree (which precedes a preliminary decree) does
not include Indian and non-Indian federally reserved water
rights. The negotiated reserved water rights are required by
statute to be included in a preliminary decree.
A total of 10,862 claims have been incorporated in
temporary preliminary decrees in seven subbasins. Temporary
preliminary decrees have yet to be issued in six subbasins
that affect 20,488 claims.
The DNRC is providing claim examination assistance to
the Montana Water Court by identifying certain issues and
factual discrepancies related to the claimed historic water
use. From 1982 through 1985, the DNRC followed a set of
verification procedures that were authorized by the Water
Court. These procedures were not open to public inspection
and comment during their drafting and implementation. In
addition, the rules were frequently changed by the Water
Court as they were being applied by the DNRC.
3-6
TABLE 3-3. TEHPORARY PRELIMINARY DECREE ISSUANCE DATES,
CLARK FORK SUBBASINS
Subbasin Name
Issue Date
C I a i ms
Submi tted
Total Claims
Decreed
Lower Clark Fork
2-28-84
1,168
1,128
Flint Creek-Rock Creek
3-29-84
1,711
1,699
Middle Fork Flathead
8-09-84
178
200
South Fork Flathead
8-09-84
124
124
Swan
8-09-84
557
633
Middle Clark Fork
3-05-85
2.459
2,486
Upper Clark Fork
5-17-85
4,652
4,592
Lower Flathead
2,971
North Fork Flathead,
Stillwater, and
Flathead Lake
4,992
Blackfoot
3,618
Bitterroot
8.907
31,337
10,862
Source: DNRC 1988b.
A petition for writ of supervisory control of the Water
Court was filed before the Montana Supreme Court in July
1985. The petition questioned the accuracy and validity of
the decrees, charged due process violations, and alleged
substantive errors in the adjudication. Before the Supreme
Court ruled on the petition, a stipulation was negotiated out
of court and signed by the Water Court and several parties
agreeing to resolve the petitioned allegations. Among other
things, the stipulation called for new procedures for
examining pre-1973 water right claims.
The stipulation also confirmed what assistance the DNRC
would provide to the Water Court in the adjudication process.
The DNRC would factually analyze water right claims for
accuracy and completeness and identify issues. The issues
would include apparent factual discrepancies that appear to
have uncertain support from historical evidence. The legal
and due process considerations would not be issues reported
by DNRC as part of their assistance to the Water Court. The
stipulation also described how the DNRC's analysis would be
incorporated into the Water Court's decrees.
In response to the stipulation, the DNRC drafted a set
of procedural rules for examining water right claims. The
Montana Water Court ordered the DNRC to refrain from adopting
the rules under the Montana Administrative Procedures Act
(MAPA) . The Water Court, as the judicial authority for the
3-7
general adjudication of water rights, claimed autocratic
control over all adjudication activity and preferred to adopt
the administrative rules as judicial rules. This issue went
before the Montana Supreme Court. On March 31, 1986, the
Supreme Court decided the claim examination procedures were
judicial in nature and so reserved for the Supreme Court. On
that basis, the Supreme Court adopted the rules with a
notice and review similar to the MAPA process.
The DNRC, working with the Water Court, submitted a
draft of the rules to the Supreme Court for adoption on April
30, 1986. The Supreme Court issued these Water Rights Claim
Examination Rules with an effective July 15, 1987, date for
implementation. A review period until March 15, 1988, was
provided to allow comment and suggestion on the application
and structure of the rules. A final ruling is pending.
The Supreme Court's Water Rights Claims Examination
Rules are expected to provide a markedly improved opportunity
for an equitable and thorough claims examination. The rules
are intended to provide a standard format for the DNRC to
provide assistance to the Water Court. The new rules will
also improve the consistency of claims examination. The
Supreme Court's opinion adopting the examination rules,
however, did not decide due process and separation of
judicial and executive power concerns. The rules do not
address the consistency of previously issued temporary
preliminary decrees with the new standards.
Following adoption of the rules by the Montana Supreme
Court, several parties, such as the U. S. Department of
Justice, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
and the Montana Power Company, asked the Water Court to have
the DNRC prepare reports comparing the former claims
examination with the recently adopted Supreme Court proce-
dures, and in some cases to order actual reexaminations. The
Water Court denied requests for reexamination and took
requests for comparison reports under advisement but ordered
none. The parties feel that the new rules may afford a
factually prudent examination that is more consistent,
thorough, equitable, and accurate than the previous Water
Court verification procedures.
At the current rate of claims examination and with the
current level of staffing, the DNRC believes that it will
require until the year 2000 to examine the remaining non-
decreed claims within the Clark Fork drainage. In 1987, the
DNRC estimated that it would take four and one-half years to
reexamine the Clark Fork drainage claims previously entered
into temporary preliminary decrees, using procedures
consistent with the new examination rules (Larry Holman,
DNRC, Helena, personal communication, April 1988) .
3-8
The timetable for the final adjudication of all water
rights in the Clark Fork drainage is uncertain for several
reasons. First, it is uncertain if and when compacts
regarding Indian and federal reserved rights will be reached.
Second, because of the controversy over the adequacy of the
present adjudication, a legislative study (Water Policy
Committee) of the adjudication by out-of-state consultants
is presently underway. That study, due to be completed in
the late fall of 1988, is to recommend possible legislative
changes. It is unclear at this time what changes, if any,
might be recommended or enacted and how they might affect the
timing of the adjudication. Third, litigation over the
adequacy of the adjudication continues and could increase.
The federal government has recently been before the Water
Court claiming that the present adjudication is not adequate
as currently applied. Additionally, the Confederated Salish
and Kootenai Tribes are currently before the Montana Supreme
Court arguing that the Supreme Court's adoption of the new
examination rules, which allow total control of the DNRC by
the Water Court, violates due process and separation of
powers principles.
Provisional Permits Issued Since 1973
The Montana Water Use Act of 1973 requires that an
application for a provisional water use permit be filed with
DNRC for any new or additional development of water made
after July 1, 1973. Applications for permits can be made at
the DNRC Water Rights Field Offices located in Helena,
Missoula, and Kalispell. Before the Department can issue a
provisional permit, the applicant must show that the new use
will not adversely affect senior users holding water rights.
The statutes (85-2-311, MCA) outline the criteria that must
be met before a provisional permit can be issued.
Table 3-4 identifies the number of provisional permits
issued since 1973 for each major category of use. Irrigation
accounts for the largest percentage of the diversionary uses
of surface water. The number of domestic use permits issued
is increasing because of many new rural subdivisions. Indus-
trial uses include both commercial and mining. There were a
number of provisional permits issued for fish and wildlife
purposes, and many of these were for fish farms. The largest
new-user category is hydropower. However, it should be noted
that 15,000 cfs of the total flow rate under the hydropower
category is associated with the provisional permit issued to
the Washington Water Power Company. The remaining 26
provisional permits for 441 cfs are for small-scale hydro-
power developments. Because of the projected need for
additional power during the early 1980s and tax-related
3-9
financial incentives, there was considerable interest in
developing small-scale hydropower facilities.
TABLE 3-4.
PROVISIONAL WATER USE PERMITS ISSUED
SINCE 1973
Purpose
Number of
Permits
Total Flow
(cfs)
Volume
AF/Y
Acres
Irrigation
Industrial
765
53
720.0
73.0
73,677
28,325
35,664
Domestic
707
26.0
1,520
255
Municipal
Hydropower*
Fish & Wildl
ife
2
27
150
3.7
15,441.0
130.0
2,142
180,282
67,599
790
Other
80
9.0
1,900
76
* A water permit for 15,000 cfs was granted to Washington
Water Power, which, when added to its existing water right
flow of 35,000 cfs, allows the hydroelectric facility to
be operated at full capacity.
Source: DNRC 1988b.
Ground Water Permitting Process
The interaction of surface and ground water raises some
difficult questions about basinwide management in the Clark
Fork system. Generally, DNRC's ground water permitting
decisions consider the surface water effects of ground water
withdrawals only where the relationship is straightforward
and the interaction a proximal one. Most commonly, this
means that if it is shown that a ground water diversion is
inducing recharge of an aquifer from a surface water source
(or "pumping surface water") , then the ground water proposal
will be viewed critically with regard to surface water avail-
ability. In the absence of such readily calculable inter-
actions, DNRC may notify controlling surface water users in
the basin, but beyond that step it will not normally analyze
ground water applications in the context of surface water
availability, instream flows, or surface water quality
objectives.
Aquifers constitute one flowpath component by which
water moves from the headwaters to the mainstem Clark Fork
and beyond. Most major aquifers in the Clark Fork Basin
receive recharge from the surface environment (precipitation,
3-10
losing reaches of tributary streams, or the Clark Fork
itself) , and most discharge along relatively short flowpaths
back to the surface environment. Aquifers respond to new
ground water withdrawals (wells) with potentiometric
adjustments that either increase inflow to the aquifer or
decrease discharge to the surface environment or both. Some
part of this response may involve increased inflows from
other aquifers with more remote relationships to the basin's
surface water environment. More often, the major hydrologic
response is likely to be an eventual adjustment of surface
water flows in some other part of the system.
The fact that DNRC's ground water permitting has not
always reflected these physical realities can be attributed
to two factors. First is the information requirement for
realistically assessing the overall hydrologic consequences
of a given level and manner of ground water development.
This level of understanding is only achieved for a given
aquifer system through an intensive research program. Often,
complex aquifer responses are only predictable through the
creation of computer simulations, which in turn rest heavily
on an adequate base of regional field information. Because
DNRC does not collect much of this type of data itself
(viewing it as a research function appropriately left to
other agencies and the university system) , the opportunities
for the ground water permitting process to meaningfully
consider integrated hydrologic implications are limited by
others' research priorities and DNRC's ability to direct
those priorities.
The second factor is the comparative scale of existing
ground water withdrawals with respect to surface water use in
the major hydrologic basins. In the Missoula Aquifer, for
instance, annual withdrawals for all purposes average about
60,700 acre-feet (Missoula City-County Health Department
1987) , some of which returns to the aquifer as water main
leakage, septic system discharge, and other recharge
flowpaths. This appears minor in relation to the discharge
of the Clark Fork, which averages 2.2 million acre-feet/year
at a point upstream of the Missoula Aquifer's recharge area.
However, the generous hydraulic characteristics of the
Missoula Aquifer present the possibility of substantially
increasing ground water withdrawals on a sustainable basis.
Ground water withdrawals amounting to several percent of the
raainstem Clark Fork's flows seem significant where consump-
tive and instream priorities, including surface water
quality, compete for available flows. Similar arguments
could be made regarding other aquifers in the basin that are
capable of supplying high yields to wells, as most have
significant recharge/discharge relationships with the basin's
streams.
3-11
The correlation between water management and physical
ground water behavior could be improved if water use
permitting recognized the unity of water resources in the
basin's streams and principal aquifers. Surface water
permitting would have to recognize aquifer recharge among the
significant "instream" water needs and ground water permit-
ting would have to recognize effects on downgradient gaining
streams, though the consequences may seem minor on an
individual project basis and remote at the time of permit-
ting. In a practical sense, this means adopting as manage-
ment tools the research data and aquifer model derived from
areas where such work has been done. Just as importantly,
the permitting process needs to recognize the concept of
conjunctive surface water and ground water management. This
concept provides the framework in which to incorporate
detailed information on regional aquifer behavior as it
accumulates.
Indian and Non-Indian Federal Reserved Water Rights
U. S. Forest Service
Rights Claimed by the U. S. for National Forest
Purposes . Water claimed by the United States on behalf of
the USDA Forest Service in the Clark Fork Basin is both
consumptive and nonconsumptive. These claims are based upon
"Federal reserved rights" and Montana water laws. Reserved
rights are established when lands are withdrawn from the
public domain for a federal purpose. At that time, appur-
tenant water, then unappropriated, is implicitly reserved to
the extent necessary to accomplish those purposes. The
extent of these "rights" and the specific purposes of the
reservation is an ongoing litigative process and is yet
unclear.
Consumptive claims are a minor part of the U.S. Forest
Service reserved water rights in the Clark Fork Basin.
However, claims have been filed with the Montana Water Court
for many uses, such as: stock water, summer homes, recrea-
tional facilities, and Forest Service work facilities.
Federal reserved rights claimed by the Forest Service
for national forests in the Clark Fork Basin are generally
grouped into two categories — channel maintenance flow needs
and other resource needs. Both of these flow needs are
nonconsumptive, and the water claims would be available to
other users below the forest boundaries. Channel maintenance
flows are needed to maintain natural stream channel systems
and are an integral part of sound watershed management.
These flows help to maintain streambank stability and
3-12
riparian vegetation and provide for sediment transport.
Channel maintenance flows are similar to maintaining
irrigation ditches so that irrigation water can flow freely.
While the irrigator uses mechanical means to keep his ditches
clean, the Forest Seirvice aims for channels that maintain
themselves naturally through instream flows.
Flows for other resource needs include purposes as set
forth by Congress for wild and scenic rivers, fisheries,
wildlife, etc. Flows for the various purposes will be
negotiated with the Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission.
Status of Negotiation with Reserved Water Rights Compact
Commission. The Forest Service is the only USDA agency with
reserved rights claims in the Clark Fork Basin. Negotiations
between the Reserved Water Rights Compact Commission and the
USDA have been initiated. Although this negotiation is
currently inactive, the USDA negotiator is still optimistic
that a compact can be developed by the parties.
Current Water Related Litigation. In United States v.
Jesse, the federal government asserted that lands withdrawn
for the Pike and San Isabel national forests in Colorado
included the water necessary to maintain minimum instream
flows. The claim was based on a definition of favorable
conditions of water flow as identified in the Organic
Administration Act of 1897. The act requires streamflows
necessary to maintain stream channels so that hydrologic
function is not impaired. The decision against the United
States by the District Court was reversed and remanded by the
Colorado Supreme Court on the basis of recent advances in the
science of fluvial geomorphology. While the Colorado Supreme
Court has stated in United States v. City and County of
Denver that the Organic Act did not implicitly reserve water
necessary to maintain instream water flows in national
forests, it was also not excluded. Because the United States
has not attempted to prove instream flow rights in previous
litigation, the court found that the matter had not been
litigated and that the Forest Service should have its day in
court. While the court did not give the Forest Service
instream flow rights, it has provided the opportunity to
prove the case.
■ g
■ ft
3-13
The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead
Reservation
The Flathead Indian Reservation, located in Lake,
Sanders, Flathead, and Missoula counties, consists of
1,242,969 acres, over half of which is tribal or individual
trust land. The population on the reservation is approxi-
mately 4,550 Indians and 16,000 non-Indians. The BIA, on
behalf of the Tribes, made claims for Indian water rights,
all appropriative water rights previously acquired, and water
rights appurtenant to lands owned by the Confederated Salish
and Kootenai Tribes as required by the statewide adjudica-
tion. The generic claims are for "all water arising upon,
flowing by, through, or under the reservation, necessary for
purposes of the reservation. . .as of the date of the reserva-
tion, and/or from time immemorial based on the tribe's
aboriginal ownership of the lands and waters that now
comprise the reservation, whichever is earlier." The BIA has
also submitted claims for instream flows in the Flathead
Basin necessary to protect the Tribes' aboriginal rights
recognized and guaranteed pursuant to the treaty of Hellgate,
Montana, July 16, 1855. A major concern of non-Indians on
this reservation is the effect the tribal water rights will
have on non-Indian water rights and uses associated with the
Flathead Indian Irrigation Project.
The tribes have met a few times with the Reserved Water
Rights Compact Commission over the past ten years, but little
progress has been made. The Compact Commission has made no
attempt to meet with the Confederated Tribes since 1985
because of the legislature's directive to focus the adjudica-
tion on the Milk River Basin.
Although the Tribes have chosen to proceed with
negotiation of their reserved rights, litigation in federal
court has occurred over their claimed water rights.
In 1985 the Tribes determined that drought conditions
would diminish flows and decrease water levels in the
reseirvation's rivers and reservoirs. The Tribes sought to
prevent irreparable damage to the tribal fisheries by
enjoining the BIA from distributing waters to the Flathead,
Mission, and Jocko Irrigation Districts in such a manner as
to deplete the streams and reservoirs. The Joint Board of
the Flathead, Mission, and Jocko Irrigation Districts (Joint
Board) intervened. After the Federal District Court issued a
temporary restraining order in the favor of the Tribes, the
parties entered into a stipulation that established minimum
streamflows and reservoir water levels for the 1985 irriga-
tion season and set the procedure for establishing future
minimum flows and water levels. The case was later dismissed
as moot.
3-14
In 1986 the Joint Board took exception to the BIA's new
operating strategy that provided greater protection for
tribal fisheries by ensuring minimum streamflow and minimum
reservoir levels. The Joint Board brought a suit for
injunctive relief (in essence arguing for an eguitable
sharing of the water) , and this time the Tribes intervened.
The Federal District Court issued a temporary restraining
order against the BIA and after a hearing issued a prelimi-
nary injunction enjoining the BIA from continuing to deliver
water according to the new operating strategy. The Federal
District Court counseled that the BIA must be guided by the
principle of "just and equal distribution" of "all waters of
the reservation." On appeal the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that "just and
equal distribution" applied by a certain federal statute only
where all of the parties derived their rights from the same
source and all showed the same priority date, but did not
apply on the Flathead Reservation to the extent the Tribes
exercised the aboriginal fishing rights and where treaty
language clearly preserved those rights and the water needed
for them. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled:
...it was error, therefore, for the
district court to hold that water claimed
under potentially prior tribal fishing
rights must be shared with junior appro-
priators, and that the requirement of
equitable sharing could be imposed
without addressing the Tribes' claim of
aboriginal fishing water rights.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that because any aboriginal
fishing rights secured by treaty are prior to all irrigation
rights, neither the BIA, nor the Tribes are subject to a duty
of fair and equal distribution of reserved fishery waters.
Only after the fishery waters are protected does the BIA have
a duty to distribute fairly and equitably the remaining
waters among irrigators of equal priority.
It is important to note that this case did not amount
to an adjudication of the Tribes' water rights. It did,
however, give credence to those claimed rights and sought to
protect them. The extent of those rights remains to be
concluded, either in a compact or an adjudication through
Montana's general stream adjudication.
3-15
INSTREAM FLOW RESERVATIONS
Introduction
A water right for instream beneficial use for fish,
wildlife, and recreation may be obtained only through the
water reservation process.
Since the implementation of the 1973 Water Use Act, the
DFWP has objected to the issuance of water use permits where
such permits were thought to adversely affect instream flows
necessary to protect fish and wildlife. The DNRC has
determined that objections to new water use permits are
invalid unless the objector has a water right that would be
adversely affected. DNRC has determined that the DFWP has
valid objections only on those streams where it has instream
flow reservations or Murphy Rights. DFWP has no such
reservations in the Clark Fork Basin and has Murphy Rights
only on Rock Creek (near Missoula) and the Blackfoot River.
Water reservations will not make more water occur in
streams. They only establish a water use priority date for
fish and wildlife relative to other water right uses. They
prevent further dewatering through use of the appropriation
doctrine "first in time is first in right," and can affect
only those water users whose priority dates are later than
those of the reservations. The reservations' priority dates
are, by law, effective only after the reservations are
granted by the Board of Natural Resources.
Some proponents of instream flow protection have
suggested that Montana should recognize the public trust
doctrine as part of the state water management policy. In a
state that recognizes the doctrine, its agencies, courts, or
both, have the authority to reexamine and modify existing
water uses to protect public interests. The state, as a
trustee of natural resources, has a responsibility to protect
public uses whenever feasible. If the doctrine were accepted
in Montana, the state would screen and condition all water
appropriations on public interest criteria.
The following sections explain why instream flows are
important for the Clark Fork Basin.
Hvdropower Rights
The Washington Water Power Company has a water right of
50,000 cfs at Noxon Rapids Dam, of which 15,000 cfs is by a
provisional water use permit issued in 1976, and 35,000 cfs
is by a right filed in 1951. A flow of 50,000 cfs equals
more than 36 million AF per year — over twice the average
3-16
annual discharge of the river at Cabinet Gorge Dam (about
16 million AF) . These rights and the rights at the other
hydropower projects could, theoretically, preclude, or at
least limit, the issuance of additional upstream consumptive
water use permits. However, in addition to the 1976 permit
issued to the Washington Water Power Company, DNRC has
issued, since 1973, 1,683 water use permits upstream of Noxon
Rapids Dam, for a total of 380,589 AF of water (as of
September 1986) . Approximately 20 percent of this total
volume has been appropriated for irrigation purposes. Of the
1,683 water use permits, 214 permits totaling 95,436 AF have
been issued in the upper Clark Fork Basin above Milltown Dam.
The downstream hydropower water rights holders have not
objected to the issuance of water use permits by DNRC nor to
the use of water by the junior appropriators. Studies now
underway by BOR and DNRC may clarify existing circumstances
and stimulate new activity in those areas. DNRC may
intervene in the relicensing and amending of operating
licenses issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) with the intent of subordinating the hydropower water
rights to upstream consumptive use (primarily irrigation) if
state interests are not adequately addressed.
DNRC is investigating whether water exchanges between
the large hydropower projects would allow increased consump-
tive use while still satisfying existing hydropower rights.
An example of such a water exchange would be the transfer of
stored water from Hungry Horse Reservoir to Noxon Rapids to
satisfy Noxon 's hydropower rights, while at the same time •• ^t'
allowing continued issuance of consumptive water use permits
in the upper Clark Fork Basin. A recent study by the BOR
(1988) suggests that this may not be feasible and even if it
were, dewatering problems would continue in other parts of
the basin. In view of these circumstances, it has not been
practical or prudent to rely on the downstream hydropower
water rights to protect instream flows in the Clark Fork
Basin.
Fish. Wildlife, and Aquatic Resources
Fish, wildlife, and other living organisms depend upon
the flow of the Clark Fork and its tributary streams for
their basic habitat requirements. Due to the serious and
chronic nature of the pollution in the upper Clark Fork,
adequate streamflows must be maintained to prevent further
deterioration in water quality and to help protect the
investment being made to restore the river's water quality.
3-17
The reservations are needed to maintain fish habitat,
aquatic insect populations, and other aquatic plant and
animal life that sustain fish. Channel configuration in
conjunction with flow provides the only living space
available to aquatic organisms in streams. Adequate
streamflows are necessary for maintaining spawning and
rearing areas, providing suitable shelter, and producing food
organisms, including aquatic macroinvertebrates and forage
fish. In an aquatic ecosystem, water quantity is as critical
a component of fish habitat as is water quality.
Water Quality Benefits
Surface water in the upper Clark Fork suffers from
dramatic water pollution problems. The most serious problems
are the result of decades of mining and smelting activities
in the headwaters. There are massive deposits of mine
tailings in the Butte area, along Silver Bow Creek, and at
the sites of the Anaconda Smelter and Opportunity Pond
system. Runoff entering Silver Bow Creek from these areas is
acidic and has high concentrations of metals. Silver Bow
Creek is treated with lime at the Warm Springs Ponds on a
seasonal or streamflow basis to raise the pH and precipitate
the metals that are in solution.
In addition to mine tailings in the Butte-Anaconda area,
there are substantial deposits of mine tailings in the
riparian zone and floodplain of the upper Clark Fork itself.
These deposits are chronic sources of metal contamination to
the upper Clark Fork and they may contribute acutely toxic
concentrations of metals during periods of precipitation and
runoff.
There are several reasons why water pollution in the
Clark Fork is related to flows: 1) high streamflows greatly
increase metal concentrations by eroding mine tailings that
have been deposited in the floodplain. Some of the highest
metal concentrations in the Clark Fork occur during spring
runoff; 2) flows in Silver Bow Creek that exceed the capacity
of the Warm Springs Ponds are bypassed directly into the
upper Clark Fork; and 3) low-flow conditions can aggravate
water quality problems by reducing the amount of water
available for dilution of industrial and municipal discharges
and nonpoint pollution. Montana law does not recognize
dilution of wastewater as a beneficial use of water. As new
provisional water use permits are issued in the basin,
individuals holding wastewater discharge permits may be
affected but they do not have a legal basis for objecting to
the new permit applications. Current and future industrial
and municipal waste discharge permits could be affected by
chronic low-flow conditions, i.e., the allowable amount of
3-18
discharge would be reduced to accommodate the reduction in
dilution water of the receiving stream. However, adjusting
wastewater discharges in permits in response to chronic low-
flow conditions would be a slow process and would rely on
accurate, long-term stream discharge measurements for
calculating 7-day, 10-year low flows.
It is important to recognize that industrial and
municipal wastewater discharge permits do not provide water
rights. Water use permits allow diversion and consumption of
water without regard to impacts on water quality. (An
exception is for large diversions for which the applicant
must show compliance with specific public interest criteria.)
Reduced streamflows during the normal low-flow period
can affect the quality of water that is necessary to sustain
aquatic organisms. Other possible consequences of this
lowered streamflow are higher water temperatures, increased
amounts of dissolved solids, increased nutrient concentra-
tions, and lower dissolved oxygen levels. Reduced stream-
flows seasonally limit the ability of the Clark Fork to
assimilate its present pollution load. A reduction in
tributary streamflows will reduce the current capability of
tributary streams to discharge clean water into the Clark
Fork for dilution of pollutants.
An instream flow reservation can help to prevent the
further deterioration of water quality during low-flow
periods. A reservation can also help to provide adequate
flows for enhanced aquatic populations that may occur in the
future as existing pollution problems are reduced or,
hopefully, eliminated.
Water Supplv
Instream flows in the Clark Fork Basin are also
important from a water supply standpoint, particularly in the
Missoula area. The Clark Fork provides about 46 percent of,
the annual recharge to the Missoula Aquifer, which is the
major source of drinking water for the Missoula area. It
also supplies water to over 30 small community water systems
and to several industrial users. An estimated 65,000 of
Missoula County's 77,400 residents use water from the
Missoula Aquifer (Missoula City-County Health Department
1987) . Therefore, maintaining adequate instream flows in the
Clark Fork is crucial to these residents and to others in the
basin who derive their water from aquifers recharged by the
river.
3-19
Recreation. Aesthetics, and Tourism
The Clark Fork and its tributaries are important
fishing and recreation areas. Montana statutes recognize
this resource as worthy of protection. The fish species that
would be protected by instream flow reservations contribute
to the well-being of the people of Montana and visitors who
enjoy the fishing opportunities Montana has to offer. In
addition to sustaining existing recreation, adequate instream
flows would preserve the opportunity to enhance fish
populations as water quality improves. This, in turn, would
result in more recreational opportunities in the future.
If the instream flow reservations requested by DFWP in
the upper Clark Fork Basin are not granted, the deterioration
of aquatic habitat and recreational interests is inevitable.
The rate of deterioration would depend upon the degree to
which further dewatering would be allowed to occur. Such
deterioration is already evident in the Bitterroot River
drainage and in portions of the upper Clark Fork Basin.
The DFWP reservations are for the amounts of water
necessary to sustain the organisms without significant long-
term reduction in quantity and quality. Increased water
withdrawals over existing levels would, in the long run,
reduce the availability of habitat and, consequently, the
number of organisms that can occupy that habitat. There is a
limit to the amount of water that can be removed from any
stream channel without severely changing the quantity and
quality of the aquatic species present or limiting the
biological potential of the stream. In portions of the Clark
Fork Basin, that limit has already been exceeded.
Tourism for recreational purposes is rapidly becoming
Montana's second-most important industry. The high quality
and abundance of Montana's natural resources provide unique
opportunities for fishing, hunting, boating, river running,
and simply relaxing in an aesthetic environment. The City of
Missoula, for example, seeks to maintain adequate flows in
the Clark Fork through its riverside park and greenway and
to develop a kayak racecourse in this same river reach. The
tourism, recreation, and aesthetic values are directly
related to the adequacy of instream flows. Reservations of
instream flow are the only current means to preserve these
amenities.
Riparian Areas
The riparian ecosystems of the Clark Fork and its
tributaries are transitional zones between the aquatic and
terrestrial habitats. This streamside zone of vegetation is
3-20
characterized by the combination of high species diversity,
high species densities, and high productivity. Many of the
trees and shrubs that dominate this zone require ground water
within the rooting zones through the growing season.
Fluctuations in streamflow cause concomitant fluctuations in
associated shallow ground water tables.
The riparian zone is ecologically important because it
provides seasonal and year-long habitat for a greater number
of species of wildlife than any other habitat in Montana. In
addition to its rich assemblage of plants and animals, the
riparian zone plays an essential role in determining the
quality of the aquatic environment for supporting fish and
aquatic invertebrates.
Although the specific relationships among riparian
vegetation and the amount and availability of ground water
have not been quantified in the Clark Fork drainage, the
existing plant communities and associated wildlife popula-
tions require adequate instream flows for their perpetuation.
STATUS OF SUPERFUND INVESTIGATIONS
Introduction
Although this document primarily addresses non-Superfund
issues, the activities at the Superfund sites are of the
utmost importance to the future of the Clark Fork Basin.
Certainly, the fate of at least the upper river is inexorably
tied to the outcome of Superfund.
The Superfund program was created by Congress in 1980 to
identify, investigate, and clean up hazardous substances that
have been or may be released into the environment. EPA has
initiated Superfund activities in the Clark Fork Basin
primarily because of the problems left by over 100 years of
mining and processing operations. Waste disposal practices
have resulted in the contamination of soils and water by
metals and other substances throughout a large area of the
upper basin.
The Superfund program provides for investigation and
cleanup of hazardous wastes by either the potentially
responsible party (PRP) or the government. If there is a
PRP, EPA and/or the state oversees the cleanup efforts by the
PRP through an administrative order. If there is no PRP, or
the PRP declines to undertake the studies and cleanup
efforts, EPA conducts the studies or provides funds to the
state to do so. The PRP is provided the results of the
studies and is asked to conduct appropriate cleanup. If the
responsible party refuses, EPA may use resources from the
3-21
Superfund to clean up the site and then seek to recover up to
three times the cost of the cleanup from the responsible
party. If the responsible party undertakes the recommended
cleanup, EPA oversees the activity through a court-ordered
consent decree.
Studies were initiated by EPA in 1982 to characterize
the extent and severity of contamination in the headwaters
area. There are currently four separate, but contiguous
Superfund sites in the Clark Fork Basin (Figure 3-1) . The
three in the headwaters are the Silver Bow Creek/ Butte
Addition site, the Montana Pole site, and the Anaconda
Smelter site. The fourth is the Milltown Reservoir site a
few miles upstream of Missoula. Site histories, current
status, and future activities for each site are presented in
Table 3-5.
Seventy-seven existing or potential contamination
problems were initially identified within the four sites.
The EPA, with state support, has developed a Superfund
Master Plan to describe these problems and their inter-
relationships, define cleanup goals and objectives, and
coordinate the actions that will be taken to reach these
goals (EPA and DHES 1988) . The Master Plan is intended to be
a public document that briefly describes the problems at the
sites and the corrective actions and schedules for dealing
with the problems. Schedules for priority activities planned
for the next several years are presented in the plan, which
was released in October 1988.
Some of the more specific objectives of the Master Plan
are the following:
• Communicate information on Superfund activities to
all interested parties.
• Identify, prioritize, and coordinate intersite
activities.
• Coordinate Superfund activities with other environ-
mental improvement programs.
• Provide for consistent and uniform data require-
ments and cleanup standards for all sites.
Investigations at each site must include an evaluation
of the applicable and relevant or appropriate requirements
(ARARs) . These evaluations are intended to determine the
standards that must be achieved during cleanup. There is a
strong linkage between Superfund ARARs and water quality
standards in the Clark Fork Basin. Superfund actions taken
3-22
O
00
00
<
a.
V
u
u
6
CO
<
DQ
:>^
OS
c
:>^
<
rJ
O
U)
X
V)
H
a
z
(b
o:
U
Ou
to
I
on
OS
l-l
[14
3-22a
g
5
5>
to
OS
§
S
M
*J
M
fe
a
g
g
ia;
(/]
^
s
o.
0)
•H
^
>i
1
M
c
§ .2
r-H
o
o:
•H
b
>(-(
ii
>-l c
•H «)
X S
g ^
J3 O
g ^ a
» Jai m g -H CO
-t-"
tj
•H
T)
<D
^-1
o
kl
0
Ui
o
(0
(1>
o.
+J
Lj
J3
•c
U
in
T3
■U
-U
3
+j
C
B
-5
10
0)
■<-'
•H
c
t3
o
o
0)
3
(X
o
^
w
T3
[^
■*->
M
3
w
00
X
+>
ID
cr\
>i
O
U
M
»
T-H
ja
o fO
0) .H QO
6-1
•H S 0)
» °^ ;3
■g ^ 5
^-' Oi U>
u w
(0 10 ^
■I-' Oi oc
c — -
O -iJ
o u c
ii
8.
<o c
£ o
3
(—1 Q)
9
u n CO
(0 10 c^^
ti x: -H
S ><
O +-■ >H
o o S
XI
IV
a
I
o
ID
-o
1
10
ID
r-i
•fJ
u
M
x:
o
j<:
V
tJ
10
1
Oi
l-l
+J
M
u
+J
Li
O
a)
0)
t*-(
c
i-i
v>
>
o
Q
•H
u
rH
«:
T3
0)
U
3
2 ■"
t:
a
0)
to
3
I>i I— I
T3 o as
3 *-■
^-' C
M >i 10
-tJ —I
C C
•--1 'H C
C O ->-'
c
10
ID
3
2
10 ID O <« Ciu C/3
3-22b
£■
»
CO
S
0)
oo
s
CO
•H
•s
<T>
4->
.-H
-^
IM
•H
ti
»H
o
rH
u
a:
01
•iH
<0
V
♦J
a>
u
u
•S
c
..-H
o
(0
«J
1
10
W
iw
a.
a>
rH
u
A
0
^
0)
2
Si
(—1
•^
*j
<n
«
a
■4-'
u
>
u
•H
g
c
•H
«
o
£
8
1
§
^
§
0)
jj
^
>
(0
>^
■IJ
u
a
A
CO
x:
rH
•a
0)
(0
i
1
•H
a^
c
i
>
u
41
^j
s.
^
o
■t-f
4-*
c
(0
—1
§
?
o
(V
10
TJ
•H
CT
>
tl
ii
01
u
i
in
+J
5
M
10
-1-'
u3
u
a.
• H
w
IS
t>i c ^
r^ (0 00
— ( <J\
8 w
u
3
♦J
o
a
f~
■>»•
en
w
r-H
0!
8.
1-1
-s
01
U 00
"3 S"
0)
* J2
oo
C •-(
-s a
-s
0>
^ I
l-l u
I
3 73
O fl>
1-1 ■-(
10
0) ■♦-•
C CO
•H C
C -rt
ID
10
*-> 00
10 o>
Eh
»-(
>-3
t-H
OQ
t-t
to
I
■H CO
CO
1-1
r-i
C 0)
o>
2
IS
10
0)
0)
>
.c
u <0
•H
Oi
c
*J
•H
■a 10
m
01
ft •I-'
u
•a:
Ij
^1
o
a
O 0)
^ 01
m w
-*->
u
.c
iS u
a *»-*
i
a 5
V.
§:
10 CO
0)
n 1^
u u
o> n
5 ?
3-22C
CQ
%
b3
P
g
CO
Q
S
>■
•c
s
g
&3
(-H
o
g
g
o
z
o
M
E-i
in
rt
ro
-^
u
2
Eh
6-
U5
M
E-i
CO
h- 1
CO
O
a.
%
o
u
m
3
Hj
a)
-o
if
T3
f— I
0!
u
S
i
3
o
+-»
rH
»
10
'Ji
Vi
XI
oo
5
OO
V
<J\
t— 4
r— (
n]
*J
— H
x;
10
u
c
t*-
k4
o
a
•H
c
a
«
■W
(0
c
w
c
o
3
a)
.
TJ
o
01
p
>
E
<d
"S
•H
M
• H
N
-t-*
O
u
O
•H
rH
c
10
M
SI
£
U-4
■r^
.f-l
o
■*-»
u
U^
o
o.
73
0)
-H
0)
C
^H
•o:
§
• H
>
■rH
§
tJ
10
^
u
as
to
-»-)
10
+-»
13
>i
<v
Li
to
o
<u
X9
u
g
r-
+-■
3
to
»
x:
c
<1>
oo
X
T3
*j
o
^
Ji:
<D
cr>
0)
to
V3
•H
a;
+J
t-H
<D
to
b-i
n
— H
o
3
0)
^-^
r^
•H
ij
10
14^H
-♦J
^
— H
t-t
00
o
o
O
<*-(
OS
o^
^
r^
r~\
*J
o
T-l
oo
r-1
to
f—t
to
g
-»-»
0>
r-l
■H
f— t
0)
c
%
1-1
(4-1
o
r-*
'£
2
U-1
4-J
kM
• H
u
u
•u
u
o
T3
^
1—*
a)
o
to
■H
Ul
r-t
L.
J3
f— 1
c
^-^
o
(0
hJ
to
0)
r-l
O.
+-•
V
a.
+->
!fl
£
.^
OS
8
■s
x:
■u
c
»-H
!0
i
'A
3
>1
<1)
1
•g
X)
0)
u
01
4J
(0
x:
c
s
s
M-i
o
tj
o
9-1
to
to
ID
a>
to
— <
•H
10
r-H
is
+->
01
<0
id
>
S 8
^
^
M
O
10
•g
to 10
a) 3
■M T)
0) T3
W 10
O
i-H
n o e
3-22d
w
3:
o
t-H
><
e-i
g
t-H
h-i
U^
E-
(—1
•-3
oa
c/)
z
o
t/3
E-
I— (
x: I
4-> in
■g 5 S ^ .
1— I «-> -o
T) oo 10 3
S OO > 01 ■I-'
♦J <T> *J W 10 O
u ^H (0 0) a>
(0 4-> ^H t-t e a>
■ti ^ ■" B -H o o
".si . a s. i
id S "-I o ^
o u ou >j w-i !3 tn
2
o
3
>
c
ae n
S (0
u
1 £
>1 »
■^ - ^
•a
(1)
oa
Q) O
_ u to
U (V 01
- -O M
c
3
01
1?
c u
o X
O Q
-s
10 c
Ol 0)
0) -o
•0
(1)
&
•^
J^
^
nH
•H
a
3
0)
>
ca
0)
•H
c
-t->
+J
1
•H
(0
8
cu
w
b
1
x:
-%
o
tx>
>—(
ro
3
l-t
2
00
CI
-tJ
IH
>■
a>
4-J
-M
1
en n
1 2
§
(0
o
0)
1-1
a>
r-H •-
*J
o
L<
>
U 10
c
o
•w
e 1)
o
§
0
rH
Cb
a:
1
.—1
.M
4J
4)
rH
VI
(M
!3
8
•t
1-H
•H
g
i—t
a
Ut
0)
o
II
•H
O
C/)
1
4-»
5
4J
10
*-»
CO
ti
I o
•H +J
•H rO
■4-> CO
O <J\
(0 »-H
T3
00
c
a -H
10
•H ja
8 -8
o >,
IV ■>->
•M C
^ ;s
3 g-'S '^
0) S
C "t-l fH JJ
■H o d. a
10 & —I
-f-> c S g.
■§ o " B
V 0)
^ --1
O 0)
x:
1—1
C f-c
a>
(0 c
i 8
o _
5 i g
0) ^ 0)
♦J o >
(0 IH -H
0> B. -tJ
•H (0
U CO
> cn
9. 3 S
•H C
to O
^ I
& 8
0) ^
♦J 00
(0 o\
o
10
m
u
0)
■M
(0
1
<u
+^
10
*
g-
U-l
•^
o
%
c
f)
o
tH
HI
tl)
■tJ c
c 32
8 ■?
rH Q.
r-H O,
O 3
«H n
s s
<v
10
3-22e
to alleviate itietal and organic contamination problems in
soils and surface and ground water will be guided by selected
ARARs that protect public health and help to achieve improved
water quality in Silver Bow Creek and the Clark Fork. These
actions will also be coordinated with other environmental
improvement programs being conducted in the area.
The schedule for achieving cleanup goals depends on a
large number of variables, but substantial progress will
likely be made during the next several years. The following
are high-priority problem areas that are either already being
addressed or will be addressed during the next two years:
Mill Creek
Walkerville Soils
Warm Springs Ponds
Butte Priority Soils
Anaconda Old Works
Berkeley Pit Mine Flooding
Travona Flooding
Montana Pole
Anaconda Flue Dust
Rocker
Some of these investigations are still in the negotia-
tion stage, and completion dates are not firm. Periodic
site-specific fact sheets and master plan updates will be
prepared for public dissemination as long as studies and
corrective actions continue.
The following text provides a brief summary of each
Superfund site. Any reader seeking more detailed information
regarding the status and future plans at these sites should
refer to the study documents for each site located in the
following public document
repositories:
Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology
Library
West Park Street
Butte, MT 59701
(406)496-4281
Economic Development Agency
Butte/Silver Bow Government
Courthouse Building
155 West Granite
Butte, MT 59701
(406)723-8262
3-23
Butte-Silver Bow Library
106 West Broadway
Butte, MT 59701
(406)723-8262
Metcalf Senior Citizens Center
Anaconda, MT 59711
(406)563-3110
Hearst Free Library
Fourth and Main Streets
Anaconda, MT 59711
(406)563-9990
National Park Service
Deer Lodge, MT 59722
(406)846-2622
Mansfield Library
University of Montana
Missoula, MT 59812
(406)721-2665
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau
A201 Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59620
(406)444-2957 or (800)648-8465
Environmental Protection Agency
Montana Office
Room 292, Federal Building
301 South Park
Helena, MT 59626
(406)449-5414
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Addition
Over 100 years of mining, milling, and smelting ac-
tivities in the Butte area have resulted in a myriad of
environmental problems, including contamination of soils,
surface water, and ground water. In late 1983, Silver Bow
Creek down through the Warm Springs Ponds system was listed
on the National Priorities List (NPL) as a Superfund site.
In 1986 the boundaries of the site were officially expanded
to include the City of Butte (Butte Addition) and the upper
Clark Fork to the Milltown Dam. The site is currently one of
the largest and perhaps one of the most complex Superfund
sites in the nation. ,^ ,.,
3-24
The Montana Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences has lead responsibility for Silver Bow Creek and the
upper Clark Fork investigations. Phase I of the remedial
investigation (RI) , completed in 1986, included the study of
surface water and point sources, tailings, ground water,
algae, agricultural lands, macroinvertebrates, bioassays,
fish tissue, waterfowl, vegetation, and the Warm Springs Pond
System. Phase II remedial investigations are now underway to
gather remaining information needed to complete the feasi-
bility study (FS) , in which remedial actions for the site
will be chosen. Phase II RI/FS activities include a
screening study along the upper Clark Fork, additional
studies of the Warm Springs Ponds system, a flood hydrologic
evaluation of Silver Bow Creek, and a streambank tailings and
revegetation study (STARS) designed to explore a range of
reclamation alternatives for the drainages.
Contaminants of concern in the Silver Bow Creek site
include arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, zinc,
and various organic contaminants. Potential contaminant
sources identified by MultiTech (1987a) include:
buried tailings associated with the former Parrot
Smelter operations
the Weed Concentrator complex
tailings associated with the former Butte Reduction
Works
the Anaconda Pole Treatment Facility site at
Rocker
the Colorado Tailings
Ramsay Flats mining wastes
fluvially deposited mining wastes
the Warm Springs Ponds
the Metro Storm Drain
Missoula Gulch and the lower portion of Browns
Gulch
the Butte WWTP
storm drain outfalls
the Montana Post and Pole Treatment seep (a
separate Superfund site) .
3-25
All of these contaminant sources will be addressed to
some degree in the feasibility study of the site. Remedial
actions designed for the major contaminant sources could have
far reaching positive effects on the quality of water in the
Clark Fork. Of primary concern is the Warm Springs Ponds
system, which is the pivotal point in the drainage. An
intensive study is now focused on that system and some action
alternatives should be defined by early 1989.
The EPA has lead responsibility for the Butte Addition
portion of the site. In the fall of 1986, the EPA Emergency
Response Branch began investigations of mercury contamination
in the Walkerville area. A year later, it proposed a plan
for removals associated with lead and mercury contamination.
Removal actions were initiated in April 1988 and were com-
pleted in the fall of 1988. In the summer of 1987, EPA
conducted a soil screening study of Butte, Centerville, and
surrounding areas. The data report, submitted in June 1988,
is being utilized to plan RI/FS activities for the Butte
Addition.
A key issue at the Butte Addition site is the mine
flooding that has occurred in the Berkeley Pit and the
underground mine workings since the Anaconda Minerals Company
ceased dewatering pumpage in 1982. The water level in the
pit has been rising at about 72 feet per year. Although the
rate of rise will probably decline as the pit fills, worst-
case projections suggest that the pit may be filled to
capacity by the end of the century if no remedial actions are
taken. There is concern that rising pit water may cause
encroachment of contaminated water into the alluvial aquifer,
and arsenic and other metals may migrate downgradient and
adversely affect Silver Bow Creek and the Clark Fork (Camp,
Dresser and McKee 1987, 1988a). Water levels in the Travona
mine shaft and other mine workings southwest of the Berkeley
Pit have also been rising since 1984, and there is concern
over the potential for discharge of contaminated ground water
to the alluvium and/or the ground surface (Camp, Dresser and
McKee 1988b). However, during the first quarter of 1988, the
rate of rise in the water level had decreased from two to
five feet per month to 1.5 feet per month.
EPA has conducted several preliminary studies to
evaluate the entire mine system, including a Berkeley Pit
water balance study (Camp, Dresser and McKee 1987) , an
evaluation of flooding in the West Camp area mine workings
(Camp, Dresser and McKee 1988b) , and an analysis of the
aqueous geochemistry of Berkeley Pit water (Camp, Dresser and
McKee 1988a) . Additional work on the mine flooding issues
will be done during the RI/FS phase.
3-26
Montana Pole
The Montana Post and Pole Treatment facility in Butte
operated from 1947-84, using a solution of 5 percent penta-
chlorophenol (PCP) and 95 percent diesel petroleum to
preserve utility poles, posts, and mine and bridge timbers.
The pole plant discharged condensate from the treating
operation into a ditch that runs north from the plant under
the interstate bridge toward Silver Bow Creek until 1982 (it
is not known for what period of time this discharge occur-
red) . In 1983, an oil seep, most likely from a variety of
sources, was identified on the south bank of Silver Bow
Creek. The seep and Silver Bow Creek were sampled and
analyzed for PCP, oil, and grease. Nine monitoring wells
were installed in July 1983, two upgradient and seven
downgradient of the facility. Based on the ground and
surface water sample results and the estimated seepage of two
to five gallons per day (gpd) , the EPA Emergency Response
Branch was brought in to conduct a site investigation. Eight
additional downgradient wells were installed in April 1987.
A removal action has been underway at the site since
July 1985 to alleviate seepage to Silver Bow Creek, collect
product from the ground water, remove contaminated soil, and
stabilize the site. Two separate product recovery systems
were installed, and an interception trench was constructed to
prevent further seepage into Silver Bow Creek. In 1986,
about 9,000 gallons of product were detoxified and are now
held on-site. Approximately 10,000 cubic yards of con-
taminated soil were excavated and bagged and are also stored
on-site in five steel buildings.
Contaminants identified at the site include PCP, diesel,
dioxin, hydrocarbons, and small amounts of creosote and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) . At present, the site is
stabilized, and only a very small amount of oil is seeping
from the area. There is still contaminant movement through
the ground water system, but so far most contaminants have
been intercepted by the three recovery trenches that are
still being pumped. A floating boom or pads placed in Silver
Bow Creek trap oil seeping into the creek.
To date, Superfund dollars have been utilized to fund
the cleanup at the Montana Pole site. EPA and DHES have
recently completed a PRP search to determine if some cost
recovery will be possible (the owner of the facility at the
time of shutdown is bankrupt) .
The EPA Emergency Response Branch activities have been
phased out. The State of Montana (DHES) will be assuming
lead responsibility for the site under cooperative agreement
with EPA. DHES contracted with CDM in September 1988 to
3-27
develop a remedial investigation and feasibility study
workplan for the site. The RI/FS will address the charac-
terization and cleanup of soils, surface water, and ground
water contamination. At present, contamination of ground
water and the potential threat to Silver Bow Creek is the
most serious concern. The Emergency Response Branch prepared
an Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) document
to address cleanup and treatment of contaminated ground
water. This information may be incorporated into the RI/FS,
as the Emergency Response Branch will not be conducting
further work at the site.
Anaconda Smelter
Copper ores were processed at the Anaconda Smelter site
at various times between 1884 and 1980. When operations
ceased in 1980, approximately 6,000 acres of waste materials
were left behind. The area was designated a Superfund site
in early 1983. In the fall of 1984, the Anaconda Minerals
Company, as the potentially responsible party, entered into
an agreement with EPA to conduct several site remedial
investigations .
In the first stage of the RIs, a variety of sites and
media were studied. Four focused investigations included the
slag piles, the arbiter plant, flue dust, and beryllium
disposal areas. For the master investigation, the Old Works,
ground water, surface water, soils, tailings, alluvium,
hydrogeology, and geochemistry were studied.
The RI reports submitted by the Anaconda Minerals
Company are still under review by EPA. During the course of
the soils investigation, levels of arsenic and other heavy
metals of concern to human health were found in the community
of Mill Creek, located immediately adjacent to the Anaconda
Smelter site. A study conducted by the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) revealed elevated levels of urinary arsenic in
seven of ten Mill Creek children. As a result, the Anaconda
Minerals Company entered into an agreement with EPA in July
1986 to conduct a separate expedited remedial investigation
of the Mill Creek area. In May 1986, EPA began to
temporarily relocate families with small children and others
at high risk, while a permanent solution to the contamination
problems was developed. These families never returned to
Mill Creek and, along with many others, sold their properties
to the Anaconda Minerals Company.
3-28
The Mill Creek RI/FS was finalized in September 1987,
and a Record of Decision (ROD) was filed by the EPA in
October 1987. The remedial alternative chosen was permanent
relocation of all Mill Creek residents. By August 1988 AMC
had purchased all of the remaining properties and demolition
of the homes was completed by fall 1988.
With the Mill Creek problem at the forefront, Anaconda
Smelter RI/FS activities remained on hold through much of
1987. The Anaconda Minerals Company conducted some reclama-
tion work on Smelter Hill (the smelter was demolished between
1982 and 1985) , and the EPA conducted soil sampling in the
communities of Anaconda, Opportunity, Warm Springs, Galen,
and Deer Lodge.
A new "umbrella" administrative order between EPA and
AMC, which includes all subsequent operable units, was signed
in September 1988. Planned activities include RI/FS studies
of Smelter Hill, flue dust, and the Old Works. This work
will be performed by the Anaconda Minerals contractor, PTI
Environmental Services.
Contaminants identified at the Anaconda Smelter Super-
fund site include arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, copper, lead,
and zinc, and there are likely some organic contaminants on
Smelter Hill. Flue dust, a waste that is highly contaminated
with arsenic and heavy metals, is located in various areas on
Smelter Hill and is being addressed as a separate operable
unit. EPA and state personnel are reviewing results of a
pilot process that extracts valuable metals and converts the
arsenic to a more stable compound. This and other processes
will be considered as possible remedies along with other
alternatives identified in the RI/FS.
The Old Works area, which is the site of the first
smelters in Anaconda, is probably of most immediate concern
to the Clark Fork system. Warm Springs Creek, which is a
tributary of the Clark Fork, flows through the middle of the
Old Works area very close to deposits of slag and tailings.
These wastes have elevated levels of contaminants, and some
are within the floodplain of the creek. Although the Stage I
RI/FS studies showed Warm Springs Creek water to be generally
of good quality (Tetra Tech 1987) , there is potential for
water quality degradation in a large runoff or flood event.
The RI/FS studies of the Old Works will likely lead to the
removal of at least some of the contaminant sources, thereby
increasing the chances that Warm Springs Creek will continue
to deliver good quality dilution water to the Clark Fork
system.
3-29
Milltown Reservoir
The Milltown Reservoir Superfund site is located at the
confluence of the Clark Fork and Blackfoot River, approx-
imately five miles upstream from Missoula, Montana. This
hydroelectric facility was built in 1906 and is currently
owned and operated by the Montana Power Company. The dam has
served as a trap for an estimated 120 million cubic feet of
arsenic and heavy metals laden sediments (Woessner et al.
1984) resulting from past mining and milling operations in
the headwaters of the Clark Fork.
During a routine sampling in May 1981, the DHES-Water
Quality Bureau discovered that four wells serving 33 homes in
the community of Milltown were contaminated with arsenic. In
1983, the Milltown Reservoir area was listed as a Superfund
site, and DHES entered into a cooperative agreement with EPA
in July 1983 to conduct an RI/FS at the site. DHES hired the
University of Montana (UM) to do the initial studies, and by
December 1983, reservoir sediments had been identified as the
likely source of ground water contamination (Woessner et al.
1984) . Construction of a new well and distribution system
was started in November 1984 and was operational in June
1985. Subsequent sampling from homes on the system revealed
that about half the homes tested had hot water arsenic levels
above the drinking water standard. Replacement of hot water
heaters and, in some cases, hot water lines solved the
problem, and Milltown residents now have an uncontaminated
water supply.
In April 1985, a continuing RI/FS for the Milltown
Reservoir site was initiated. DHES selected Harding Lawson
Associates (HLA) as contractor. The RI was expanded to
include a more detailed hydrogeologic evaluation downgradient
of the reservoir, and the FS was' to address long-term
remedial action. A review of the RI/FS draft reports
submitted by HLA in fall 1985 indicated a change of scope,
and supplemental work was performed in the 1986 field season.
After a review of the draft data report (August 1986) and
draft FS report (November 1986) , DHES determined that HLA had
not fulfilled the terms of its contract. The Feasibility
Study Agreement with HLA was terminated in February 1987.
RI/FS activities at the Milltown Reservoir site were
minimal during most of 1987 and early 1988 while negotiation
for a contract settlement with HLA proceeded. DHES also
attempted to obtain the original documentation it needed to
validate the data collected by HLA. In May 1988, DHES
contracted with Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) , to perform the
data validation, complete the FS, and conduct a downstream
screening study. Field activities for the downstream
screening study are underway. CDM is currently developing a
3-30
workplan for completion of the FS. It is anticipated that
this workplan will be finished in December 1988.
The Milltown Dam has been repaired several times through
the years. Recently, a two-phase reconstruction of the
facility was initiated in response to an emergency order
issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Phase I
work involved reconstruction of the spillway and was
performed by MFC from August 1986 to March 1987. This work
was carefully monitored to ensure minimal degradation of the
Clark Fork downstream from the dam. Phase II of the rehabil-
itation project is underway and involves extensive repairs to
the dam structure.
METALS-CONTAMINATED LANDS
Introduction
A vast acreage in the upper Clark Fork Basin is affected
by elevated concentrations of metals in the soil. The extent
and degree of contamination varies considerably, as do the
sources of contamination. The major types of metals-
contaminated lands are:
• areas covered by tailings disposal facilities or
impoundments (e.g., Colorado Tailings area, Old
Works, tailings ponds near Anaconda, Warm Springs
Ponds)
• lands affected by aerial deposition of metals from
historic smelting activities (e.g., Butte area.
Deer Lodge Valley)
• agricultural lands affected by the historic use of
tailings-laden irrigation water that was conveyed
through extensive ditch systems
• floodplain areas of Silver Bow Creek and the upper
Clark Fork that have accumulated tailings during
historic flood events.
Each of these types of affected lands is discussed in
the following sections. Sediment transport mechanisms,
reservoir sediments, and reclamation are also discussed.
3-31
Tailings Disposal Areas
There are two major tailings disposal areas in or near
the floodplain in the headwaters of the Clark Fork. The
Colorado Tailings southwest of Butte cover about 30 acres
within the floodplain of Silver Bow Creek (Duaime et al.
1987) . The Anaconda and Opportunity tailings ponds east of
Anaconda cover approximately 4,000 acres (Tetra Tech 1987).
These areas and the Old Works and Warm Springs Ponds are
discussed below.
Colorado Tailings
The Colorado Tailings lie between the Butte Sewage
Treatment Plant on the east and the Ranchland Packing Company
on the west. The site is bounded by Silver Bow Creek on the
north, east, and west and the Burlington Northern Railroad
grade on the south (Figure 3-2) . The tailings are the waste
product of the smelter and concentrator of the Colorado and
Montana Smelter Company, which began operation in 1879.
Eventually, the facility was bought by the Anaconda Company,
and the smelter and concentrator were demolished between 1905
and 1907 (Duaime et al. 1987).
Tailings were disposed of in a marshy area adjacent to
Silver Bow Creek, north of the facility. The earliest
tailings were quite coarse but became finer as mill tech-
nology improved. The tailings average about five to six feet
in depth and overlie an organic-rich peat layer that is
discontinuous, particularly near the edges of the tailings
deposit. Approximately 15 to 30 feet of alluvium underlie
this layer (Duaime et al. 1987).
Heavy metals and arsenic concentrations (in parts per
million [ppm]) in the Colorado Tailings and underlying layers
are summarized in Table 3-6. Typical values for uncon-
taminated natural soils are provided for comparative
purposes. The enrichment in the peat layer relative to the
overlying tailings and the underlying alluvium indicates that
the peat layer is concentrating metals that have leached down
through the tailings. The Colorado Tailings are of par-
ticular concern because of documented ground water and
surface water degradation in the vicinity. These problems
are discussed later in this chapter.
A variety of reclamation alternatives for the Colorado
Tailings have been discussed, including: amendment of the
existing surface, tailings removal and revegetation, covering
the tailings with soil and revegetation, application of a
rock mulch, relocation of Silver Bow Creek to the southern
3-32
>
CO
OS
o
J
o
u
I
oi
O
I— (
3-32a
TABLE 3-6. CONCENTRATIONS OF ARSENIC, COPPER, LEAD, AND ZINC IN THE COLORADO TAILINGS
SOURCE MATERIAL SAMPLE TYPE/LOCATION ARSENIC COPPER LEAD ZINC
iEm}
Duaime et at. Tailings Center field
1987* Series (13 holes)
Tailings West field
Series (7 holes)
Tailings East field
Series (8 holes)
Max
—
Min
...
Mean
—
Max
—
Min
...
Mean
—
Max
—
Min
...
Mean
—
Max
2,960
Min
678
Mean
1,742
Max
1,550
Min
504
Mean
821
6,775
1,383
183
331
1,370
667
8,965
942
222
277
3,055
615
4,059
1,196
661
410
1.390
765
Thornell 1985 Tailings One drill hole Max 2,960 6,730 2,740 8,230
(8 intervals) Min 678 663 480 2,430
3,058 1,264 4,945
Peat One drill hole Max 1,550 14,300 14,900 22,500
(6 intervals) Min 504 1,730 6,370 13,800
6,022 9,933 17,333
Alluvium One sample from — — 188 28 300
a dri 1 1 hole
Peckham 1979 Tailings 48 in auger hole 1,400 1,300 11,000
24 in auger hole 500 470 3,700
50 in auger hole 3,900 530 12,000
Bohn et al. 1979 Natural Typical value 5 20 10 50
soils Range 1-50 2-100 2-200 10-300
* These samples were analyzed using metal assay techniques rather than digestion techniques.
3-32b
edge of the tailings, and construction of a drainage ditch
along the southern edge of the tailings (Hydrometrics 1983a) .
The ultimate fate of the Colorado Tailings will be
determined by the Superfund program. The Colorado Tailings
and the Butte Reduction Works (adjacent to the Colorado
Tailings) constitute a separate operable unit that is being
evaluated by the state and EPA. This operable unit is a
fairly high priority, with Phase II activities scheduled to
be underway in first-quarter FY 89. If a removal alternative
were chosen, the tailings and the contaminated peat layer
beneath them would have to be addressed.
Old Works
As mentioned in the Superfund section, the Old Works
area (Figure 3-3) is the site of the first smelters in
Anaconda. Nine discrete waste deposits have been identified
in the vicinity of the Old Works. Waste types include
tailings, black slag, heap-roast slag, and red sands (mixed
slag and tailings) . Flue dust deposits are also found near
the flues of the Upper and Lower Works. Combined, these
wastes are estimated to cover about 326 acres (Tetra Tech
1987) .
For the Stage I Remedial Investigation, Tetra Tech
(1987) collected grab samples, tailings cores, and trench
samples from these wastes. The ranges of selected metals
concentrations in the grab samples are provided in Table 3-7.
The EPA considers the Old Works area to be a high-
priority operable unit due to its proximity to a housing
development and Warm Springs Creek. Work plan negotiations
are underway with the Anaconda Minerals Company, and work
will likely begin there this fall.
TABLE 3-7.
RANGES OF METAL
CONCENTRATIONS
IN OLD WORKS
GRAB SAMPLES
Number
of
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Waste Type
Samples
(ppm)
(DPm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
Black slag
2
54-80
1.3-1.9
4,580-6,030
594-634
8,
,840-9,460
Red sands
2
1,200-2,170
7.7-13.3
2,160-3,170
292-618
2,
,420-4,640
Tail ings
1
1,840
8.5
3.420
459
4,510
Heap-roast slai
3
2
910-1.070
12.8-13.4
6,100-7,000
985-1,030
17,
,400-18,100
Flue material
11
68-10,400
0.9-71.5
184-37,100
17-639
46-2,140
Source: Tetra
Tech
1987.
3-33
J3
CO
ON
3-33a
Anaconda and Opportunity Ponds
Tailings from operations at the Anaconda Smelter were
slurried into a series of ponds northeast of the smelter
complex (Figure 3-3) . The first pond. Opportunity A, was
built in 1914. The Opportunity B, C, and D ponds were
constructed as needed through the next 40 years. Anaconda
pond 1 was constructed in 1943, and Anaconda pond 2 was built
in 1954. Together, the Anaconda and Opportunity ponds cover
approximately 4,000 acres and contain an estimated 185
million cubic yards of tailings material (Tetra Tech 1987) .
Wastes in the Anaconda and Opportunity ponds are
relatively homogeneous compared with other wastes in the
upper Clark Fork because they are almost all mill tailings
generated at the smelter. However, even the materials in
this system exhibit considerable physical and chemical
variability due to evolving smelting processes, extensive
reworking of the deposits, and variabilities in the parent
ores. Average concentrations of several key trace elements
are 210 ppm arsenic, 470 ppm lead, 2,030 ppm copper and 1,200
ppm zinc (Tetra Tech 1986b) .
An initial remedial investigation (Tetra Tech 1986b,
1987) has been concluded for the Anaconda and Opportunity
ponds. Included in the remedial investigation were waste
characterization, surface and ground water studies, ground
water modeling, and geochemical modeling. Waste charac-
terization studies indicated the following:
• In most of the tailings boreholes, three zones were
recognized: an oxidizing zone in the upper part of
the tailings, a transition zone, and an unaltered
reduced zone.
• Concentrations of arsenic and most metals were
generally lower near the tailings surface, in-
creased with depth, and then decreased.
• The tailings are underlain by carbonate-rich
alluvial gravels. At the tailings-alluvium
interface, dramatic decreases in metal concentra-
tions usually occurred, although the levels in the
upper alluvium were still elevated relative to
typical background values. Where multiple samples
were recovered in the alluvium, the deepest samples
often approached background levels.
3-34
As a result of changes instituted during the smelter
demolition, the Opportunity Ponds system is in a state of
physical and geochemical flux. Tailings areas that were
continuously flooded since the early 1950s as a dust control
measure are now draining. At present, the only external
source of water to the site is treated wastewater from the
city of Anaconda. This source may be discontinued in the
near future. As the tailings dry out, an oxidizing front is
predicted to move down through the tailings. Acid produced
during this process could liberate significant quantities of
trace metals to the ground water system.
Elimination of surface water to the site has resulted in
increased wind migration of contaminants to adjacent areas, a
gradual lowering of the ground water elevation across the
site, and the potential for increased contamination movement
into ground waters as tailings become oxidized. Assuming
that the remedial investigation is validated, additional
investigation activity is likely to focus mainly on providing
information for the evaluation of permanent control strate-
gies. Possible control options for the ponds include a
variety of capping alternatives, erosion control measures,
ground water containment, and perhaps ground water treatment.
AMC has already invested millions of dollars towards
controlling fugitive emissions by covering the ponds with
limestone as they dry out. Ground water conditions in the
vicinity of the Opportunity Ponds are discussed in more
detail later in this chapter.
Warm Springs Ponds
The Anaconda Copper Company constructed three treatment
ponds near Warm Springs, Montana,. in 1911, 1916, and between
1954 and 1959. The purpose of the ponds was to settle out
industrial wastes to improve the quality of water released to
the Clark Fork. Lime has been added to pond inputs on a
seasonal or streamflow basis since 1959 to aid in precipi-
tating dissolved metals.
The ponds cover about 2,800 acres, and Hydrometrics
(1983a) estimated that they contain approximately 19 million
cubic yards of mill tailings, mine waste rock, natural
sediments, and precipitates.
A comprehensive study of the ponds is now underway as
part of the Silver Bow Creek Superfund site investigations.
Phase I of this study was conducted by MultiTech (1987b) and
Phase II is being conducted by CH2M Hill. For this Superfund
investigation, the study area extends from the upper pH shack
on Silver Bow Creek to below Pond 1 and includes the Mill-
3-35
willow Bypass and the Wildlife Ponds (Figure 3-4) . The Mill-
Willow Bypass is a manmade ditch along the edge of the Warm
Springs Ponds that contains the combined flows of Mill and
Willow creeks. The ditch was cut through historic tailings
deposits left by Silver Bow Creek before the ponds were built
and contains more recent tailings deposited when the creek is
allowed to bypass the treatment ponds during periods of high
runoff.
An extensive bottom sediment sampling effort at the
Warm Springs Ponds was completed during the fall of 1987 as
part of the Phase II RI activities. The objective was to
gain an understanding of the volumes and chemistry of
sediments that have accumulated in the various settling and
treatment ponds. Average concentrations of selected metals
in bottom sediment samples collected for the Phase II RI are
provided in Table 3-8.
TABLE 3-8,
TOTAL
METAL
AVERAGES
; OF '
WARM SPRINGS PONDS 2
AND 3
BOTTOM SEDIMENTS
Met a]
r total
. ppm
dry weiaht)
Pond
As
Cd
Cu
Pb
Fe Zn
2
590
36
4,661
726
69,344 4,859
3
301
195
7,015
252
98,233 17,318
Bypass
121
22
3,713
215
29,777 4,258
Source:
CH2M
Hill :
1988a.
The Warm Springs Ponds are designed to contain a flow of
about 700 cfs (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1978). Silver
Bow Creek flows greater than this are diverted around the
ponds into the Mill-Willow Bypass, where they continue
untreated into the Clark Fork. However, dike failure and
bypass due to collection of debris on the gates has occurred
at flows much less than 700 cfs (MultiTech 1987a) . Bypass
events occur on the average of once per year. Although no
water quality samples of Silver Bow Creek were obtained by
MultiTech during a bypass event, historic data and recent
studies by the Water Quality Bureau and DFWP (Phillips 1985)
show that such events trigger large increases in TSS and most
metals in the Clark Fork.
3-36
Warm Springs Ponds -
Opportunity Ponds Vicinity
Clark Fork River
\
$0J'
Prepared by Montana State Library
Clorli Fork CIS Project
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000 Feel
N
FIGURE 3-4. WARM SPRINGS PONDS-OPPORTUNITY PONDS VICINITY
3-36a
The 100-year flood was estimated by CH2M Hill (1988b) to
be 4,000 cfs for Silver Bow Creek, and the pond structures
would probably withstand a flood of that magnitude. However,
during floods slightly larger than the 100-year flood, risk
of pond failure increases significantly. At flows greater
than 4,000 cfs on Silver Bow Creek, the diversion structure
at the upper pH shack would no longer function reliably, and
the full flood would possibly enter the Mill-Willow Bypass
through the diversion ditch (lECO 1981) . This flood probably
would cause failure of at least one of the pond berms and
loss of the contents of that pond (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 1978) . Pond 3 could fail directly when its outflow
reached 5,600 cfs, and a flow of 7,000 cfs would overtop both
Ponds 2 and 3, causing their failure (lECO 1981). Failure of
the ponds also could occur if a large magnitude (6.9 Richter
scale) earthquake weakened the pond embankments. Failure of
the Warm Springs Ponds embankments would release large
amounts of mining and milling wastes to the Clark Fork.
Under those conditions, the Warm Springs Ponds would become a
major source of contamination.
An evaluation of the remaining useful life of the Warm
Springs Ponds treatment system indicates that incoming
sediment loads are the principal controlling factor and
suggests that the life of the pond system could exceed 100
years under existing operating conditions (this calculation
assumes no major changes in pond design or operation for the
next 100 years) . However, the pond sediments have some of
the highest concentrations of toxic metals found anywhere in
the area, and they pose a long-term potential threat to the
water quality of the Clark Fork (MultiTech 1987a) .
Lands Affected by Aerial Deposition
Nearly 100 years of smelting activities at the Anaconda
Smelter resulted in the migration of a large burden of heavy
metals, arsenic, and sulfur compounds to soils in the area.
The main mechanisms were smelter stack emissions and fugitive
dust from various waste deposits in the Anaconda area.
Studies conducted for the Stage I Superfund investiga-
tion of the Anaconda Smelter site included a soils investi-
gation to determine the extent and severity of soil con-
tamination from smelter stack emissions. Soil profiles (0-
2", 2-10", 10-25" intervals) were sampled at 23 sites along
four transects emanating from the smelter stack in four
directions (Figure 3-5) . Where possible, adjacent tilled and
untilled fields were sampled to determine if there was a
difference in the vertical distribution of metals in the
soils. Such pairs were sampled at seven of the sample sites.
3-37
INVERSION
TRA^BECT
»
OE=H LODGE
VALLEY TRANSECT
WARM
SPRINGS
PONDS
OPPORTUNmr PONDS
STACK
OPPORTUNITY
TRANSECT
CT-SB
I MIUS
CRACKERViaE
TRANSECT
CT-<A
® STACK
A TILLED VALLEY SrrE
▲ UNTILLED VALLEY SITE
A INVERSION SITE
@ OPPORTUNITY SITE
D TILLED CRACKERVILLE SITE
■ UNTILLED CRACKERVILLE SITE
Source: Tetra Tech ]987.
FIGURE 3-5. ANACONDA SMELTER RI SOIL SAMPLING SITES
3-37a
Results of the surface soil sampling (in milligrams per
kilogram [mg/kg]) are provided in Table 3-9. Typical
concentrations in natural soils are provided for comparative
purposes. The following trends emerged from this study
(Tetra Tech 1987) :
• Concentrations of heavy metals and arsenic
decreased with increasing distance from the
smelter.
• Soil contamination is most pronounced in the
prevailing wind directions (to the northeast up
the Deer Lodge Valley and to the southwest up the
Mill Creek Valley) .
• At all sample sites except the tilled sites, the
metals were concentrated in the 0 to 2-inch
interval .
• At the tilled sites, metal concentrations were
similar in the 0 to 2-inch and 2 to 10-inch
intervals and considerably lower than those in the
0 to 2-inch increment at the untilled station in
the pair.
• The heavy metals and arsenic have not moved beyond
ten inches. Most of the values in the 10 to 25-
inch increment were below detection limits or
within the range for uncontaminated soils.
In the area immediately surrounding the smelter (within
one to three miles) , much of the land is devoid of vegetation
or very sparsely vegetated. This could be due to heavy
metals and arsenic contamination but may also be due to poor
soil moisture conditions, poor macronutrient status, or some
combination of the above. Most of this land is owned by the
Anaconda Minerals Company.
Farther away from the smelter, vegetation is well
established and land uses, such as growing crops, are not
precluded despite above-normal metals levels. It appears
that tillage results in lower levels and a more even
distribution of metals in the upper ten inches of the soil
profile, which may allow successful establishment of crops.
However, it has not been clearly documented whether heavy
metal contamination in the Deer Lodge Valley has resulted in
reduced crop yields. One study, performed by Munshower
(1977) while the Anaconda Smelter was still in operation, did
assess cadmium contamination in the Deer Lodge Valley. He
compared cadmium levels in soils, plants, and animals from a
site 15 miles northeast of the smelter with those from a
control site near Bozeman, Montana (Gallatin Valley) .
3-38
TABLE 3-9. CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED CONTAMINANTS IN ANACONDA RI/FS TRANSECT SOIL SAMPLES*
Depth Acid-Extractable Distance
Interval Concentrations (mg/kg) from
Transect Station (in) Arsenic Cadmium Lead Copper Zinc Stack (mi)
Opportunity
Valley
OT-1
0-2
370
5.2
111
583
197
2-10
9
3.3
10
319
274
10-25
<2.3
<0.4
9
19
39
OT-2
0-2
226
5.8
128
590
296
2-10
81
1.4
26
140
95
10-25
<2.3
<0.4
14
30
40
VT-1
0-2
430
10.2
146
1,679
608
2-10
86
2.5
26
309
187
10-25
32
0.6
15
98
68
VT-2A
0-2
143
6.3
103
543
370
(until led)
2-10
100
2.5
42
243
157
10-25
<2.3
<0.4
7
17
36
VT-2B
0-2
66
2.8
55
302
200
(tilled)
2-10
62.5
2.4
44
222
156
10-25
16
0.7
11
31
58
VT-3A
0-2
318
5.9
146
569
298
(until led)
2-10
97
2.4
31
200
138
10-25
8
<0.4
7
21
35
VT-3B
0-2
91
3.1
52
254
175
(tilled)
2-10
71
1.8
33
157
109
10-25
34
0.5
5
18
28
VT-4A
0-2
226 .■
9.2
148
449
488
(untilled)
2-10
59
1.2
21
98
68
10-25
12
0.8
12
27
54
VT-4B
0-2
24
1.8
36
133
115
(tilled)
2-10
24
1.4
29
102
93
10-25
16
0.4
8
27
38
VT-5A
0-2
168
5.6
101
387
320
(untilled)
2-10
9
<0.4
11
26
63
10-25
<2.3
0.4
9
19
49
VT-5B
0-2
41
1.6
32
102
120
(tilled)
2-10
40
1.6
29
95
119
10-25
6
0.5
8
18
53
VT-6A
0-2
12
0.9
22
62
68
(untilled)
2-10
18
0.8
18
46
60.5
10-25
<2.3
0.4
8
19
32
3.1
4.2
3.2
5.2
5.3
7.7
7.1
10.3
10.7
13.6
13.5
19.5
3-38a
TABLE 3-9 (CONT.). CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED CONTAMINANTS IN ANACONDA RI/FS TRANSECT SOIL SAMPLES^
Depth
Aci
id-Extractable
Interval
Concentrations
(mg/kg)
Transect
Station''
(in)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Copper
Zinc
VT-6B
0-2
8.6
1.1
19
71
189
(tilled)
2-10
11
0.9
16
62
169
10-25
<2.3
<0.4
6
14
33
Inversion
IT-1
0-2
157
6.6
95
350
295
2-10
<2.3
0.8
37
24
108
10-25
<2.3
0.8
38
21
144
IT-2
0-2
55
2.0
53
94
133
2-10
<2.3
<0.4
17
22
97
10-25
<2.3
<0.4
8
20
61
IT-3
0-2
53
2.6
38
108
114
2-10
19
0.8
9
20
53
10-25
3
0.6
8
18
49
IT-4
0-2
29
2.4
31
41
132
2-10
<2.3
1.3
15
24
84
10-25
<2.3
0.4
12
19
65
Crackervi I le
CT-1A
0-2
1,660
62
1.000
2,330
1,190
(until led)
2-10
513
15
80
205
526
10-25
57
<iu'=
21
26
57
CT-2A
0-2
390
48
769
1,880
1,650
(until led)
2-10
260
4
32
133
103
CT-2B
0-2
200
11
167
458
386
(tilled)
2-10
230
8.3
104
283
238
CT-3A
0-2
200
23
380
723
714
(untilled)
2-10
39
<1U
18
51
56
CT-4A
0-2
430
8.7
241
500
244
(untilled)
2-10
100
3.2
45
115
126
CT-4B
0-2
102
3.3
51
132
117
(tilled)
2-10
89
3.1
53
138
101
Distance
from
Natural soils'^ Typical Value 5 0.06 10 20 50
Range 1-50 0.01-7 2-200 2-100 10-300
^ From Tetra Tech 1987.
See Figure 3-5 for station locations.
Undetected at detection limit shown.
From Bohn et al. 1979.
3-38b
19.5
8.1
10.2
13.3
19.6
1.4
2.9
3.0
4.9
6.15
6.1
Cadmium concentrations in Deer Lodge Valley soils were
significantly higher than those in Gallatin Valley soils used
for similar purposes. Similarly, grasses and alfalfa from
the Deer Lodge Valley showed higher tissue cadmium levels.
Cadmium levels in barley grain averaged eight times greater
than those from the Gallatin Valley. Cadmium concentrations
in the liver and kidney tissues of cattle and swine from Deer
Lodge Valley reflect the excess cadmium in the animals'
diets, as concentrations in both livers and kidneys were
significantly higher than those collected from Gallatin
Valley animals. However, other plant tissue analyses have
not been performed recently in the valley; therefore, it is
not known if other metals are accumulating in crops or native
vegetation or if transference of the metals through the food
chain is occurring.
The Stage II RI/FS for the Anaconda Smelter site will
likely address such questions; however, the EPA is currently
focusing on more immediate hazards at the site that involve
human health issues. The agricultural lands are at present a
lower priority.
Hazard or action-level criteria have not been developed
for soils in the vicinity of the Anaconda Smelter Superfund
site. In fact, the only Superfund site in Montana for which
such criteria have been developed is the East Helena site
near the ASARCO Smelter. These criteria were developed
specifically for the Helena Valley area to assess the
potential risk to agriculture (they do not address potential
risk to the human population from consumption of these
agricultural products) . Extrapolation of the hazard criteria
to other sites may not be appropriate due to possible
differences in geology (hence natural background metals
levels) , soil physical and chemical characteristics, crops
grown, climate, etc. However, it, may still be useful to
present these criteria to give the reader at least some
perspective on what could be considered problem metal levels
in soils and plants. The Helena Valley criteria are
summarized in Table 3-10.
TABLE 3-10. METAL HAZARD LEVELS FOR THE HELENA VALLEY NEAR THE EAST HELENA SUPERFUND SITE
SOIL (TOTAL)
SOIL
(EXTRACTABLE)
PLANT
TISSUE
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)
Hazar
d Tolerable
Hazard Tolerable
Hazard
Tolerable
Arsenic
100
25
50
2
20
3
Cadmium
100
4
30
2
50
10
Copper
100
50
...
...
20
10
Lead
1000
250
500
200
...
25
Zinc
500
200
60
S
500
50
Sources:
CHjM
Hill
1987a, b.
3-39
Irrigation-Affected Lands
The deleterious effects of using Silver Bow Creek and
upper Clark Fork water for irrigation were recognized as long
ago as the early 1900s, Haywood (1907) reported that many
farmers used Clark Fork water only when absolutely necessary
due to its injurious effects. Results of surface water
investigations conducted by Haywood and other researchers led
him to conclude that Clark Fork water was not suitable for
irrigation use and would seriously injure land to which it
was applied (Haywood 1907) . Haywood also sampled irrigated
surface soils up to 15 miles northeast of the smelter and
found very high copper concentrations relative to sites west
and southwest of the smelter that were not irrigated by Clark
Fork water (Haywood 1910) .
Little additional research was conducted on contaminated
irrigation water until recently, but the problem was still
recognized in various documents, such as the 1959 Water
Resources Survey for Powell County (Buck et al. 1959) and the
Deer Lodge Valley Conservation District's Long Range Program
(1982) .
Hydrometrics (1983b) reported that several fields (about
200 acres east of the Clark Fork near Deer Lodge) had been
affected by tailings and poor-quality irrigation water
conveyed by a ditch. These fields have large barren areas
with negligible productivity and weed and erosion problems.
In March 1985, the Montana Bureau of Mines collected
soil cores from three land types on the Spangler Ranch near
Gregson, Montana, for phase I of a study of reclamation
techniques on heavy metals-contaminated pasturelands (Osborne
et al. 1986). Fifteen soil cores were collected (although
only three were analyzed) from a dryland pasture, a pasture
site, and an irrigated alfalfa field to determine metals and
arsenic distribution in the soil profiles. Elevated levels
of arsenic, copper, and zinc were found in the upper nine
inches of soil. One of the sites was thought to be within
the historic floodplain of Silver Bow Creek and was
reportedly flooded and irrigated with creek water in the
past.
A literature review conducted in developing the Silver
Bow Creek remedial investigation workplan revealed an
estimated 5,400 acres of cropland potentially contaminated by
irrigation water in Silver Bow, Deer Lodge, and Powell
counties (MultiTech and Stiller and Associates 1984).
3-40
In June 1985, MultiTech undertook a reconnaissance-level
study of irrigated lands between Rocker and Gold Creek as
part of the Silver Bow Creek RI Agriculture Investigation
(MultiTech 1986) . Its objectives were to refine previous
estimates of the extent and severity of contamination and to
prepare a preliminary evaluation of the impact on irrigated
croplands, livestock, and human health and welfare.
During the reconnaissance study, 38 soil samples were
collected at 16 sites from six areas (Figure 3-6) . At all
sites except the one near Gold Creek, soil samples were
collected both upgradient and downgradient of abandoned
irrigation ditches. Eighteen plant samples were also
collected at the 16 sites. Observations from this study
include (MultiTech 1986) :
• Soil and plant metal levels were elevated more
frequently in the downgradient than in the upgrad-
ient sites.
• Heavy metals contamination in upgradient soils
tended to be limited to the top six inches of soil,
whereas contamination commonly extended to 24
inches or more in downgradient soils.
• Contamination of soils was more severe in Silver
Bow Creek and upper Clark Fork floodplain areas
than in irrigated terrace sites.
• Vegetation growing on contaminated sites contained
elevated metal levels (particularly zinc) ; however,
concentrations were generally in the range that is
nontoxic to livestock unless such vegetation is the
only forage source.
• Deposition of heavy metals and resulting increased
acidity from pyrite mineral oxidation was severe
enough in some areas to prevent vegetative growth.
• The rural nature and remoteness of most of the
affected areas limited the risk to humans via
direct contact or ingestion of metals.
• Airborne contaminants may have constituted some of
the soil's heavy metals burden at the two sites
closest to the Anaconda Smelter site.
• Additional aerial photo interpretation of the study
area, aided by the field observation, supported the
original estimate of about 5,400 acres of obviously
affected land in Silver Bow, Deer Lodge, and Powell
counties.
3-41
CO
<u
E
to
CO
in
t-
5
t ^
?-^
"**St
= -«/^
■*3'
^
1
^
.f/
•^y
^.
a
i
^~
c/
51
en
'd
H
>-(
to
z
I— I
a.
s
<
o
OS
St:
Of
O
1^
o
ca
a:
Ct]
>
t-i
CO
I
a:
3-41a
In July 1985, Schafer (1985) took this analysis a step
further by addressing lands that had reduced yields — a more
subtle vegetative productivity effect. Based on photo inter-
pretation and very limited field reconnaissance, he estimated
that there were approximately 28,000 acres of irrigated or
previously irrigated land affected in some way by tailings
contamination in Deer Lodge, Silver Bow, Powell, Missoula,
and Granite counties. This total yield loss would be
equivalent to 12,475 acres at full production (Schafer 1985).
It is not clear whether mitigation of irrigation-
affected lands will be addressed within the confines of the
Super fund program. A variety of techniques, including soil
treatment, water treatment, and crop management, could be
employed to treat these lands (MultiTech and Stiller and
Associates 1984) . \
Floodplain Mine Wastes
Between the late 1880s and the mid-1950s, mining and
smelting wastes were discharged directly into Silver Bow
Creek and large quantities of tailings were transported
downstream to the Clark Fork. The Milltown Reservoir near
Missoula, which is the first major impoundment below the
Butte-Anaconda mining district, trapped substantial amounts
of mine wastes and contaminated sediment. However, a large
volume of river-borne mine wastes has been deposited across
the floodplain in the Deer Lodge Valley. The most severely
affected area is between Butte and Deer Lodge, although
floodplain mine wastes occur down to Missoula. These
deposits have had significant detrimental effects on the
Clark Fork riparian system, and they may be a source of
continued contamination (Johns and Moore 1985) .
The first large floodplain deposit in the headwaters is
Ramsay Flats, located along Silver Bow Creek near Ramsay
(Figure 3-7) . This deposit covers approximately 160 acres
and consists of fluvially transported tailings mixed with
natural sediment (MultiTech 1986) . Its average depth is
estimated to be about six feet, and metal analyses conducted
in a study by Peckham (1979) indicated a range of 69-5,400
ppm copper, undetected-1, 900 ppm lead, and 460-5,500 ppm
zinc.
For the tailings portion of the Silver Bow Creek
Remedial Investigation, 15 samples were collected between
Butte and the Warm Springs Ponds. Samples of soil buried by
tailings were also collected to determine if metals had
migrated out of the tailings. Results of the metal analyses
are summarized below (MultiTech 1987c) .
3-42
z.
u
t— t
>
CO
o
2
l-H
J
I— t
<
>-
<
T.
<
a:
I
u
O
3-42a
Tailings fppm)
Total
arsenic
399
(geom mean)
Total
cadmium
13.4
(average)
Total
copper
2,350
(average)
Total
lead
989
(average)
Total
zinc
3,070
(geom mean)
Buried Soil fppm)
53 (geom mean)
58 (max)
98 (geom mean)
336 (geom mean)
As expected, these data show greatly elevated concentra-
tions of metals in the tailings. Metal levels in the
underlying soils are generally several times higher than
typical geochemical background values, indicating that
enrichment via leaching is occurring.
MultiTech also collected some samples of the bluish
surface salts that form on the floodplain surface in some
areas during the summer. These samples contained 7 to nearly
10 percent total copper and 2 to 3 percent total zinc.
Brooks (1988) recently conducted a detailed investiga-
tion of the distribution and concentration of metals in
sediments and water in the upper Clark Fork floodplain. The
study area included about two miles of floodplain near
Racetrack Creek. The author mapped the floodplain sediments
using aerial photos and data obtained from cores, trenches,
and augering. Soil samples were collected at various
distances from the river to determine mineralogy, grain size,
and lateral distribution of metals concentrations. Water
movement into the vadose zone was measured at selected sites
with suction lysimeters. Sandpoint piezometers and augered
wells were used to measure water levels and collect water
samples from the alluvial aquifer.
By examining stratigraphic profiles of floodplain
sediment, Brooks delineated three major periods of mine waste
deposition: 1) pre-mining, represented by coarse sand and
organic overbank deposits under reducing conditions; 2) syn-
mining, characterized by transition sediments and tailings
deposits under oxidizing conditions; and 3) post-mining,
distinguished by grass-bound topsoil.
In areas contaminated by tailings deposits, the author
documented enriched concentrations of cadmium, copper,
manganese, and zinc in sediments and porewater and arsenic
in ground water. Mechanisms that chemically distribute
metals between particulate and dissolved phases are mainly
dependent on the redox conditions and on the pH of the
system. Thus, changes in redox conditions or fluctuations in
pH could create a potential source of metals and arsenic to
local ground water and surface water systems (Brooks 1988) .
3-43
The distribution of metals indicates that both vertical
and lateral migration have occurred. During high-evaporation
and low-precipitation periods, metals and sulfate in solution
migrate to the surface and are precipitated as metal-enriched
sulfate salts. Subsequent intense precipitation and rapid
surface runoff results in the instantaneous dissolution of
these salts, causing an abrupt lowering of pH and mobilizing
metals to surface waters. Also, during flood conditions,
metals can be incorporated into bed sediment and surface
waters where tailings deposits are directly exposed to the
active channel (Brooks 1988) .
Downward vertical migration within the stratigraphic
profile is indicated by the highly elevated concentrations of
metals in organic-rich clayey silt directly underlying the
tailings deposits. Complexation of metals in this unit is
highly enhanced by the abundance of organic material, the
proximity of the redox boundary, and the fine-grained nature
of the sediment. Consequently, these factors prevent
movement into the underlying coarse sand and gravel aquifer.
Any small-scale downward mobilization of metals into the
aquifer would likely be masked by dilution from ground water
(Brooks 1988) .
Ray (1983) conducted an investigation of metals-enriched
fluvial sediments in the upper Clark Fork. Samples were
collected from the floodplain near Rocker, Racetrack,
Garrison, and Drummond (Figure 3-8) . A check site was
sampled in the Tin Cup Joe Creek drainage, and a control site
was sampled in the Blackfoot River drainage. Results of this
study are summarized in Table 3-11.
TABLE 3-11. AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS <
OF SELECTED
METALS :
FLOODPLAIN
SEDIMENTS
Site No. of
Average
ppm in soi!
L^
Samples
Copper
Arsenic
Cadmium
Clark Fork Floodplain
Rocker 3
1,102
164
10.0
Racetrack 8
2,375
402
11.6
Garrison 8
1,587
629
5.0
Drummond 7
4,155
578
12.9
Other Floodplains
Tin Cup Joe Creek 3
53
26
1.7
check site
Blackfoot River 1
13
4
<0.03
control site
^ Arithmetic means
Source: Ray 1983.
3-44
00
ON
>>
to
OS
T3
c
<3
<U
O
0)
o
3
O
V3
cn o o
<
qe:
<
z
S
<
CO
<
H
O
►-(
oa
a
z
<
o
to
H
Z
u
z
I— t
a
u
CO
en
O
Cb
OS
<
u
U
3
00
I
CO
o
3-44a
The metal concentrations in the mainstem floodplain are
generally several orders of magnitude above the levels
expected for noncontaminated sediments. It is interesting
to note that the farthest downstream site (Drummond) had the
highest average cadmium and copper levels and the second-
highest arsenic concentration, indicating that in this study,
metal levels did not decrease with distance downstream from
the source areas at Butte and Anaconda. Knudson (1984) noted
that the Drummond and Deer Lodge valleys are deposition zones
because of low stream gradients and suggested that contami-
nated sediments deposited in these areas may be sources of
metals to the lower reaches of the upper river.
In 1983, Rice and Ray (1984) conducted a study of the
Grant-Kohrs Ranch at the north end of Deer Lodge (Figure 3-
8) . This ranch is a National Historic Site that commemorates
the development of the cattle industry in the West.
Approximately 75 percent of the ranch acreage is on the
floodplain of the Clark Fork, which bisects the site. The
study was conducted to describe the flora and fauna of the
site and to assess the extent and severity of metal con-
tamination in the ranch soils and biota.
The researchers sampled soil and biota in four distinct
zones on the ranch: riparian zone (grass/shrub floodplain) ,
meadov zone (grass/hay) , bench zone (grass) , and creek zone
(Cottonwood Creek, a minor tributary to the Clark Fork) .
The same check and control plots established by Ray
(1983) (on Tin Cup Joe Creek, about five miles southwest of
the ranch, and along the Blackfoot River, 60 miles northwest
of the ranch) were used for this study.
Soil profiles (0-10 inches) and a forage grass species
were sampled at 94 plots. Concentrations of soil arsenic,
cadmium, and copper in all four zones were greatly elevated
compared with the control plot in the Blackfoot drainage,
with the highest levels occurring in the riparian zone.
Metal concentrations in the grasses sampled were higher than
concentrations thought to be typical of grasses from
uncontaminated areas, but only copper in grass from the
riparian zone was significantly elevated relative to the
check plot (Rice and Ray 1984) .
In a study by Moore (1985) for the EPA, samples of bank
sediment were collected at 26 sites along the mainstem Clark
Fork to determine if these floodplain deposits could be the
source of metals in the Milltown Reservoir. Bank sediments
in the Little Blackfoot River, Flint Creek, Rock Creek, and
the Blackfoot River were also sampled to assess the pos-
sibility of metal-rich sediments coming from the major
tributary drainages. To establish natural background levels
3-45
of metals for the basin, samples were collected from isolated
outcrops of the Missoula Lake Beds, which contain only
natural concentrations of metals (Moore 1985) .
The mainstem Clark Fork sites were five to six river
miles apart between the Warm Springs Ponds and the Milltown
Reservoir. Where possible, fine-grained sediment from the
upper layers of bank deposits on the lowest terrace near the
main channel was sampled. Such samples would represent the
most recent sediment deposited outside the channel. Between
the ponds and Garrison, the sediments were in many places
actually tailings, with green and blue copper sulfate and
carbonate precipitates on exposed surfaces. The tailings
were thickest near the Warm Springs Ponds (over three feet)
and decreased downstream (Moore 1985) .
Results of this study indicate several trends in the
distribution of metals in the floodplain sediments. Arsenic,
copper, and lead concentrations showed a distinct decrease
downstream from the upper reaches to about Flint Creek, a
slight decrease until Rock Creek, and then a slight increase
near the Milltown Reservoir (Figures 3-9, 3-10, and 3-11).
Cadmium and zinc showed similar trends, although concentra-
tions were more erratic with strong spikes along the
mainstem. The mainstem sediment metal levels were generally
orders of magnitude higher than tributary and Missoula Lake
Bed levels, suggesting that Clark Fork floodplain sediments
are extremely enriched over natural background concentra-
tions. However, distribution of the contaminated sediment is
not uniform, as two of the mainstem sample sites (river miles
7 and 17) contained only background levels of metals (Moore
1985) . Such an occurrence would not be that unusual in an
active fluvial system. The area between Racetrack and Flint
Creek, with a fairly wide floodplain, appears to be a major
depositional environment, whereas the narrow floodplain
downstream of Flint Creek to above Milltown Reservoir likely
restricts such deposition (Moore 1985) .
Hydrometrics (1983b) conducted an inventory of tailings-
affected areas between the Warm Springs Ponds and Deer
Lodge. Fifteen samples were collected from five sites,
including both well-vegetated sites and those that appeared
to have been affected by tailings. Results of chemical
analyses showed considerable variability in the tailings, but
generally showed high concentrations of aluminum, copper, and
zinc. From field examination and aerial photo interpreta-
tion, Hydrometrics estimated that one million cubic yards of
tailings covering about 1,250 acres have been deposited on
the floodplain between Warm Springs and Deer Lodge. A
reconnaissance study of tailings deposits between Deer Lodge
and Garrison indicated that tailings are present as scattered
3-46
_Q
■
•— Csira
= I'
■
■ ^ojca
in
CQ
^
••^CMCS
00
OS
•
^
•— CJO
*"
iJ V
<u
0 ja
^^^1
•■— •— 'O
u
0
j^l^l
0
>w <u
-4
^^^^1
-^QCT)
0
Ji! JS
^^^^1
2
U ^ CO OS
to OJ t-l ^
^
•— eacn
.-10) 01 IJ
n b Id 11 o
C_)
■
-^cm
<u
O -> U 0
01 DO"-"
Qi
.
•'-arr)
u
£>t^
^ u 0 M
J
3
o
u a V) ^ <j
■ :M
"T5r-»
o
Ci,
iJ 'r^ to U (0
■
c/:
_) u, s DS ca
'!j^
\
3
6u O .Q O U.
-can
o
ca b .^ a: ea
J E
i
m
i
-C3C3
•r^c3 CO
... y
•tccj ,_,
-toa -i_
-tOC3 ^
■ -rO
- -T-r
-cntn
-rna
-r\j-T
-— <n
- — p^
OS
u
IX
»-(
Q
Cl]
CO
z
<
z
l-H
o
M
z
u
CO
<
<
H
<yi
1
en
u
OS
3
1 1 1—
-4 —
-4 H
— 1 •
Az
^ a <3
a
a C3
o a
CJ C3
^ ^ "=5
a
Q a
C3 C3
a
CU CO -r
rj
CD a
a -r
ru
coLua
>-^-zz
LJIZIr—
— )CD
•<C
0\LD
3-46a
-D
f--.caa
«— 1
Q J— r'°
iri
^^—
•— <MfM
00
On
"~"
^•i
^H
•-,{va
•—
^^
•—■ T^O
■"
^
^1
-,— .GO
o
o
-— c3cn
u
•—.on
(U
^^^^
•—an
3
O
CO
0 J3
0
-^
-tr}t>*
Iki 4)
-=33
^ ^
•
^^^fl
U J< (0
CO 4) —
^
ce
^
-CTcn
CO L< fS
ij
o
^
-C=CT
O —
ki
o
41 =
'^ 4J 0
O
J.!
_Q
- = r,
4J C CO
O
<0
r— » ■>»C3
•^ ^-4 •M
_: b. 2
O
OS
•—4
ca
— ^^
-r^C3
CO
U. O J3
o
bb
CJ
-«CC3
to Ui t-t
^ S
1
ca
1
Ll.
CD.
-J
1
1
1
1
-to CM
-•JOCV
-— CT
' .1 '.1
•-rCM
■cT7in
■CNJ^r
■— CT
■ — «-«•
>
1 — 1
1 h
—^L
^
^T"
—i —
^^^^^^^^
•a
CS C2
CO en
a
a
u:
cv
a
a
C3
CM
a
a
a
a
a
a c:
a
U3
cnLuc=iH-.z
:llj:
z.: —
ZDLD
(-JZD\CD
^;_,
a:
o
<
o
Cu
H
Z
u
Z
i-i
o
bl
CO
<
CO
u
Du
o
u
<
H
O
I
u
U
3-46b
O X>
O
U ^ CO OS
n V —< J£
n ij Q 0) o
U '^ b O
V 3 O «-i
— I u O Ji
u C m ^ u
u -r^ to u Id
• H f— ) *^ O ^^
^ Ul4 Z ai ca
(i^ U J3 U Cb
03 [b — I a: D9
00
u
o
o
a)
o
D
O
CD
O
on
<
u
Ui
CL
3
H
Z
u
z:
i-i
a
u
C/]
!^
Z
<
OQ
a
<
■J
<
H
O
H
I
U
OS
O
01 LJ Q >— . ::i !jj m :—
3-46c
point bars and thin overbank deposits along this reach
(Hydrometrics 1983b) .
Sediment Transport Mechanisms
To effectively deal with the problems caused by
floodplain tailings in the Clark Fork system, it is important
to have at least a fundamental understanding of the processes
of metal transport and accumulation in the sediments.
Research that addresses these issues is summarized below.
Andrews (1987) collected fine-grained bed sediment
samples at 21 sites along the Clark Fork from the downstream
edge of the Warm Springs Ponds to just below the mouth of the
Flathead River in 1984. He also collected a sediment sample
from each of the five largest tributaries, including the
Little Blackfoot River, Flint Creek, Rock Creek, the
Blackfoot River, and the Bitterroot River. Concentrations of
arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, aluminum, iron, and
manganese are summarized in Table 3-12. Andrews concluded
that the arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc were
primarily associated with ferromanganese material on the
particle surface, and that with the exception of lead, very
little of these elements was bound in silicate minerals.
In bed sediment samples, copper, zinc, and manganese
increased significantly with decreased particle size.
Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc in
fine-grained bed sediments decreased downstream but at
different rates. Copper concentrations decreased downstream
much more rapidly than lead concentrations, while arsenic,
cadmium, and zinc decreased less rapidly than copper but more
rapidly than lead (Andrews 1987) .
The author also found that the addition of relatively
clean water and sediment from tributaries had little effect
on the distribution of trace metals in the Clark Fork. For
example, mixing the sediments with background metal con-
centrations from the Bitterroot River did not appreciably
dilute the trace metal concentrations in mainstem bed
sediments. The exchange of sediment between the river and
floodplain in the mainstem is large relative to the quantity
of sediment contributed by tributaries; therefore, the
tributaries have no appreciable effect (Andrews 1987) .
In 1986, Brook and Moore conducted a study to evaluate
the distribution of metals and the control exerted by
sediment particle size on metals concentrations in upper
Clark Fork bed sediments. Bed sediments were collected from
26 locations in the mainstem Clark Fork and from several
locations in the Little Blackfoot River, Flint Creek, and the
3-47
TABLE 3-12. CONCENTRATIONS OF TRACE HETAL ASSOCIATED WITH FINE-GRAINED
BED MATERIAL IN THE CLARK FORK AND MAJOR TRIBUTARIES
Location
River
Kl lometer
et«rk Fork
Arsenic
Total Partial
mg/kg
Cadmium
Total Partial
mg/kg
Copper
Total Partial
mg/kg
Lead
Total Partial
mg/kg
Zinc
Total Partial
mg/kg
U.3
21.2
34. S
48.1
78.4
89.2
94.1
104.4
115.7
130.7
HO. 8
153.4
168.3
181.5
207.1
222.4
228.4
264.9
299.6
387.7
399.7
165.0
164
199.0
194
151.0
195
100.0
60.0
39.0
46.0
44.0
54.0
69.0
49.0
40.0
33.0
35.0
18.0
15.0
19.0
17.0
8.5
17.0
9.4
1
1
1
<0
7.3
1,290
1,300
173
117.0
1,660
1,580
10.0
2,490
1,410
179
136.0
1,770
1,770
11.0
1,660
1,540
213
151.0
1,850
1,880
1,620
1,080
170
116.0
1,460
1,380
1,700
990
139
89.8
1,380
1,390
1,000
641
100
62.2
1,030
1,030
17.0
1,050
747
111
67.9
1,130
1,090
650
680
100
63.4
560
1,130
400
418
112
77.2
900
916
420
428
116
84.9
940
916
335
345
95
36.8
830
836
305
305
87
52.1
800
761
325
321
79
43.5
325
780
333
345
80
51.9
900
873
225
230
54
30.2
690
685
245
231
62
30.1
540
489
325
353
62
37.0
760
740
212
221
45
20.9
610
613
<0. 1
121
107
34
<0.5
330
300
235
245
57
27.4
540
527
0.79
93
101
24
1.4
250
267
Major Tributariea
Little Blackfoot
River
Flint Cretk
Rock Creek
Blackfoot River
Bitterroot River
3.2 17.0 0.7 0.8
126.0 128.0 1.5 0.7
5.4 14.0 <0.5 <0.1
4.8 6.4 <0.5 0.3
3.0 5.0 <0.5 <0.1
25
27.5
31
4.2
153
128
48
51.0
165
124.0
560
542
10
12.0
6
<0.5
38
35
19
17.0
9
<0.5
54
41
30
29.0
24
<0.5
80
79
Source: Andrews 1987.
3-47a
Blackfoot River. Fine-grained bed sediments were collected
in areas of low-flow velocity and were separated into mud
and sand fractions in the laboratory.
The authors reported that mean concentrations of
cadmium, copper, manganese, and zinc in mainstem samples were
well above those in tributary samples. All four metals
showed general decreases in concentration downstream (this
trend was more pronounced in the mud fraction) and varia-
bility among sites was high. Brook and Moore attributed
these results to the downstream decline in frequency of
metals-laden floodplain deposits and speculated that dilution
by uncontaminated tributary sediments might also be a factor.
They also found that more of the bulk metals concentrations
were derived from the sand fraction than from the mud
fraction (Brook and Moore, unpublished manuscript) .
Using the data on bank sediments from Moore's 1985 EPA
study (discussed in the previous section), Moore et al. (in
press) examined the controls exerted by sediment particle
size on metals concentrations in the Clark Fork system. The
traditional view of metal-sediment association is that most
of the metals are carried in the fine fraction. Moore et al.
(in press) found that this relationship held true in the
tributaries, where there were significant correlations
between most of the metals and the percentage of clay.
However, in the mainstem, most or all of the size fractions
were found to be important contributors to the high metals
concentrations. The Clark Fork is a high-gradient, coarse-
grained system that commonly carries coarse sand in suspen-
sion during spring runoff. Some of this coarse sand is
actually extremely metal-rich mine and smelter tailings. The
authors also suggested that the coarse-grained floodplain
sediments may reside in an oxygenated environment longer than
fine sediments and may have more time to accumulate oxide
coatings and associated trace metals.
Moore et al. (in press) concluded that distribution of
metals in a complex system such as the Clark Fork is more
likely to be based on chemical associations than on grain-
size parameters. Application of traditional methods to
correct for grain size effects may lead to erroneous
conclusions about metal trends in the Clark Fork and other
contaminated systems.
Researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are
conducting investigations in the Clark Fork using sediments
to determine the fate and distribution of trace metals in
river systems. They are also using aquatic insects as
indicators of biologically available metals. The Clark Fork
has been selected for these investigations because of the
predominance of mine waste metals and the lack of other major
3-48
metal sources. Although these investigations are part of a
larger investigation of rivers in general, the data should be
useful for understanding Clark Fork problems. The investi-
gations involve the mainstem Clark Fork and several major
tributary streams (Luoma 1988) .
Reservoir Sediments
Milltown Reservoir acted as a primary catch basin for
mining-related sediment from the time of its construction
(1906) until the construction of the Warm Springs Ponds
(1911) . This reservoir is basically full, with an estimated
120 million cubic feet of metals-contaminated sediment
behind the dam (Woessner et al. 1984). Johns and Moore
(1986) undertook a study to demarcate the lower boundary of
detectable metals-contaminated sediments derived from mining
and smelting activities in the headwaters. They collected
samples from the Thompson Falls, Noxon Rapids, and Cabinet
Gorge reservoirs in the lower portion of the Clark Fork
Basin. Samples were also collected from three drainages
tributary to Noxon Rapids and Cabinet Gorge reservoirs to
serve as background checks. Data from these lower reservoirs
and tributaries were compared with data from the Clark Fork
and Blackfoot arms of the Milltown Reservoir collected during
the Milltown Superfund Remedial Investigation.
Results of this study are summarized in Table 3-13.
Total metals concentrations, measured in micrograms per gram
(ug/g) , in the sediments of all four reservoirs are clearly
elevated compared with Blackfoot and tributary sediments. In
almost all cases, total metals levels in the reservoirs
decreased progressively downstream. The same trends were
evident for acetic acid-extractable metals, as illustrated by
the copper and zinc plots in Figures 3-12 and 3-13.
Although some of the metals concentrations in the three
lower reservoirs were not highly enriched over background
levels, it is clear that elevated levels of copper and zinc
occur as far downstream as Cabinet Gorge Reservoir, some 34 0
miles from the major source of those metals. Transport of
the metals-laden sediment down river may have occurred prior
to construction of the Milltown Dam, during exceptional
events such as dike breaches at the Warm Springs Ponds,
during operational and maintenance drawdowns of the Milltown
Reservoir, and as part of the current total suspended
sediment load in the Clark Fork. Metal-rich sediments were
and are likely diluted by additions of "clean" sediments
from major tributaries such as the Blackfoot, Bitterroot,
Flathead, and St. Regis rivers (Johns and Moore 1986) . This
conclusion appears to contradict the findings of Andrews
(1987) .
3-49
TABLE 3-13. HEAN CONCENTRATION AND 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LIMITS FOR TRACE
ELEMENTS IN SURFACE SEDIMENTS FROM CLARK FORK RESERVOIRS AND
TRIBUTARIES
Trace Element
Reservoir/
(ug/g)
Tributary
As
Cu
Mn
Pb
Zn
Blackfoot
U.7
22
295
15.8
«8
River
(13.1-16.5)
(16-28)
(250-348)
(11-22.7)
(57-80)
Mill town
50
422
1,260
75.8
1.585
Reserve) r
(41.7-60.3)
(344-517)
(841-1,880)
(64.2-89.6)
(1,080-2,330)
Thompson Falls
19.3
108
417
28.4
331
Reservoi r
(U. 8-25.1)
(86-135)
(257-676)
(19.7-40.9)
(246-445)
Noxon Rapids
21
95
631
35
309
Reservoir
(19.7-22.5)
(79-113)
(513-776)
(31.6-38.8)
(281-339)
Vermi I ion River
15.5
23
225
16. B
70
Trout Creek
U
28
290
21.7
72
Cabinet Gorge
12
42
398
19.4
200
Reservoir
(8.8-15.5)
(27-64)
(262-605)
(14.9-25.3)
(132-301)
Bull River
8.3
12
167
7
45
Reservoir means and confidence limits are back-transformed from log^g.
Source: Johns and Moore 1986.
3-49a
lA
00
3
o
z
u
o
o
X
T5
c
CO
CO
C
x;
o
-5
0)
O
U
o
M O
a:
m
o
in
— T—
O
o
O
n
o
o
— r-
O
■n
§
u
o
u
oa
<
H
u
<
OS
H
X
I
Q
i-i
U
<
U
i-i
H
U
U
<
to
o
z
w
H
ec
til
>
I— I
z
o
o
jaddoo 6/5n
06
3-49b
00
^
u
.5
"
.^
5
•
m
1
g
Ci
o
Z
N^
-
in
M
5h
^
^
u
o
o
X
TJ
C
CO
c
O
0)
u
3
o
o
>
i.
«>
in
01
a:
§
u
z
I— t
N
UJ
<
H
<
H
X
U
I
a
<
u
I— I
H
U]
U
<
C/5
Q
Z
u
OS
H
o:
>
02
z
o
a
u
o
8
— r-
o
o
N
O
O
O
— r-
o
o
— T-
o
o
10
o
o
o
o
N
0UJ2 5/5n
3-49c
Reclamation of Contaminated Lands
Although several hundred acres of land in the Butte and
Anaconda areas have been reclaimed by the Anaconda Minerals
Company, a large number of acres of contaminated land remain
in the upper reaches of the Clark Fork Basin. It is almost
certain that reclamation of at least some of those acres will
be attempted in the future. At present, the lack of
perennial vegetation in many areas of the Deer Lodge Valley
causes a number of problems, including wind erosion,
increased surface runoff, increased recharge of the shallow
ground water system, and possibly increased heavy metals
loading to surface and ground water. If the quality and
productivity of the vegetation in the upper Clark Fork Basin
were improved, an increase in land quality and overall
environmental quality in the region would result (USDA
1985a) .
Much of the future reclamation efforts will likely be
through the Super fund program, although projects using other
sources of funding are currently in progress. Any major
revegetation endeavors would have to be preceded by detailed
trials and evaluations prior to large-scale application. A
few such evaluations have been recently conducted, are on-
going, or are in the planning stages. These and activities
by AMC are summarized in the following sections.
Spangler Ranch Study
A study to identify reclamation techniques for heavy
metals contaminated agricultural lands in Deer Lodge, Powell,
and Silver Bow counties was initiated in 1984. The project
was administered by the Headwaters RC&D and received
financial support through a grant from DNRC. The project
consisted of a forage-establishment phase and a hydrogeology
phase.
The two-year forage-establishment study was conducted by
Schafer and Associates (1986) on the Spangler Ranch about six
miles southeast of the Anaconda Smelter. The purpose of the
study was to develop and test techniques for reestablishing
forages on land contaminated by mining. The affected area,
nearly devoid of vegetation, was once-productive dairy farm
land but had been irrigated with tailings-laden water
through the early 1900s (Schafer and Associates 1986) .
A number of treatments were tested, including three
different liming rates, several different forage species, and
a variety of tillage methods. The results of these trials
were:
3-50
Use of lime to neutralize soil acidity was '
necessary to allow plant establishment. Extensive
sampling of a potential reclamation site was needed
before the lime requirement could be predicted.
Both the average and range in lime requirement
should be characterized, and lime rates should be
set to improve 85-95 percent of soils to a target
pH of 6 to 6.5.
In soils that were high in copper and zinc, the use
of liming alone did not ensure adequate plant
performance. Additional soil amendments, such as
phosphorus and manure, might be required to further
reduce the availability of copper and zinc to
plants.
Plant performance on the test plots was variable.
Some plants may have done poorly partly because the
first year of the study was hot and dry. However,
promising results were obtained with a number of
species, including crested wheatgrass, pubescent
wheatgrass, basin wildrye, Russian wildrye, altai
wildrye, yellow sweetclover, cicer milkvetch, and
birdsfoot trefoil. None of the plants sampled
appeared to accumulate metal levels that would be
toxic to livestock.
A moldboard plow/ chisel, plow/harrow tillage
sequence gave the best results due to better
seedbed preparation, better mixing of lime, and
reduced competition from existing vegetation.
The first phase of the hydrogeologic study was completed
in 1986 (Osborne et al. 1986) and was discussed earlier in
this chapter. The second phase is ongoing and is being
conducted by the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology. The
objectives are: 1) to quantify the concentrations of trace
elements in selected intervals of soil and unconsolidated
deposits underlying the Spangler Ranch agricultural sites
and 2) to identify the mechanisms and rates of trace element
movement in the unsaturated zone and shallow aquifers on the
sites. The study involves laboratory leaching column
experiments and field site lysimeter sampling.
The following observations were made at the conclusion
of the first round of leaching column experiments (Wilson et
al. 1988):
• Of the elements tested, arsenic was most mobile in
both amended and nonamended soils.
3-51
The lime -amended soil showed the smallest release
of dissolved arsenic, whereas the lime-and-phos-
phorus-amended soil showed the greatest release of
dissolved arsenic.
The field site lysimeters were successfully sampled
until the end of August 1987, after which the soils became
too dry to obtain samples. Data from these samplings
indicate that field site results for arsenic during the first
year did not completely parallel laboratory results. The
lowest arsenic concentrations were found in lysimeter samples
from the control (untreated) plot rather than from the lime-
amended plot. For zinc and copper, the lowest dissolved
concentrations were observed in the lime-amended soils.
An additional season's results are needed to confirm or
alter the field-site interpretations, which are based on a
limited sampling in 1987.
Streambank Tailings and Revegetation Study
As part of the Silver Bow Creek Superfund site Phase II
remedial investigation, the DHES has developed a program to
address the streambank mine wastes disseminated over much of
Silver Bow Creek and the upper Clark Fork. Typical remedial
measures for such wastes include removal or capping; however,
such measures may not be practical for sites such as Silver
Bow Creek that involve large areas of contamination and large
volumes of material. Therefore, the Streambank Tailings and
Revegetation Study (STARS) was initiated in fall 1987 to
investigate new and more innovative technologies to address
streambank mine wastes (CH2M Hill 1987c) .
STARS is divided into two phases: a laboratory/green-
house phase to develop and test treatments at a bench scale
and a field scale phase to demonstrate selected remedial
alternatives. During Phase I, a variety of remedial measures
are being tested to modify the tailings characteristics
sufficiently to allow revegetation. Suitable soil amendments
to raise soil pH and reduce plant-available metal levels are
being developed, and plant species that can thrive in the
amended environment will be selected. Criteria for charac-
terizing streambank mine wastes based on their chemical and
physical properties are being developed. The Phase I final
report will include a preliminary design for innovative
remedial alternatives for each waste type identified.
Laboratory and greenhouse studies were completed in the
fall of 1988. Phase II activities will include field
implementation of the remedial measures designed in Phase I.
3-52
The response of treatment in reducing leachate quantity and
abating metal movement to surface and ground water will also
be evaluated (CH2M Hill 1987c) . Siting and construction of
the field demonstration are ongoing and it is anticipated
that the plots will be seeded in late fall 1988. If the fall
planting season is missed, the plots will be seeded in the
spring of 1989. The plots will be monitored through two
field seasons, with a final Phase II report due sometime in
1991.
Clark Fork Reclamation Demonstration Project
In September 1986, a proposal for an upper Clark Fork
floodplain reclamation demonstration project was submitted to
the DNRC for funding under the Resource Indemnity Trust (RIT)
Grants Program. The proposal was prepared and submitted by
the Governor's Office Clark Fork Basin Project, the Head-
waters RC&D, and the Deer Lodge County Conservation District.
The purpose of the project was to evaluate the cost and
effectiveness of a variety of reclamation techniques applied
to an entire floodplain segment (streambanks, riparian area,
and adjacent agricultural lands) of the upper Clark Fork.
The project was approved for RIT funding in 1987; however,
funds were not available until late 1988. It is anticipated
that work will begin in 1989.
Some preliminary work was conducted on the project in
the fall of 1987. With help from a Deer Lodge/Powell County
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey party, Schafer
and Associates (1988) conducted a detailed survey of the
study area under contract with the Governor's Office.
The objectives of the investigation were to:
• determine the source, extent, and severity of
tailings contamination in the study area
• determine where and under what conditions metals
from streamside tailings may be entering the Clark
Fork
• identify potential low-cost remedial measures to
reduce or eliminate the movement of contaminants
into the river
• propose specific candidate sites for a remedial
demonstration.
3-53
An order 1 (ultra-detailed) soil survey was completed on
a corridor bordering the Clark Fork reach from Warm Springs
Ponds to just below Perkins Lane Bridge. A mapping unit
legend was developed to delineate mine waste deposits from
natural soils. Tailings deposits were further separated by
depth, amount of vegetation, and soil texture. Mapping units
were also separated according to the geomorphic setting,
being either above the 100-year floodplain, in the 100-year
floodplain, or roughly within the mean annual floodplain.
Natural soils and tailings-affected units were classified
using the Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff 1975) . A total of
18 map units were delineated on 1981, 1: 6, 000-scale aerial
photographs .
To determine the chemical and physical variability in
the tailings deposits, two detailed soil investigation plots
were located near the river at sites where tailings deposi-
tion was extensive. Data from these sites were encoded and
used to produce maps of tailings thickness, surface eleva-
tion, and surface soil pH and electrical conductivity (EC) .
It was found that soil pH levels were highest in the natural
soil, with much lower pH found in tailings deposits.
Tailings deposits less than 8 to 12 inches thick had higher
pH levels than thicker tailings layers. Soil salinity tended
to be higher in tailings than in natural soils, but this
parameter differed less than pH.
A streambank survey was conducted to assess the
condition of the channel banks within the study area. The
river bank condition was rated according to bank angle,
percentage of protective cover, kind of cover (gravel,
vegetation) , and depth of tailings. A two-man mapping team
floated and/or waded to obtain the data. The bank angle was
measured relative to the river, with a vertical bank equaling
90 degrees and an undercut bank less than 90 degrees. This
was done to find areas where the river was undercutting and
eroding its banks. The protective cover was ranked using a
rating from one to four, with one being less than 25 percent
cover, two between 25 and 49 percent, three between 50 and 79
percent, and four being greater than 80 percent cover. The
classification and rating system of bank conditions was
developed into a legend similar to the method described by
Platts et al. (1983), and a map of the river bank mapping
units was produced. The majority of the streambank within
the study corridor was in good shape, with probably 10
percent or less in the very erosive category.
Several remedial measures may be employed within the
demonstration area. Contaminants would be removed from along
the streambank, and willows would be used to improve bank
stability. Mine waste removed from areas susceptible to
erosion would be redeposited on-site in more stable
3-54
locations. Chemical amendments would be added to thick (more
than eight inches) tailings deposits (point bars) to
neutralize acidity and metals, and cover soil would be placed
over them to function as a root-zone medium. Areas with less
than 6-8 inches of mine waste would be either amended and
reseeded or mixed through deep plowing. All areas would be
seeded with a mixture of species adapted to the conditions on
the site. Grazing restrictions would be employed to enhance
the stability of crucial areas along the stream channel.
Three possible study locations varying from six to ten
acres have been identified. This reach of river has
historical fishery and water quality data and is known to
suffer a decline in fish numbers. The landowner supports the
project. Access to the site is good due to the proximity of
Perkins Lane Bridge and an abandoned railroad grade.
Detailed soil information gathered from this project will be
useful for project planning purposes.
Anaconda Minerals Company Reclamation
The Anaconda Minerals Company has undertaken several
reclamation projects in the Butte-Anaconda area in the last
three years. It has reclaimed several hundred acres using
cover soil, crushed limerock, straw mulch, fertilizer, and
grass seed.
In Butte, AMC has reclaimed approximately 120 acres,
including 67 individual mine dumps, portions of the Buffalo
and Missoula drainages, all of the La Platta drainage, and
the Sherman Ballfield-South Alice dump area. It has moved
more than 150,000 tons of mine waste rock to the Berkeley
Pit. AMC has also installed 300 feet of large-dimension
pipe and constructed over a mile and a half of rock-and-
filter-lined ditches to provide controlled drainage from
Walkerville to the existing Butte-Silver Bow storm drain
system.
On Smelter Hill in Anaconda, AMC has reclaimed approx-
imately 300 acres of land and developed three miles of
ditches. It has placed an erosion-resistant cap over the
old flue and moved hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of
material to reduce the slopes and cover the substructures of
demolished buildings prior to the reclamation work. At the
Opportunity tailings ponds system, AMC has reduced the slopes
of all dikes and dams, and all of the tailings have been
covered with at least 30 tons per acre of crushed limerock to
prevent blowing.
3-55
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Introduction
Early 19th century explorers, fur traders, and
missionaries described the Clark Fork as a clear and pristine
waterway, teeming with life (Horstman 1984) . This vision of
the Clark Fork faded into a memory with the advent of mining
later in that century, as mining, milling, and smelting
wastes were dumped directly into Silver Bow Creek and
transported downstream. In 1872, James A. Garfield noted
that "the beautiful river has been permanently ruined by the
miners; and has been for three years as muddy as the
Missouri. Before the discovery of gold, it was as clear and
pure as any mountain stream could well be" (Horstman 1984) .
The mining activities resulted in high concentrations of
heavy metals and high sediment loading in the river, and as
the basin became more developed, nutrient loading also
increased. Those early days of neglect resulted in a river
system that was virtually unusable and uninhabitable for fish
and other aquatic species. However, as environmental
awareness grew and ushered in the age of water quality
standards and regulations, conditions in the river system
began to slowly rejuvenate. Although it still has much room
for improvement, the river has nonetheless staged a rather
dramatic comeback.
The following sections touch briefly on historical water
quality (pre-1984) in the Clark Fork and then describe recent
and current water quality conditions (1984 to present) in
detail. This latter section focuses on heavy metals
(particularly copper and zinc) and suspended sediments, as
these are the parameters of greatest concern today. Other
surface water quality problems, such as ammonia, dissolved
oxygen (DO), elevated temperature, color, foam, etc., are
discussed in less detail. Nutrients, an important issue in
the basin, and their effects on algae growth are discussed in
the section following surface water quality.
Historical Surface Water Quality Problems
One of the first comprehensive studies of water quality
degradation in the Clark Fork drainage was conducted in the
late 1950s by the Montana State Board of Health to obtain
information necessary for the classification of streams and
the establishment of water quality standards. This study
(Spindler 1959) involved a comprehensive chemical and
biological survey of the entire mainstem and major tribu-
taries. After publication of that report, there was little
activity on the river until the 1970s, when several studies
3-56
were performed to document the effectiveness of Anaconda
Minerals Company's efforts to treat water in Silver Bow
Creek. These earlier studies are discussed in the following
sections.
Silver Bow Creek
Spindler (1959) documented grossly polluted conditions
in Silver Bow Creek in 1957. He reported very high levels of
copper, iron, and zinc; low dissolved oxygen levels; high
turbidity; no pollution-sensitive macroinvertebrate species,
and only one tolerant form.
The first attempt to address the water quality problems
in the headwaters had come in 1911 when the Anaconda Copper
Company built a treatment pond near Warm Springs to settle
out its industrial wastes. Two more treatment ponds were
added in 1916 and between 1954 and 1959. With the addition
of the third pond, this system became quite effective in
settling metals out of the stream. Water quality in the
Clark Fork improved below the ponds, as demonstrated by the
following data from Spindler (1959) :
Station
Silver Bow Creek at
Silver Bow
Metals (ug/1)*
Copper Zinc Arsenic
11,200 3,350 40
Silver Bow Creek above 4,200
settling ponds
Clark Fork below
settling ponds
10
3,660
400
30
trace
* maximum of two samplings, summer 1957
However, Silver Bow Creek continued to receive raw
mining and milling wastes, and by the mid-1960s, the
accumulated solids in the ponds had begun to reduce the pond
volume and, hence, the efficiency of the system. The
Anaconda Company decided to construct new treatment facili-
ties within the Butte Operations to replace the Warm Springs
Ponds as the primary wastewater treatment system (Spindler
1976) . The new program included lime neutralization,
flocculation, co-precipitation, settling, secondary polish-
ing, and pH adjustment (Chadwick et al. 1986).
3-57
This new primary treatment facility was put into
operation late in 1972. Although water quality began to
improve, it was several years before there were signs of
recovery in Silver Bow Creek. Gless (1973) conducted a
biological study of Silver Bow Creek from 1972 to 1973 and
found almost no invertebrates, which he attributed to a lack
of suitable substrate and high heavy metals loads. Anaconda
Company's self -monitoring turned up no macroinvertebrates in
Silver Bow Creek until 1975 (Chadwick et al. 1986) . Diebold
(1974) studied the physical and chemical properties of Silver
Bow Creek water and bottom sediments from 1973 to 1974. He
performed laboratory leaching studies and concluded that the
sediments had a high metal adsorption capacity.
The primary treatment system was refined in 1974 to
increase the holding time prior to discharging wastewater
(Chadwick et al. 1986) . A secondary treatment system
installed in 1975 further improved water quality, as
evidenced by decreased turbidity, TSS, and heavy metals
concentrations. By late 1975, a variety of algae and
macroinvertebrates were found in Silver Bow Creek (Spindler
1976) .
Although water quality in Silver Bow Creek improved
greatly over the days when the stream received untreated
wastes, metal concentrations at levels potentially toxic to
aquatic life were reported by various investigators (Beuerman
and Gleason 1978; Peckham 1979; Botz and Karp 1979; Janik
and Melancon 1982; and Hydrometrics 1983a). Most reported
increased metals loads between Butte and Gregson that were
attributable in part to the large tailings deposits (Colorado
Tailings and Ramsay Flats) in the floodplain of Silver Bow
Creek.
Clark Fork
Spindler (1959) made several observations regarding
water quality conditions in the mainstem Clark Fork from his
field work conducted in 1957. He found that, based on bottom
fauna analysis, polluted water conditions existed in the
Clark Fork from Warm Springs to the Bitterroot River.
Evidence of conditions approaching gross pollution existed
between Warm Springs and the Little Blackfoot River, below
Garrison, between Missoula and the Bitterroot River, and
below Plains. Among the problems documented were high
coliform bacteria concentrations downstream of industrial
waste discharges, municipal wastewater, and raw sewage
discharges, which rendered the river unsafe for uses other
than agricultural and industrial.
The construction of Warm Springs Pond 3 resulted in
improved water quality in the upper Clark Fork. For the
3-58
first time since the turn of the century, limited macroinver-
tebrate and fish populations became established in a short
reach immediately downstream of the ponds. However, despite
the significant improvements, water quality as a whole was
still marginal. In 1967, the Montana Water Pollution Control
Council established water quality standards for Montana
surface waters. These standards established beneficial uses
to be protected, but did not specify numerical criteria for
heavy metals and other contaminants (EPA 1972) . They did,
however, require municipal and industrial dischargers to
provide secondary treatment or the equivalent.
In 1970, the EPA conducted a study (EPA 1972) for the
DHES to determine the allowable maximum concentrations of
heavy metals in the Clark Fork. Some of the results of the
study, along with USGS data collected in the early 1970s,
are presented in Table 3-14. The data indicate that water
quality in the Clark Fork was quite poor as far downstream as
Alberton during industrial spills, labor strikes, or high
runoff periods. The EPA characterized the Clark Fork above
Deer Lodge as severely polluted, as indicated by a deficient
and nonbalanced population of benthic organisms and few fish.
Waste discharges and spills from the Anaconda Company
settling ponds were cited as the principal cause of the high
concentrations of most metals and other constituents in the
headwaters.
TABLE 3
-14. MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF COPPER AND ZINC 1
IN MAINSTEM CLARK FORK,
1970-72
SAMPLING DATE ON
PERIOD OF
WHICH MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATIONS (t
jg/l)
AGENCY
RECORD
CONC. OCCURRED
STATION
TOTAL CU
trI cu
TOTAL Zn
TR Zn
EPA
May-Oct. 1970
Oct. 21, 1970
Clark
Fork
at
Warm Springs
1,360*
4,200*
...
USGS
July 71-June 72
Jan. 5, 1972
Clark
Foek
near Galen
...
120
...
950
EPA
Hay-Oct. 1970
July 14, 1970
Clark
Fork
at
Dempsey
420*
...
960*
...
USGS
Oct. 70-June 71
Feb. 3, 1971
Clark
Fork
at
Deer Lodge
...
210
...
350
EPA
Hay-Oct. 1970
July 14, 1970
Clark
Fork
at
Deer Lodge
1,200*
...
4,700*
...
USGS
Oct. 70-June 71
Feb. 3, 1971
Clark
Fork
at
Garrison
...
130
...
250
EPA
May-Oct. 1970
Cu low flow
Zn high flow
Clark
Fork
at
Garrison
240
...
340
...
USGS
July 71-June 72
Cu July 24, 1971
Zn April 17, 1972
Clark
Fork
at
Drunmiond
.- -
20
...
120
EPA
May-Oct. 1970
Low flow
Clark
Fork
at
Drummond
90
...
160
...
USGS
Oct. 70-June 71
April 7, 1971
Clark
Fork
above Missoula
...
340
...
540
USGS
Oct. 70-June 71
April 7, 1971
Clark
Fork
near Alberton
...
240
...
260
USGS
Oct. 70-June 71
April 13, 1972
Clark
Fork
at
Thompson Fall
s —
20
...
40
TR = Total Recoverable
*Sainples collected during spills
Sources: EPA 1972; Brosten and Jacobson 1985.
3-59
The EPA reported a more balanced and healthy biological
system on the mainstem at and below Garrison and high
quality water in streams tributary to the Clark Fork.
Between 1973 and 1983, a variety of studies were
conducted on the Clark Fork (Braico 1973; EPA 1974; Botz and
Karp 1979; Janik and Melancon 1982; Hydrometrics 1983b).
However, the best records of surface water quality for that
decade are from the DHES-WQB station at Deer Lodge and the
uses station below Missoula. The station at Deer Lodge was
sampled by the WQB sporadically from 1974 through 1977 and
monthly between 1978 and 1983. The WQB documented high total
recoverable copper and zinc concentrations (up to 800
micrograms per liter [ug/1]) associated with spring runoff
events, particularly between 1974 and 1976. Although peak
concentrations were not as high in the 1977-83 period, many
of the concentrations measured exceeded copper and zinc
aquatic life toxicity criteria. Total phosphorus concentra-
tions were often greater than 100 ug/1 and reached over 500
ug/1 on one occasion.
uses data for part of the same period for the Clark Fork
below Missoula document relatively low concentrations of
total recoverable copper and zinc from 1978 through 1980,
with strong peaks during runoff events in May 1981 and
February 1982. Total phosphorus concentrations were
generally below 100 ug/1, although they reached a peak value
of 770 ug/1 in February 1982 (Brosten and Jacobson 1985) .
Recent and Current Surface Water Quality Monitoring Programs
The attention that has been focused on the Clark Fork
system in the last few years has prompted a number of
agencies to conduct monitoring programs or special projects
in the basin. As a result, we now know a great deal about
the quality of surface waters in the basin, and we should be
able to make much more informed resource decisions.
The Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks measured
concentrations of total recoverable copper, iron, and zinc in
water in the spring of 1984. Samples were taken weekly
between early April and mid-July 1984 at eight mainstem
locations and in six tributaries located above Milltown Dam.
The data provide documentation of very high metal concentra-
tions in the Clark Fork during a runoff event in May 1984
when Silver Bow Creek was diverted directly into the Clark
Fork (Phillips 1985) .
3-60
The DFWP has also collected water quality data at
various locations in the upper river in conjunction with
bioassays conducted during 1986, 1987, and 1988 (Phillips
et al. 1987) .
The DHES-WQB and the USGS have collected the majority of
surface water data in the basin. A significant amount of
data has also been generated as part of the Silver Bow Creek
Super fund Investigation. These recent and current programs
are described in the following sections.
The DHES-WQB has initiated a number of surface water
monitoring programs on the Clark Fork in the last few years.
Six stations in the upper Clark Fork have been sampled
monthly since December 1982, with two more stations added in
January 1984. In March 1984, the Water Quality Bureau began
an extensive investigation (31 monitoring stations) of the
lower Clark Fork to address public concerns over the general
health of the lower river. Much of this concern was
generated by the modification of the wastewater discharge
permit for the paper mill near Missoula. In September 1985,
the upper and lower Clark Fork monitoring programs were
merged to form the Clark Fork Basin Study. Several moni-
toring stations were added in the upper river, including two
stations between the Little Blackfoot and Turah, to link the
two monitoring sections. Some of the lower river monitoring
stations were eliminated so that now a total of 32 fixed
stations (Silver Bow Creek, Clark Fork, major tributaries,
and wastewater discharges) are sampled in the Clark Fork
Basin (Figure 3-14) . Monitoring is conducted monthly from
August through March and twice monthly from April through
July. Parameters monitored include: discharge; field pH and
temperature; calcium; magnesium; total and volatile suspended
sediment (VSS) ; alkalinity; total and dissolved algal
nutrients; and total recoverable arsenic, copper, and zinc.
Biological monitoring (periphyton, macroinvertebrates) and DO
surveys are conducted once each summer. Dissolved metals may
be added in the future. The project has been funded by EPA,
the state general fund, and the RIT program since July 1986.
An extension through June 1989 was approved by the 1987
Legislature.
Results of WQB State Fiscal Year 1985-87 monitoring in
the Clark Fork Basin are summarized in this report. Each of
the three years was characterized by lower-than-normal
streamflows. While FY 1986 conditions were not far below
normal (and in fact included a major mid-winter flood) , FY
1985 and especially FY 1987 can be described as drought
years. Consequently, the data collected during the period
are not representative of average or above-average flow
conditions.
3-61
CLARK FORK BASIN STUDY
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
00 Sliver Bow Creek (SBC) above Butte WWTP
00.5 Butte WWTP discharge
01 SBC below Colorado Tailings
02 SBC at Miles Crossing near Ramsay
03 SBC above Warm Springs (AMC) treatment ponds
04 AMC Pond #2 discharge (Silver Bow Creek)
05 Mill-Willow Creek Bypass at mouth *
06 Warm Springs Creek at mouth
07 Clark Fork (CFR) below Warm Springs Creek
08 CFR near Dempsey
09 CFR at Deer Lodge
10 CFR above Little Blackfoot River
11 CFR at Gold Creek Bridge
12 CFRatBonita
13 CFRatTurah
14 Blackfoot River near mouth
15 CFR below Milltown Dam
16 CFR above Missoula WWTP
17 Missoula WWTP discharge
18 CFRatSchuffleld's
1 9 BItterroot River near mouth
20 CFR at Harper Bridge
21 Stone Container Corporation discharge 003
22 CFR at Huson
23 CFR at Alberton
24 CFR at Superior
25 CFR above Flathead River
26 Flathead River near mouth
27 CFR above Thompson Falls Reservoir
28 CFR below Thompson Falls Dam
29 CFR below Noxon Rapids Dam
30 CFR below Cabinet Gorge Dam
Source: Ingman 1987
FIGURE 3-14. DHES-WQB SAMPLING STATIONS IN THE CLARK FORK BASIN
3-61a
The FY 1986-87 data base is relatively complete and
represents 14 to 17 samplings at most of the stations in the
monitoring network. However, in FY 1985 nutrient and
suspended sediment were monitored infrequently in the Clark
Fork above Rock Creek (near Clinton) . As a result, discus-
sions of nutrients and suspended sediments rely mostly on FY
1986-87 data.
The USGS has been sampling periodically at six sites in
the upper Clark Fork Basin since March 1985 (Figure 3-15) .
Two of the sites are on the Clark Fork mainstem (at Deer
Lodge and at Turah Bridge, near Bonner) and four sites are
near the mouths of major tributaries between Deer Lodge and
Milltown Reservoir (Little Blackfoot River, Flint Creek, Rock
Creek, and Blackfoot River) . Field measurements include
stream discharge, specific conductance, pH, temperature,
bicarbonate and carbonate, and alkalinity. Laboratory
analyses include hardness; selected dissolved, total, or
total recoverable trace elements; and suspended sediment.
The primary objective of the USGS sampling program is to
characterize the geographic and hydrologic variation in
trace element and suspended sediment concentrations.
Geographically, sampling locations were selected to describe
water quality conditions at the upper and lower end of the
upper Clark Fork segment and in the major tributary basins
entering this reach. Hydrologically, sampling was designed
to cover a wide range of flow conditions to describe the
variation in water quality with streamflow. However, because
of limited sampling frequency and below-normal streamflows,
efforts are made to sample during runoff events to document
conditions when suspended constituent concentrations are
likely to be at a maximum.
In addition to periodic water quality sampling, the two
Clark Fork stations at Deer Lodge and Turah Bridge are
operated as daily sediment sampling stations to describe the
suspended sediment transport characteristics in the upper
basin. Funding for the periodic water quality sampling and
daily sediment sampling stations has been provided by both
state and federal sources since 1985. The EPA is funding the
sampling during 1988.
A sampling program was also conducted by the USGS from
July 1986 to April 1987 to measure suspended sediment loads
entering and leaving Milltown Reservoir during the Phase I
emergency reconstruction of the Milltown Dam. As part of
this effort, three daily sediment stations were operated,
two upstream from the reservoir (Clark Fork at Turah Bridge
and Blackfoot River near Bonner) and one downstream from the
reservoir (Clark Fork above Missoula) (Figure 3-15) . Daily
sediment sampling at these stations was resumed when Phase II
3-62
<
OS
o
<
u
a:
W
CL
a.
3
CO
u
H
o
z
1-J
a.
<
en
u
w
3
.
1
CO
00
00
u
OS
q;
3
O
60
)— <
C
Cl.
•H
Xi
E
Q
■_(
01
u
>^
3
o
CO
3-62a
reconstruction began in June 1988. During the Phase I
rehabilitation of the Milltown Dam, the Montana Power Company
monitored water quality in the Clark Fork and Blackfoot River
upstream and downstream from the dam from July 14, 1986, to
April 4, 1987 (MPC 1987a).
In the summer of 1988, the USGS (under a contract with
EPA) installed a continuous streamflow gaging station at the
Perkins Lane Bridge and a seasonal streamflow gaging station
at the Stewart Street Bridge. The USGS is also conducting
periodic water quality sampling at Perkins Lane Bridge under
the same contract.
The water quality data collected by the USGS in the
upper Clark Fork Basin from March 1985 to September 1987 are
published in two data reports (Lambing 1987, 1988). The
data represent primarily low-to-medium flow conditions as a
result of less than normal runoff during most of the sampling
period. However, one high flow from snowmelt runoff was
sampled from February 24 to 26, 1986, which gave some indica-
tion of the increase in suspended trace element concentra-
tions during times of peak sediment discharge.
)
MultiTech (1987d) conducted a surface water and point
source investigation of Silver Bow Creek and the upper Clark
Fork as part of the Silver Bow Creek Phase I RI. The study
area extended from the Weed Concentrator outfall in Butte to
near Garrison, Montana. Phase I field work was conducted
from November 1984 to September 1985, with additional surface
water samples collected in 1986. Metals studied included
arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, and zinc.
In August 1988, the MBMG began a short-term monitoring
program in the headwaters area for DHES-SHWB. The objective
was to collect data during short-qjuration, high-intensity
thunderstorm events. Continuous monitors were installed at
four sites to measure physical water quality parameters,
including pH, specific conductance (SC) , DO, and temperature.
These monitors have in-situ, internal data loggers that were
set to record data every 20 minutes. They were installed
near the USGS streamflow gaging stations at the Colorado
Tailings, the Stewart Street Bridge, the Perkins Lane Bridge,
and in Warm Springs Creek at Warm Springs. Field checks of
the water quality parameters were conducted 23 times to
compare with data obtained from the continuous monitors.
Monthly depth composite samples were also collected at these
stations for analysis of other water quality parameters
(metals) . Some of these samples were collected during storm
events and others were baseline samples.
3-63
In addition to the continuous monitors, a flow-activated
automatic sampler was installed in August at the Stewart
Street Bridge. This sampler is triggered when increasing
streamflow reaches a predetermined level and then collects
water samples at predetermined time intervals. This sampler
was to be rotated around the four sites, but because of low
streamflows and lack of storms, it was kept at the Stewart
Street Bridge through September. It was then moved to the
Colorado Tailings location and operated through October.
Samples were collected during six storm events (both rain and
snow) at these sites.
The automatic sampler was removed at the end of October
1988 and the continuous monitors were removed in the first
week of November 1988. Data are being analyzed by MBMG and
should be available by February or March 1989.
Current Surface Water Quality
Current surface water quality conditions in Silver Bow
Creek, the Warm Springs Ponds, and the mainstem Clark Fork
are discussed in the following sections. The discussion of
metals, sediment, and nutrients draws primarily from Silver
Bow Creek RI , DHES-WQB, and USG3 data. Much of the WQB data
is presented in the form of box plots. These plots graphi-
cally display the maximum, median, minimum, 25th percentile,
and 75th percentile values as shown below. In cases where
some of these percentile values are the same within a data
set for a given station, percentile lines overlie each other.
If all the values are the same, the plot is simply a
horizontal line at that value, indicating either a small data
set or no variation in measured values.
■Maximum
-75th Percentile
-50th Percentile (Median)
-25th Percentile
-Minimum
In this discussion, water quality parameters are
referred to both in terms of constituent concentration and
constituent load. Concentration is the weight of a given
constituent per unit volume of water, e.g., milligrams of
phosphorus per liter. Load is the weight of a given
3-64
constituent transported by a stream or water discharge per
unit of time, e.g., pounds of phosphorus per day.
The key to the relationship between constituent
concentrations and loads is the volume of water in the river.
As the Clark Fork flows downstream, it is joined by numerous
tributaries, and its volume becomes progressively larger.
Each tributary contributes X number of pounds per day of
material to the Clark Fork, which adds to the load of
material carried by the river. However, the tributaries
generally have lower concentrations of those materials than
the Clark Fork, and their inflows help to reduce concentra-
tions in the Clark Fork through dilution. This is how a
tributary like the Bitterroot River can be a major source of
nitrogen loading to the middle Clark Fork, while at the same
time cause a reduction in nitrogen concentration in the
middle Clark Fork.
The WQB monitored water quality constituents and stream-
flow at each of a number of mainstem locations along the
Clark Fork. Measurements were taken once to twice per month
from August to March and twice per month from April to July.
Monitoring was carefully timed according to streamflow and
other factors that would influence water quality. This
increased the probability that the data were representative
of the time interval (month or half month) . Monthly average
constituent concentrations and streamflows were estimated by
averaging the instantaneous measurements that were made
during each month. Where USGS gaging stations corresponded
with WQB sampling sites (most stations) , monthly average
streamflows based on continuous measurement were provided by
the USGS. These monthly average flows were used to replace
the instantaneous average flows. Monthly constituent loads
were then computed and summed to provide approximations of
total annual loads at each monitoring location.
Water quality criteria and federal drinking water
standards discussed in this section are provided in Tables
3-15 and 3-16, respectively.
Heavy Metals
Copper and zinc are potentially the most hazardous
metals in the Clark Fork system due to their toxic effects on
aquatic life. Except at very high concentrations, the
presence of copper and zinc does not preclude other water
uses. Copper is more toxic than zinc and is a slightly ,^ ,
greater problem in the Clark Fork. Zinc concentrations,
however, are typically higher than copper concentrations
throughout the system. Synergistic effects of both copper
and zinc (effects that are greater than the combined
3-65
TABLE 3-15. WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR KEY PARAMETERS
Parameter
Beneficial Uater
Use Protected
Criteria
(Concentrations in ug/l
except where noted)
Reference
Copper
Zinc
Arsenic
Suspended
sediment
Freshwater aquatic life
Freshwater aquatic life
Freshwater aquatic life
Freshwater fisheries
Acute (1-hour ave. cone. )-18(HD)*
Chronic (4-day ave. cone. )-12(HD)
Acute (1-hour ave. cone. )- 120(HD)
Chronic {4-day ave. cone. )- 1 10(HD)
Acute (1-hour ave. cone.)-360
Chronic (4-day ave. cone. )- 190
High level of protection <25 mg/l
Moderate level of protection 25-80 mg/l
Low level of protection 80-400 mg/l
Very low level of protection >400 mg/l
EPA 1985a
EPA 1987a
EPA 1985a
NAS-NAE 1973
* HD Hardness Dependent. 100 mg/l used
TABLE 3-16.
FEDERAL DRINKING UATER STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES
Parameter
Primary Standards
Maximum Contaminant
Levels for Inorganic
Chemicals (ug/l)
Secondary Standards
Recommended Maximum
Contaminant Levels (ug/l)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
I ron
Lead
Zinc
Nitrate as N
Color
PH
SO
10
50
10,000
1,000
300
5,000
15 (color units)
6.5 - 8.5 (standard units)
Sources: EPA 1986 a,b.
3-65a
individual toxicities) are an important concern that has yet
to be quantified for the Clark Fork. Arsenic is also present
in the system, and while the federal drinking water standards
are occasionally exceeded at some locations, aquatic life
criteria are rarely surpassed.
A variety of analytical techniques for heavy metals
analysis is used by the agencies that monitor water quality
in the basin. These are summarized in Table 3-17. Because
some techniques are more rigorous than others and yield
higher values, it is often difficult to make comparisons
among data sets.
The current EPA metals toxicity criteria for the
protection of freshwater aquatic life give threshold levels
in terms of total recoverable concentrations. Although the
WQB monitors for total recoverable metals, it should be noted
that the EPA and USGS total recoverable analysis method
differs from the WQB total recoverable method in that a soft
digestion is performed prior to sample analysis. This
process releases a certain quantity of sediment-bound metals
that may be present in the sample. The WQB method consists
of field acidification of the sample followed by analysis.
This method is comparable to the EPA acid-soluble method,
which is compatible with nearly all available data concerning
toxicity and bioaccumulation of metals by aquatic organisms.
The EPA criteria are based on total recoverable concentra-
tions instead of acid-soluble or other forms, because
sediment-bound metals in a wastewater discharge can
eventually become bioavailable in a receiving stream as the
chemical and physical properties of the wastewater change
upon mixing. The WQB total recoverable method is suitable
for surface waters but could underestimate the toxicity
potential of metals present in wastewaters.
Silver Bow Creek. MultiTech (1987a) reported that the
Metro Storm Drain (MSD) was the most severely contaminated
part of its study area, which extended from the Weed
Concentrator outfall in Butte to near Garrison, Montana.
Total cadmium and zinc concentrations regularly exceeded
federal drinking water standards. Other contaminants
exceeded the standard less frequently. During a storm event
in May 1985, all the measured total metal concentrations
exceeded federal drinking water standards at most of the
Silver Bow Creek (SBC) stations sampled. Aquatic life
criteria for copper and zinc were regularly exceeded at most
SBC stations. An organic contaminant of concern, penta-
chlorophenol, or PCP, was detected at a site below the
Montana Pole Treatment site and exceeded the drinking water
lifetime health advisory for adults (0.22 milligrams per
liter [mg/1]) on one occasion (MultiTech 1987a). Major
3-66
TABLE 3-17. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES USED FOR HEAVY METALS WATER
QUALITY ANALYSIS
State of Montana Total Recoverable
1. Acidify sample upon collection to a pH of <2.
2. Decant off at time of analysis (no filtration)
Acid-Soluble
1. Acidify sample upon collection to a pH of <2.
2. Filter sample with .45u filter within 24 hours.
3. Analyze.
EPA Dissolved
1. Filter sample with .45u filter at time of collection.
2. Acidify to pH of <2.
3. Analyze.
4. EPA and USGS Total Recoverable
1. Acidify sample at time of collection to a pH of <2
2. Digest in the laboratory using hydrochloric acid.
3. Filter sample.
4. Analyze.
EPA Total
1. Acidify sample upon collection to a pH of <2.
2. Digest in the laboratory using hot nitric acid.
3. Analyze.
Sources: USGS 1982; EPA 1983.
3-66a
contaminant sources for the Silver Bow Creek study area
identified by MultiTech (1987a) are summarized in Table 3-18,
TABLE 3-18.
SUMMARY OF CHARACTERIZED AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
OF CONTAMINATION TO SILVER BOW CREEK
Potential Source
Type
Contaminants
Metro Storm Drain Point Source
Missoula Gulch Point Source
Browns Gulch
Butte WWTP
Montana Street to
Colorado Tailings
Mill-Willow Bypass
Colorado Tailings
to Silver Bow
Siding
Ramsay Flats to
Opportunity
Point Source
Point Source
Nonpoint Source
(ground water
inflow)
Nonpoint Source
(ground water
inflow)
Nonpoint Source
( re-entrainment)
Nonpoint Source
(re-entrainment)
Cd,Cu,Fe,Zn,S04
Cd,Cu,Pb,Zn, (low
flow) Cd,Cu,Pb,Zn,Fe,
As,TSS (high flow)
As,Fe,Pb,TSS (high
flow)
Total P, Orthophos-
phate (Cd,S04,Zn
during ground water
pumping)
As , Cd , Cu , SO4 , Zn
Fe,S04,Zn
Channel sediments
Channel sediments
Source: MultiTech 1987a.
Water Quality Bureau FY 1985-87 investigations indicate
that Silver Bow Creek from Butte to the Warm Springs
treatment ponds is seriously polluted with copper and zinc on
a year-round basis. The highest concentrations of both
copper and zinc in the Clark Fork Basin occurred in this
area. A large portion of the metals load is attenuated in
3-67
the Warm Springs Pond treatment system, but when Silver Bow
Creek bypasses the ponds during high runoff events, it is
clearly a significant source of metals to the mainstem Clark
Fork.
Aquatic life toxicity criteria for copper and zinc (EPA
1985a, 87a) were exceeded in all samples from Silver Bow
Creek, and annual average concentrations were ten to more
than 20 times the threshold levels. Arsenic concentrations
were commonly an order of magnitude less than either copper
or zinc. Aquatic life criteria for arsenic were not exceeded
in Silver Bow Creek or the mainstem Clark Fork during FY
1985-87 WQB sampling.
Figure 3-16 shows FY 1985-87 total recoverable copper
concentrations at stations 1-3 above the Warm Springs Ponds
and at the Pond 2 discharge (station 4) . Stations 1-3 had
very high concentrations with the median values about ten
times higher than the chronic copper criteria for aquatic
life. Station 4 values illustrate the dramatic decrease in
copper concentrations due to attenuation by the Warm Springs
Ponds, with a median value right at the chronic copper
criterion.
Warm Springs Ponds. As mentioned previously, the Warm
Springs Ponds were constructed by the Anaconda Company in an
attempt to limit the downstream effects of mining. A number
of investigations have addressed the pond system and its
effect on the water quality of the Clark Fork, including:
Casne et al. 1975; Botz and Karp 1979; Hydrometrics 1983c;
and others. However, these studies do not reflect current
conditions, and very few of them collected samples from
enough stations to identify contaminant sources or to
complete a mass balance analysis of the pond system
(MultiTech 1987a) .
Data on the Warm Springs Ponds were collected for the
Phase I RI Superfund investigation from November 1984 to
September 1985. Additional, but limited surface water
quality data were collected above and below the pond system
in 1986. Field data collected included pH, temperature,
conductivity, and flow (where appropriate) . Water and bottom
sediment samples were analyzed for major cations, major
anions, and selected trace elements. Meteorological data
were collected and surveys of the pond bottoms were performed
to aid in volumetric calculations.
The Warm Springs Ponds generally act as a sink for
sediment, total metals, dissolved metals, and nutrients.
However, the ponds are not 100 percent efficient in trapping
metals delivered by Silver Bow Creek and the Opportunity
3-68
5.000
g 1.000
a.
3
o
100
10
+
Chronic Toxicity Criteria for Cu (EPA 1985a)
(criteria vary based on water hardness)
1
STATIONS
CLARK FORK BASIN STUDY
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
I SBC baloo Coiorado Tallinqi
3 SBC AC Sll*s Croasuiq ii««r KmmMtrf
3 sac «tx>«* Wan Spcmqa (ACS) traacaanc
4 ACa Tont 12 dl>char9« (SUvar Bov Craak)
(See Figure 3-14 for station locations)
Source: DHES-WQB FY 85-87 data.
FIGURE 3-16. TOTAL RECOVERABLE COPPER CONCENTRATIONS IN SILVER BOW CREEK
3-68a
Ponds discharges and can be considered a source of contamina-
tion to the Clark Fork. The metals-removal efficiencies of
the pond system during the Phase I RI study period exhibited
seasonal variation. In the summer months, the ponds showed
high metals-removal efficiencies, presumably due to low input
rates and higher pH. During the period of June 1 to
September 15, 1985, the removal efficiencies for total copper
and total zinc were 97 percent and 96 percent, respectively.
The drop in pH that occurred during the winter months and
possibly other factors, such as channeling, may have allowed
more dissolved cadmium, copper, and zinc to pass through the
ponds without being precipitated, resulting in lower metals-
removal efficiencies.
Because the initial remedial investigation was under-
taken during a period of drought and low streamflows, the
influence of typically high spring runoff inflows to the pond
system was not thoroughly evaluated. However, higher flows
during the spring lowered the pond's efficiency due to higher
contaminant loads and reduced residence times. Solid phases
of copper, iron, and zinc, as well as arsenic and lead, were
released in large quantities during this period. It appears
that the hydrologic regime and algae populations (which
influence pH and bioaccumulation of metals) are the most
important mechanisms governing the contaminant load the ponds
deliver to the Clark Fork (MultiTech 1987a) .
Phase II RI surface water investigations at the Warm
Springs Ponds focused on the collection of surface water
samples at key locations within the area at regular intervals
throughout a 2 4 -hour period. - These diurnal samplings were
conducted in September 1987 and in January, April, and July
1988. The objective of the samplings was to determine the
efficiency of the pond system in removing metals from Silver
Bow Creek through a 24-hour period on a seasonal basis.
Field parameters measured included pH, EC, DO, and tempera-
ture. Three forms of the metal contaminants (total, acid-
extractable, and dissolved) were analyzed to determine the
bioavailability of metals travelling through the system and
to better define the behavior of metals constituents over a
24-hour time interval. A data report on the diurnal
samplings is expected to be released in early 1989.
Water Quality Bureau monitoring data show that the Warm
Springs treatment ponds are extremely effective at decreasing
metals loads, concentrations, and toxicity in Silver Bow
Creek. On the average, treatment provided by the ponds
decreased annual Silver Bow Creek copper loads nearly 12-
fold and zinc loads about 5.5-fold during the 1985-87 period.
Metals concentrations in the 'creek, after passing through the
pond system, were an order of magnitude less. From 1985 to
87, copper toxicity criteria were exceeded slightly more than
3-69
half the time in Silver Bow Creek downstream of the ponds,
and annual average values were not much higher than the
criteria. Thus, copper criteria exceedences tended to be
frequent but slight. Zinc toxicity criteria were not exceeded
in FY 85 or FY 87 and were only infrequently exceeded in FY
86. The worst water quality occurs in winter due to lower pH
and decreased efficiency of the treatment ponds caused by
channeling, ice cover, and colder water temperatures.
The Pond 2 discharge was the largest contributor of
contaminant loads to the Clark Fork during the Phase I RI and
significantly degraded water quality with sulfate, copper,
zinc, iron, and lead. This may have been due in part to the
low-flow conditions that occurred in 1985. The Mill-Willow
Bypass discharge also contributed elevated concentrations of
sulfate, copper, zinc, iron, and cadmium (MultiTech 1987a) .
This has also been documented by WQB sampling, which shows
that metal concentrations in the bypass (when Silver Bow
Creek is not bypassing) are highest during snowmelt runoff
and after heavy rains. Presumably, the tailings deposits in
the bypass are the source of these metals. During FY 1985-87
WQB sampling, the bypass had the highest arsenic concentra-r
tions of the stations monitored, and the federal drinking
water standard was exceeded periodically. However, federal
drinking water standards for arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron,
lead, and zinc generally were not exceeded during the Phase I
RI, neither in discharges from the Warm Springs Ponds to the
upper Clark Fork, nor within the ponds. The four-day
(chronic) aquatic life criteria for cadmium, copper, lead,
and zinc, and the one-hour (acute) aquatic life criteria for
zinc were exceeded occasionally throughout the ponds. The
acute aquatic life criteria for copper were usually exceeded
within the pond system, but were not exceeded in discharges
to the upper Clark Fork. Waters of the Mill-Willow Bypas^
exhibited chronic aquatic life toxicity with respect to
copper and zinc concentrations and acute aquatic life
toxicity with respect to copper- concentrations. Silver Bow
Creek and the Opportunity Ponds surface discharges are the
principal sources of contaminants for the pond system (CH2M
Hill 1987d) .
Upper Clark Fork. Some general observations of the
geographic and hydrologic variations in trace element
concentrations can be made from USGS data collected in the
upper river (Figures 3-17, 3-18, and 3-19). Differences in
height between the dissolved and total or total recoverable
bars on the graphs represent the concentration of trace
elements transported in suspension.
3-70
(9
O
(O
CM
00
y3in y3d st^vaooyoiiN ni 'NoiivyiN30Noo oiN3sav
00
Cl,
W
CO
o
H
00
z^
ON
■^
»—
je'
X
O
u
o
OS
<S) ^
z
%
OS
<
^ ^
<
\ "^
H
O
O ;^
Q
2
<
Q
>
J
O
t3
^
Q
7>
U*
'^
o
V
V
to
0
z
7^
o
l-l
^
<
K^
^
O
H
O
Z
•^,
© o
z
<3> O,
o
1, -^
z
<
Q
U
P
■<:.
3 0
r~
=^c
T
f*1
\>'
U
t
oc
3
^
o
•6
b
3-70a
CD
O
'V-
CJ>
%
CD
5
^
o
%
'fe
V»'
0
^
o
o
o
in
o
o
a
mm y3d siNvyooyom ni 'NoiivyiNBONOo Hiddoo
%
in
00
ON
a
u
Qd
OS
Ci]
a.
Qu
o
u
U]
_)
<
OS
w
>
o
u
bJ
H
o
Q
2
<
Q
>
o
173
C/3
O
t/3
z
o
(-<
H
<
ac:
H
Z
o
00
ON
>
t3> O
z ca
o s
ij "^
H
Z (X
^ »
< w
f-l CO
w ^
Q
O l^i
W O
0) '>
S H
p
-o
00
^
m
3-70b
o
o
o
00
o
to
o
o
mill Hid smuoohom ni 'NouvaiNioNoo oniz
O
H
in
00
ON
• —
s
u
«
V
Ol)
7^
M
•^
u
z
Jk^
(-*
O
N
O
<3> O
►J
f. -a^
^
>
o
o
%
u
OS
-J
<
O
O >
a
<
>
-J
c
eft
t3
to
»— 1
•<,
a
%,
b.
'^
o
\y
v*
en
CD
z
7^
o
i-H
c^
<
*u
0£
o
Hf^
o
ZOO
*^,
W ff-
o —
ffi o.
z
<5> O
O06
z s
< u
C£> >
c a.
P
) -o
o>
;^
1
^
ro
\>'
W
^o
r "^
t3
bu
3-70c
The median concentrations of total arsenic were not
significantly higher than the dissolved phase at most sites
(Figure 3-17) , which indicates that much of the arsenic was
dissolved in the waters during most flows. The highest
median concentration of total arsenic among the six stations
was 17 ug/1 at Deer Lodge, which represents a 5 ug/1
difference between the median dissolved and total phases.
In contrast, a greater proportion of copper was present
in the suspended fraction (Figure 3-18) , which illustrates
the greater affinity of copper to the sediments. The highest
median concentration of copper also occurred at Deer Lodge,
with a total recoverable value of 59 ug/1.
Similarly, zinc also is transported primarily in
suspension (Figure 3-19) . As with arsenic and copper, the
median concentration of zinc was highest at Deer Lodge, with
a total recoverable value of 80 ug/1.
Samples collected during the February 1986 snowmelt
represented the maximum concentrations measured by the USGS
from 1985 to 1987. Total or total recoverable concentrations
of arsenic, copper, and zinc during this event were substan-
tially higher than median values. Arsenic concentrations
during the February snowmelt were highest at Deer Lodge, with
a total arsenic concentration of 130 ug/1, compared with a
median of 17 ug/1. The maximum concentration of total
recoverable copper was 630 ug/1 at Deer Lodge, compared with
a median of 59 ug/1, which represents more than a tenfold
increase during runoff. More than 95 percent of the copper
at Deer Lodge was transported in the suspended phase.
Maximum zinc concentrations were also measured in the
mainstem, but the highest total recoverable value of 1,100
ug/1 occurred at Turah Bridge. ' The total recoverable zinc
concentration at Deer Lodge was 770 ug/1. Arsenic, copper,
and zinc concentrations in the tributaries during this period
were only slightly to moderately higher than median con-
centrations.
A general observation from the median and maximum
measured concentrations is that the sampling station farthest
upstream, Clark Fork at Deer Lodge, typically has the highest
concentrations, presumably due to its proximity to the major
headwater tailings sources. Flint Creek also has relatively
high trace element concentrations, probably as a result of
historical and current small-to-moderate-scale mining in its
basin. Lower trace element concentrations are typical of
the Little Blackfoot River and Rock Creek. These tributaries
aid in diluting the concentrations of trace elements in the
Clark Fork mainstem, which has generally lower concentra-
tions downstream at Turah Bridge compared with Deer Lodge.
3-71
The Blackfoot River also has low trace element concentra-
tions, despite some abandoned mine areas in its upper basin.
Because of their large flow contributions and relatively low
trace element concentrations, Rock Creek and the Blackfoot
River improve the water quality of the mainstem.
Water Quality Bureau data indicate that water quality
varies considerably within different sections of the upper
river reach. Water quality is much improved below Warm
Springs Creek through a direct dilution of metals concentra-
tions and as a result of increased water hardness and
alkalinity that buffer the effects of metals. Warm Springs
Creek drains a limestone formation that contributes to its
high hardness and moderate alkalinity. Unfortunately, Warm
Springs Creek is severely dewatered for irrigation and it is
frequently nearly dry in the months of July and August.
Metals concentrations in the Clark Fork tend to decrease
from its point of origin at Warm Springs to Dempsey,
presumably as a result of dilution from cleaner tributaries.
The copper criteria (Figure 3-20) were exceeded less than
half the time, and exceedences that did occur were usually
slight. Zinc criteria were rarely exceeded. From Dempsey to
the Little Blackfoot River, water quality progressively
deteriorates, especially during winter and spring months.
Metals concentrations and frequency of exceedences of the
aquatic life criteria tend to increase, despite the entry of
additional clean-water tributaries. The copper criteria were
exceeded up to half the time during the monitoring period in
the Clark Fork above the Little Blackfoot River, with some
measurements exceeding the criteria several-fold. Despite an
increase in zinc concentrations, criteria were infrequently
exceeded.
Average annual copper loads (Figure 3-21) increased by
as much as 6.5 times, and zinc loads (Figure 3-22) increased
by more than three times in the Clark Fork from Warm Springs
to some 15 or more miles below Deer Lodge. Metals sources
are streamside tailings deposits and possibly inputs from
contaminated ground water. The rate of increase in metals
loading seems to be consistent progressing downstream in the
reach from Warm Springs Creek to Deer Lodge. However, from
Deer Lodge to the Little Blackfoot River, a major increase in
loading occurs. This may correspond to the presence of a
major ground water recharge zone and the presence of
localized tailings deposits in the river floodplain.
Conditions generally improve in the Clark Fork from
Garrison downstream to the Blackfoot River as the contribu-
tions of clean water from major tributaries such as the
Little Blackfoot River and Rock Creek dilute metals con-
centrations and metals sources become less significant or are
3-72
T — r
Trr
T-i — r
II I I I I 1 — r
u
o
-rr
I
fs
M.S
c ■
jc E
li
a
i
o
i ^
* o
> ^ Si
1 Ss
— •> oO c S »
tC — i> S — — »
^ « « O n ID A
'S CC OC E IE (C E
2 u. u. u. u. u. u.
uu u u u u u
i2
S
2
SIee
cog*
« « o Q
' ." " 5 ra
! c e 5. o
o o "O
X •) C ~
C
o
CO
)->
03
o
Jtl§.| 7
a. 0)
> £ n 3 3 >
Q Q Q fC 0 ID
C E
u. u.
O O
E E
U. U.
o o
0053
£ £ O ■
t- 1- r o
• J S 8
o ° £ S
£ a> o •
a ^ A ^
E E E E
u. u. u. u.
0000
I
01
3
01
01
CA
J
/
1
1
1
fT
>-!' M.t ^0 si-jtj';: Ij.
1
-|
1
1
-1
1
1
CO
T3
P^
00
I
lA
00
5Q
O
I
a
o
.■^ xjf'
in
CO
^ to
^ is
.2 c
in °
•■= XI
f ^
K >•
0 U
H to
1 ■"*
{}
_l I I I I I I I I I I nil' ' ' l_l
II I I
O
CO
CM
CO
CM
CM
m
CM
CM
CM
CM
o
CM
o
<
w
CD
0
to
z
•»
s
0
(0
H
10
u
z
0
u
DCS
«o
CD
r-
0
CM
Ul
•^
<
U
T"
>
0
u
u
0
rJ
T-
<
a>
0
1
r-.
0
o
§
s
jeddoQ J8}n J^d suiBjBojojM
3- 7 2a
CO
c
o
CQ
U
O
B
O
Js «
u
o
= -*
I
0)
Vi
3
00
0)
CO
(josa/suo+) pt>*T
en
<
CO
O
z
t-l
.J
to
1
z
o
Q
w
CO
<
CO
u
H
H
CO
b3
O
<
Cd
s
H
OS
u
o
o
<
OS
>
o
o
Cd
^
•<
H
O
H
O
CO
a
t
•J
z
z
<
3-72b
CM
I
u
OS
3
u
hi
to
1
>^»*"t^-.wm ■■
-. JOin. -
1
k^
\ \.
Bl
^^^
f^
i \i
'J
■1
^■l.
CO
o
o
1
o o
1
o
Q
1 1
o o
1
o
o
1
o
1 1
O 0)
1
o
CO
1
o
1
1
1
o
1
n
1
o
1 i
c
o
55.
«
e
o
<0
o
o
e
o
eg
u
(0
o
r- ii :*
c I
O fo
u
3
60
0)
CO
<
Vi
o
z
I— I
ex.
s
<
CO
z
o
a
M
CO
<
CQ
CO
u
H
H
CO
u
Of
o
<
bl
N
CQ
<
OS
td
>
O
w
QC
-9
<
H
O
H
&
o
s
z
z
<
^joaX/suo^) pt>oT
I
en
3-72C
left behind. The Blackfoot River joins the Clark Fork just
above the Milltown Dam, and its clean water further dilutes
metals concentrations in the middle Clark Fork segment.
However, in the Clark Fork just below Milltown Dam, these
benefits are sometimes masked.
Elevated metals levels periodically occur in association
with operational drawdowns of Milltown Reservoir that result
in the loss of metal-bearing sediments from the reservoir.
More recently, short-term increases in metals levels below
the dam have been associated with reconstruction of the dam's
aged spillway, which was severely damaged during the major
runoff of February 1986. The occurrence of sediment -metal
events resulting from drawdowns will be reduced by the
completion of the Milltown Rehabilitation Project. The
installation of a radial gate and fixed wheel panels will
allow the control of runoff up to 28,000 cfs without drawing
down the reservoir. A drawdown will be required only if
streamflow exceeds 28,000 cfs, which is an event that is
expected to occur on the average of about every 14 years.
These high flows will cause flow control gates to open to
accommodate the increased water quantity. A drawdown of the
reservoir is necessary to reset the gates once the high flows
recede. The Montana Power Company believes, based on past
experience, that such a drawdown will cause less sediment
loading than previously occurred because such high flows
(greater than 28,000 cfs) will have removed much of the
susceptible sediment from the reservoir.
River monitoring by the Montana Power Company revealed a
brief increase in zinc concentrations in March 1987 before
the onset of the runoff period. Concentrations of 1,72 0 ug/1
and 1,120 ug/1 acid-soluble zinc were measured at Turah on
March 5 and 6, 1987 (MPC 1987a). River flow at Turah
increased 50 percent from 787 cfs on March 3 to 1,180 cfs on
March 5 after being stable (609-836 cfs) since January 1.
Total suspended sediment increased from 39.7 mg/1 on March 4
to 88.8 mg/1 and 88.9 mg/1 on March 5 and 6 at Turah. Acid-
soluble copper was less markedly elevated to 50 ug/1 on both
days — up from less than 10 ug/1 on March 2, 1987.
Middle Clark Fork. Water Quality Bureau data indicate
that metals concentrations in the middle Clark Fork are
generally much lower than those in the upper Clark Fork
(Figure 3-20) . This is likely due to fairly large volumes of
clean dilution water provided by the Bitterroot and St. Regis
rivers and increasing distance from metals sources.
Exceedences of copper criteria were generally infrequent,
slight, and short-lived in this reach. Zinc criteria were
exceeded only once in the three-year monitoring period (in
February 1986) .
3-73
Monitoring by MPC in early March 1987 downstream from
Milltown Dam and the confluence of the Blackfoot River showed
moderate concentrations of acid-soluble zinc. River values
on March 5 through 9 were 370, 220, 410, 980, and 50 ug/1,
respectively. These findings indicate that a water quality
event that may control young fish survival may be triggered
by the first rapid increase in river flow after the stable
flow period of winter. Additional monitoring needs to be
performed during this time of year to determine if early
snowmelt events occur regularly and if they are an important
element in the Clark Fork fishery problems.
Lower Clark Fork. The Flathead River more than doubles
the volume of the Clark Fork, on the average. The result is
a dramatic improvement in the water quality of the Clark Fork
below the confluence. During the WQB monitoring period,
copper criteria were rarely exceeded in samples from the
lower river section and have not been documented below
Thompson Falls. As shown in Figure 3-20, copper concentra-
tions were stable and quite low at all four stations.
Exceedences of zinc criteria have not been documented in the
lower river.
Suspended Sediment
The amount of sediment in a river is important because
of its potential effect on beneficial uses of the water. A
large volume of sediment in a system can adversely affect
aquatic life and interfere with water treatment and irriga-
tion. Other pollutants, such as nutrients and metals, can be
adsorbed onto sediment particles and transported by them into
and through aquatic systems.
Suspended sediment transport in running waters is
difficult to quantify accurately, especially in a river
system as complex and as large as the Clark Fork watershed.
Suspended sediment concentrations and loads in the Clark Fork
system are strongly influenced by variations in streamflows
and intensity of runoff events. Each of the three years
monitored was characterized by lower than normal runoff, on
the whole. FY 85 and 87 were particularly low streamflow
years, and suspended sediment production, transport, and
severity of problems were generally low. Conversely, the
rapid snowmelt event of February 1986 created unusually high
mid-winter streamflows and excessive sediment concentrations.
A large percentage of the estimated annual suspended sediment
load was transported during this relatively short-duration
event. Total annual suspended sediment loads and mean
concentrations in FY 86 were well above FY 85 or 87 values,
due primarily to the February snowmelt event.
3-74
The USGS uses cross-sectional depth-integration
techniques to sample suspended sediments during both high and
low streamflows. The WQB uses the Equal Width Increment
(EWI) depth-integration technique. However, most of the WQB
monitoring stations located below Garrison are too deep to
wade, as are some of the upper stations during runoff
conditions. In those instances, samples are depth-integrated
to the limit of wadeability, and as a result, only a portion
of the channel cross-section is sampled. In some cases,
suspended sediment samples are grab-sampled, but only when
streamflows are low and sediment concentrations negligible.
The emphasis of the WQB Clark Fork water quality
assessment has been comparisons with aquatic life criteria
because those standards are usually more conservative than
the criteria established to protect other water uses.
However, it is a difficult proposition to establish aquatic
life criteria for suspended sediment concentrations, because
impacts are a function of duration of exposure as well as
concentration. For example, most Montana streams carry
appreciable suspended sediment concentrations during the
usually short period of sprin'g runoff. Resident aquatic life
forms are adapted to these annual events and are able to
tolerate them. The same conditions sustained over a longer
period of time could significantly degrade the aquatic
habitat.
Because the periodic sampling programs are limited in
their ability to measure the duration of suspended sediment
concentrations, the WQB instantaneous data are compared to
simple criteria that are not based on duration of exposure.
The National Academy of Sciences-National Academy of
Engineering (1973) has published the following suspended
sediment guidelines for the maintenance of freshwater
fisheries. The frequency of distribution of measured values
among the various categories is the basis for the WQB
assessments in this report.
Water normally containing suspended sediment concen-
trations of:
<25 mg/1 High level of protection; no harmful
effects on fisheries.
25-80 mg/1 Moderate level of protection; good or
moderate fisheries.
80-400 mg/1 Low level of protection; unlikely to
support good fisheries.
>400 mg/1 Very low level of protection; only poor
fisheries.
3-75
USGS suspended sediment data jfor the upper river and WQB
data for the entire drainage are summarized below.
Silver Bow Creek. Water Quality Bureau data indicate
that Silver Bow Creek has a severe inorganic suspended
sediment problem. Concentrations were highly variable in FY
85-87 (Figure 3-23) , and for its size, sediment production
was high, presumably as a result of the preponderance of
unvegetated mine tailings in the floodplain. The suspended
sediment criterion to maintain a high level of protection for
freshwater fisheries was exceeded in 11 to 64 percent of the
samples, depending on the year and the monitoring location.
Various stations fell in the low level of protection category
in up to 11 percent of the samples. Suspended sediment
concentrations, loads, and problem severity generally
increased from Butte downstream to above the Warm Springs
Ponds. The Butte WWTP discharge was responsible for an
increase in organic suspended sediment in Silver Bow Creek
for several miles below the outfall. However, organic
concentrations were only a fraction of the total suspended
sediment concentrations.
Warm Springs Ponds. The Warm Springs Ponds caused major
reductions in Silver Bow Creek's suspended sediment con-
centrations through their function as large settling basins.
Estimated annual total suspended sediment loads in Silver Bow
Creek in FY 86 and 87 were decreased fourfold to sixfold from
above and below the ponds, and up to 2,000 tons of material
were trapped in one year. From the standpoint of fisheries
protection. Silver Bow Creek suspended sediment concentra-
tions below the ponds were consistently good.
Upper Clark Fork. Median suspended sediment concentra-
tions for March 1985 to September 1987 at the six USGS
sampling stations were low, ranging from 8 mg/1 in the
Blackfoot River to 36 mg/1 in Flint Creek. These values
indicate that the quantities of sediment transported during
most flows of 1985-87 were minor. Considerably higher
concentrations can occur during high-flow conditions, with
the highest values measured in the Clark Fork mainstem during
the February 1986 snowmelt runoff (1,390 mg/1 at Deer Lodge
and 1,370 mg/1 at Turah Bridge). The large differences in
concentration between median and runoff conditions indicate
that the amount of suspended materials transported is highly
variable, with short-duration events possibly representing a
significant portion of the annual load.
3-76
500
1^
bJ
°- 100
w
<
O
3
10 r
bJ
O
Z
o
u
(0
Source: DHES-WQB FY 85-87 data.
2 3
STATIONS
CLARK FORK BASIN STUDY
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
1 SBC baiow Coiocado Tailinqa
2 SBC ac MXlvs Crossing naar RajMsay
3 SBC above Want Spcinqa (AOl) traaMenc ponda
4 ^CH Pond 12 discharg* (Silv*c Bo» Cmk)
(See Figure 3-14 for station locations)
FIGURE 3-23. TOTAL SUSPENDED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN SILVER BOW CRF.EK
3-76a
Figure 3-24 depicts the range of suspended sediment con-
centrations in the Clark Fork during the WQB monitoring
period. There were general increases in concentrations and
reduced fisheries protection in the upper Clark Fork from the
headwaters downstream to monitoring station 12, the Clark
Fork at Bonita. The plots of total and volatile suspended
sediment load (Figures 3-25 and 3-26) point to the stream
reaches between monitoring stations 9 and 10 and 11 and 12 as
possibly containing significant sediment sources in the upper
Clark Fork, especially during FY 86. The worst overall reach
in the upper Clark Fork from the standpoint of fisheries
protection was from station 10 to station 12. Suspended
sediment concentrations fell in the moderate to low levels of
fisheries protection categories in 27 to 55 percent of the
samples. The presence of streamside tailings deposits and
unstable streambanks throughout the upper Clark Fork are the
probable causes.
Rock Creek, located between monitoring stations 12 and
13, is a large tributary that normally carries low concentra-
tions of suspended sediment. Clark Fork median suspended
sediment concentrations downstream of the Rock Creek
confluence were measurably decreased (Figure 3-24) at all
times, except during the February 1986 flood. Concentra-
tions were also significantly more favorable from the
standpoint of fisheries protection.
Downstream from station 13, the Blackfoot River joins
the Clark Fork. This large stream equals the Clark Fork in
size, and its suspended sediment concentrations average a
quarter to half those in the Clark Fork above the Blackfoot.
Its inflow, plus the Milltown Reservoir which is a large
sediment trap, decrease Clark Fork sediment concentrations.
However, during high-flow events and during past operational
drawdowns and construction activities, the settled sediments
in the reservoir were mobilized and transported downstream.
The reservoir is a significant sediment source in those
instances.
Organic suspended sediment concentrations were generally
low throughout the upper Clark Fork and averaged a small
fraction of the total suspended sediment concentration. The
Deer Lodge sewage discharge appeared to cause measurable
though small increases in Clark Fork organic suspended
sediment concentrations for several miles downstream of the
discharge.
3-77
II I I I I i — r
h I I
CD
•O
r»
00
I
in
00
b
C
I
w
u
ac
a
4)
U
U
3
O
CO
I
u a c E
ceo I ™
j; •> D Q
' " " -2 §1
• u. It 3 •-^
, o o " C3
•> « cc -
! g-o-c •
: k E o i
: o o >< ^
. 1- 1- Z O
I ; » * *
> o ° ° 5
1 ^ V «> V
1 a ^ ^ A
: C IT C C
. u. u. u. u.
> o u u u
I
CO
(U
u
3
= o.
8
E5
c
lltow
Issou
eld's
rBrld
or
t
<0
SS= ^§ 5
> a> 3 ir « a
S > C «> 3 3
£ O U) X X U)
» A _ _ _ _
A a CO « cB a
cc oc IT ir c cc
U. U. U. U. 11. 11.
<o
(J o o o o o
01
in <D « o e>f ^
■>«
^ ♦- »- W W Ol
o
CO
oo
CM
1^
CM
in
CM
CM
CM
CM
O
CM
CD
t I
5 °
> o
O o ™
E "^ = • _
— » »o c 5
■5 «> > .n o 3
O □ O '^ O )-
u: _ .a o - -
„ « a O IB «
'S (c E ce ce s
2 u. u. u. u. u.
u u u u u u
o
o
o
"I'll' I
" I ' ' I
I' I ' I I I L
CO
CM
CO
(0
^ CO
o>
tic2
Cl-
W
I
c
<
Li
H
Q
W
w
Q
a
W
o.
CO
O"
►J
<
H
O
H
I
ro
CO
o
o
SSI ^^Ml ''3d suiej6!||!|/\|
3-77a
I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I
CQ
I
M
•j3
X
Q
01
u
u
a
o
w
o
5) Cf)
>-
I
CO
In
o
"0
!-!_
/ ^
\^
3)
CM
U.
O
CO
M
! -
r>-
<S!
O
1.0
iN
■^
fj
r\!
Ll.
^^
^•s
?,'
m
Pn
c
u.
o
;;
•<^
o
4J
fNi
U
o
o
»~*
00
5
c
,'
o
o
0
4J
?i5
CT
W
u
^^
(0
a
>^
u
••V
Y—
VM
u.
u
0
-*
?0
1
T—
cn
Li.
O
u
M
Ll
T—
^m»
0)
1-
0)
'I
CO
U o
Li CJ
Ll:
_! ^
<
u
>>
CA
o
z
.J
a.
CO
I
z
o
o
(d
CO
<
CQ
CO
u
H
H
CO
Of
o
&<:
<
u
u
X
H
o
o
o
n
o
CO
o
CO
C\l
o
M
o
CM
O
O
O
CO
O
CO
o
o c
o
so
3
CO
^^ '"^ ^^
^^ W«f >mJ
(spuDsnoMj.)
CM
I
td
3-77b
CO
•o
00
00
>- m
CQ
C
I
w
u
Q
U
3
O
i\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \i
K \ ^s \ ^v ^. \ \ \ \
k \ \ ! ;^
CI CD
V c
■1 I 91
I \ I
K I
in
o
1
I
'O
L_
o
"1
CvJ
U.
o
CO
f\ 1
Li.
o
r»
CM
- '
o
lO
I.N
^',
O
!-T
CSi
iJL
^-N
(?
CO
fj
c
o
S'*
•r^
U-
U
CJ
cd
o
o
C)
a
r;T
c
o
0
••^
4J
Rt
■••^
4J
C
CO
03
^M
Li.
7-
Ui
f")
o
,rs
~
IM
n
T—
-;!■
1..^
r
n
0
2
M
lU
u
3
M
60
U.
U.
o
0)
^
(U
<—
tn
iiJ o
^~
u.
iJ
a
g
C)
a.
u
a
1.
CO
II
.• %
t
i;
a
<
w
><
10
z
.J
s
<
I
z
o
a
u
CA
CO
u
H
H
CO
u
B£
O
:^
OS
<
u
u
s
H
H
z
Id
a
u
CO
o
Id
Q
Z
Cd
CU
CO
=3
CO
Cd
>J
H
<
.J
O
>
tb
o
CO
o
<
o
.J
<:
3
z
z
<
3-77c
\0
CM
I
en
Id
oc
3
O
Middle Clark Fork. Suspended sediment concentrations in
the middle Clark Fork from Missoula to the Flathead River
(Figure 3-24) , can be described as generally decreasing in a
downstream direction as a result of additional dilution from
cleaner incoming tributaries, such as the Bitterroot River.
Concentrations normally fall within the range that would
afford a high level of protection to freshwater fisheries.
Although Bitterroot River suspended sediment concentra-
tions are lower than the mainstem, suspended sediment load
plots (Figures 3-25 and 3-26) indicate that the Bitterroot
River is the most significant source of sediment loading to
the middle Clark Fork. Both the Missoula WWTP and Stone
Container Corporation wastewater discharges contributed
sizeable, largely organic suspended sediment loads to the
middle Clark Fork. However, their influences on river
concentrations and load were not measurable.
Lower Clark Fork. Suspended sediment concentrations in
the lower Clark Fork are shown in Figure 3-24. The Flathead
River more than doubles the volume of the Clark Fork and
routinely carries a lower suspended sediment concentration
than the Clark Fork. As a result, suspended sediment
concentrations measured in the Clark Fork downstream of the
Flathead are reduced and nearly always fall within the
highest category for fisheries protection. Farther down-
stream, the Noxon Rapids Reservoir acts as a settling basin
and is responsible for an even more significant reduction in
Clark Fork suspended sediment concentration. The last
reservoir in the system. Cabinet Gorge, has no apparent
effect, presumably because most of the settleable solids have
already been trapped upstream. In general, the lower Clark
Fork can be described as excellent from the standpoint of
suspended sediment concentrations,' largely as a result of
dilution by the Flathead and the influences of the reser-
voirs.
Suspended sediment load plots point to the Flathead
River as the only significant additional source of sediment
to the lower Clark Fork. The reservoirs are responsible for
reducing Clark Fork suspended sediment loads to less than
those carried by the Clark Fork above the Flathead River.
Other Water Quality Parameters c
A number of parameters or conditions other than metals
and sediment cause degradation of surface water quality in
the Clark Fork, including ammonia, elevated temperature,
dissolved oxygen, toxins, foam, and color. These are
discussed in the following sections.
3-78
Ammonia. Ammonia is a form of nitrogen that is
frequently associated with wastewater discharges. Ammonia
or its degradation products are readily available for algal
uptake and can contribute to nutrient enrichment problems .
However, the primary concern with ammonia is that it can be
extremely toxic to aquatic life under certain conditions of
stream pH and temperature (EPA chronic ammonia toxicity
criterion varies depending on pH and temperature) . The
potential for ammonia toxicity downstream of wastewater dis-
charges in the Clark Fork Basin has been closely monitored in
the past and will require continued scrutiny.
The Butte WWTP effluent is a source of ammonia to
Silver Bow Creek. During WQB FY 85-87 sampling, the EPA
chronic toxicity criterion for salmonid species (trout) was
exceeded in one-third to two-thirds of the samples during the
monitoring period for several miles below the outfall.
Ammonia toxicity was not documented at any of the upper
or lower Clark Fork stations during the monitoring period.
The effluent from the Missoula WWTP is the largest source of
ammonia in the middle river. Ammonia toxicity was not
documented below the wastewater mixing zone during FY 85-87
WQB sampling. However, because of high levels of ammonia in
the discharge and documented exceedences of the ammonia
criterion within the mixing zone, further evaluation is being
done by WWTP staff. The Frenchtown Mill wastewater also
contains relatively high levels of ammonia. To date,
exceedences of the criteria have not been documented.
However, installation of the color-removal facilities has
necessitated daily ammonia monitoring because wastewater
dilution rates are lower when color-treated wastewater is
being discharged.
Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen. Stream temperature
and concentration of dissolved oxygen affect the survival of
aquatic life, particularly salmonids. If a fish is exposed
to increased temperatures, more energy is required for basic
metabolism, and less energy is available for food acquisi-
tion, growth, and reproduction. Stream temperature is
affected by many factors, including streamflow, air tempera-
ture, exposure to sunlight, the ratio of surface area to
volume, ground water inflow, and topography (Braico 1973) .
Trout generally prefer temperatures between 52 °F and 64° F,
while long-term exposure to temperatures above 75° F may be
lethal .
The amount of dissolved oxygen in streams is an
important measure of water quality. Sufficient levels of
oxygen are necessary to support a healthy and diverse
community of organisms, including fish, aquatic insects,
3-79
other macroinvertebrates, and plants. Severe depletions of
dissolved oxygen can cause fish and insect kills. Chronic-
ally low levels can cause a decrease in diversity and
quality of aquatic life (DHES 1985) . Montana Water Quality
Standards (DHES 1988a) for most of the Clark Fork do not
permit induced reductions of DO below 7 mg/1. Between Warm
Springs Creek and Cottonwood Creek, DO concentrations cannot
fall below 6 mg/1 from June 2 to September 30 or below 7 mg/1
between October 1 and June 1.
The variables that affect dissolved oxygen levels
include water temperature, biological activity such as
photosynthesis and respiration, oxidation of inorganic
compounds, decomposition of organic matter, and reoxygenation
from water turbulence. These variables, along with diurnal
and seasonal variations, interact in complex ways to
determine instream dissolved oxygen concentration (DHES
1985) . Algae and other aquatic plants produce oxygen in
sunlight and consume oxygen during nighttime respiration;
therefore, very productive streams may have severe nighttime
sags in DO (Braico 1973) .
Although temperature and DO data for the Clark Fork are
limited, several studies have been completed by the WQB. The
first was done in August 1973, by Braico, who measured DO and
temperatures at frequent intervals during a 24-hour period
(called "diel" monitoring) at 12 stations along the Clark
Fork and at single sampling sites on Rock Creek (near
Clinton) , the Blackfoot River, and the Bitterroot River.
The author reported the following results:
• The highest temperature was measured in the Clark
Fork just above the Rock Creek confluence where a
maximum temperature of 76' F was recorded.
Temperatures reached 72° F on the mainstem at
Garrison, Drummond, and Turah.
• Maximum temperatures in Rock Creek, the Blackfoot
River, and the Bitterroot River were 68° F, 70° F,
and 74° F, respectively.
• At stations below the Bitterroot confluence, where
the Clark Fork becomes quite large, stream
temperatures were least affected by diurnal
variations in air temperature.
• The lowest DO concentrations of 5.9 and 5.2 mg/1
were observed in the Clark Fork at Deer Lodge and
the Rock Creek Bridge, respectively. Conditions
were critical at the latter station when high
temperatures (above 68° F) and low DO levels
coincided for over five hours.
3-80
DO concentrations were generally below saturation
at all other stations except during periods of
maximum photosynthesis. However, minimum values
did not drop below 6 mg/1 at any of these stations,
Braico attributed the results of the study to a
combination of factors, including extremely low streamflow
(less than half of normal) , loss of shade-producing bank
vegetation due to highway construction, warm weather during
the study, and heavy algal populations.
Knudson and Hill (1978) summarized past data and
collected new information on inutrients, dissolved oxygen, and
algal accrual in the upper Clark Fork during 1976 and 1977.
They concluded that summertime nutrient concentrations were
elevated just below Deer Lodge and Missoula but were
relatively low in other locations. Among the tributaries,
only the Bitterroot had elevated nutrient levels. Lowest
dissolved oxygen levels were recorded in late July and early
August near Deer Lodge and Bonita.
In 1984 and 1985, the WQB conducted a number of water
quality studies in the Clark Fork between Turah and the Idaho
border, partly in response to the controversy surrounding
the discharge permit issued to the Champion International
mill (now Stone Container Corp.). Five sampling runs
provided ambient water quality data on DO concentrations.
Because sampling was done at all hours of the day, the
diurnal variability of DO may have masked the affects of
deoxygenation caused by organic decomposition, making
changes in DO difficult to interpret. However, the DO data
suggested that much of the oxygen demand from the Champion
discharge was satisfied within the mixing zone from the
Champion outfall to Huson. The effects of instream dilution
on the wastewater would diminish the oxygen demand to nearly
unmeasurable levels (DHES 1985) .
Diel DO monitoring runs were also conducted in August
1984 and 1985 to determine daily oxygen maximums and minimums
at sites above and below the Champion mill. Results of this
monitoring did not indicate a problem with DO levels in the
Clark Fork. However, one run was conducted when the waste-
water discharge was highly diluted, and the other was done
during a period of no wastewater discharge. The data
therefore represent only a narrow range of conditions (DHES
1985) .
Self-monitoring data from Champion (a requirement of
its permit) for the period of January 1984 to September
1985, revealed DO concentrations below 7 mg/1 on 12 days.
No waste was discharged on nine of those days (DHES 1985) .
3-81
A study conducted in the summer of 1986 in the Clark
Fork near the Missoula WWTP and Stone Container Corporation
by Kerr (1987) involved two 24-hour diel surveys (July 8-9
and August 5-6) . Temperature and DO were measured at
regular intervals at six stations on the Clark Fork. The
objective was to determine whether wastewater discharges from
the WWTP and Stone Container Corporation had a measurable
effect on DO concentrations in the Clark Fork. The first
survey was conducted during a period of high wastewater
discharge, while the second occurred during a period of low
wastewater discharge.
Average DO concentrations varied considerably by site
and survey. During low wastewater discharge, DO tended to
increase in a downstream direction; during high wastewater
discharge, it tended to decrease in a downstream direction.
The largest change between any two consecutive sites during
high wastewater discharge occurred between Shuffields and
Harper Bridge and Huson and Alberton. The theoretical net
oxygen loss during high wastewater discharge relative to low
wastewater discharge was greatest at Alberton. Because the
flow of the Clark Fork and weather conditions during the two
surveys were quite different, the estimated losses of
dissolved oxygen during high wastewater discharge could not
necessarily be attributed to the volume of wastewater
discharged by Stone Container.
A diurnal DO survey was also conducted by the WQB in the
upper and middle Clark Fork from July 29 to July 30, 1987.
In the upper river, the lowest DO levels (about 70 percent of
saturation) of the day occurred between midnight and two a.m.
Watson (1988a) concluded that with current loading and algae
levels, the upper river is at high risk for DO levels below
the state standard of 7 ppm when nighttime water temperatures
rise above 16° to 18° C and flows tall below 1,000 cfs at
Turah and below 200 cfs at Deer Lodge. In the middle river,
the lowest DO levels (about 80-90 percent of saturation) were
observed between four and six a.m. Watson (1988b) concluded
that the middle river would be at high risk for DO levels
below the state standard when predawn temperatures rise above
18.5° C, and would be at risk at even lower temperatures in
extremely low-flow years.
Color and Foam. Wastewater discharges to surface water
can cause increases in river color, particularly under low
flow conditions. Kraft pulping processes generate wastewater
that contains compounds that are known as foaming agents.
Both increased color and foam are potential aesthetics
problems in the Clark Fork (DHES 1985) .
3-82
Aesthetics monitoring (color, foam, sludge deposits,
slime growth, odor, etc.) was conducted in the Clark Fork
near Missoula during the 1984-85 WQB investigation. Results
of analyses for river color indicated a general compliance
with Champion's allowable five-color unit increase stipulated
in its discharge permit. Color was the single most important
factor controlling the rate at which Champion could discharge
wastewater to the river. Although it reported occasional
violations of the color standard. Champion considered it a
high priority to reduce the volume and color of its effluent
(DHES 1985) .
Stone Container Corporation, which acquired the mill in
1986, installed a color-removal plant at the facility in
February 1988. The technology, developed by the corporation,
reduces color of the effluent by about 85 percent. This will
allow the mill to meet color standards if it discharges
during low-flow conditions. The chemical process also
reduces the total suspended solids and nutrients (Stone
Container Corp. 1988) . The new plant is operated seasonally
only, due to the high cost of the additional treatment.
During the 1984-85 WQB aesthetics reconnaissance, con-
siderable quantities of surface foam were observed on the
Clark Fork above and below Champion's discharge, in the
Bitterroot River near its mouth, and in the Clark Fork from
St. Regis to the confluence of the Flathead River. Foam
occurs naturally in surface water, especially in streams
draining forested regions, due to the presence of dissolved
organic substances. Wood processing industries often
increase the occurrence of foam because of wood-derived
organic substances in their wastewater effluent. This
problem was especially bad in the backwater areas below
Champion's discharge in the fall and early spring. Steps
were being taken to reduce foaming agents in Champion's
effluent (DHES 1985) .
Toxins. Substances in this category include organics
such as PCP, PCB, oil and grease, and organic resin acids.
PCP and PCB are of particular concern in the headwaters area.
Silver Bow Creek has received waste oil containing PCP in the
vicinity of the Montana Pole Superfund site (discussed
earlier in this chapter) , and PCB is a potential contaminant
from the Butte urban area (MultiTech 1987a) . During the
Phase I Superfund studies for the Silver Bow Creek site,
selected stations were monitored for PCP, PCB, and oil and
grease. MultiTech (1987a) reported detectable concentrations
of PCP at the monitoring station below the Montana Pole and
Treatment site.
3-83
stone Container Corporation's wastewater contains
organic resin acids that are potentially toxic. However,
acute or chronic toxicity problems in the Clark Fork are
unlikely, because its discharge permit stipulates a minimum
river water to waste dilution ratio of 200:1 (if color-
treated wastewater is discharged, the minimum dilution is
100:1) .
Chronic bioassay tests on rainbow trout and Ceriodaphnia
were conducted from May 31, 1985, to June 12, 1985, at the
Champion mill site by EPA (Nimmo et al. 1985) . A 30-day
flow-through bioassay on the rainbow trout (button-up stage)
and a seven-day daphnid life-cycle test were conducted using
a series of wastewater dilutions. Mortality of fish in both
series of dilution waters and waste was extremely low and
there was no evidence of reduced growth, indicating that the
test dilutions were not chronically toxic to trout. The
daphnids survived and reproduced in ambient water from nine
locations on the Clark Fork and no indication of toxicity was
found at any of the stations.
On the whole, little is known about the sources, fate,
and transport of organic substances in the Clark Fork Basin,
as most monitoring efforts have focused on inorganic
pollutants. Further investigation of these potentially toxic
organics is probably warranted.
EUTROPHICATION AND NUTRIENTS
Excessive Algal Growth
Algae and other aquatic plants are natural components of
most aquatic environments. Individual species have different
habitat requirements, but in geneifal, their abundance is con-
trolled by environmental factors such as available light,
temperature, and nutrients. Nutrient availability, especi-
ally nitrogen and phosphorus, often limits algae growth and
abundance. In the presence of nutrient enrichment, such as
domestic wastewater effluents, algae growth can be excessive
and a nuisance to other beneficial uses. Excessive algae
growth can also modify existing water quality by depleting
oxygen, modifying pH and alkalinity, imparting taste and
odor, and releasing toxic substances. Algae can also remove
toxins from the water column.
The process of nutrient enrichment and accelerated
biological productivity is called eutrophication. In
undisturbed watersheds, eutrophication is a natural aging
process. Where nutrient enrichment is accelerated by human
activity, "cultural eutrophication" results.
3-84
Evidence of excessive algae growth in the upper Clark
Fork basin has been reported since 1974 (Casne et al. 1975).
Aerial surveys in 1973-74 showed dense growths of algae
occurring between Deer Lodge and the mouth of the Blackfoot
River. These growths were attributed in part to insufficient
streamflows during the spring months to scour the previous
year's algae growth. Very heavy growths of algae have
occurred again during the summers of 1984 to 1988, also
associated with periods of below-normal spring runoff.
Several studies have been conducted in recent years to
describe and quantify algae growths in the river and to
define the factors contributing to them. Bahls (1987) has
described the species composition and species diversity for
composite algae samples taken in 1986 at 28 stations located
between Silver Bow Creek and the Idaho border. Cladophora
sp. was the most consistently abundant green algae with peak
occurrences in the reaches from Gold Creek to Missoula and
from Superior to the confluence of the Flathead River.
Excessive algae growths did not occur in Silver Bow Creek and
the Clark Fork above Deer Lodge, presumably due to metal
toxicity. Diatoms were the dominant algae at the Turah and
Harper Bridge stations. These sites were characterized by
low species diversity and a very small percentage of
pollution-tolerant species. In 1987, EPA (1987b) charac-
terized the abundance of algae attached to natural and
artificial substrates in the upper and lower river.
Chlorophyll and biomass were especially high in the upper
river stations.
Increased algae growth occurred below the municipal
wastewater treatment plants and below the Champion Inter-
national discharge. Algal biomass and chlorophyll decreased
downstream from Champion's mill to the town of Plains (Ingman
1985) .
Nuisance quantities of algae have not been reported in
the lower Clark Fork reservoirs. Water level fluctuations
and relatively rapid flushing rates in the reservoirs
probably prevent the establishment of nuisance-level algae
blooms or rooted aquatic macrophytes.
Algae and macrophytes are a major concern in Lake Pend
Oreille, Idaho. In recent years, residents and recreation-
ists have reported an increase in littoral zone (near-shore)
algae and macrophytes (rooted aquatic plants) . A 1986 study
of periphyton growth in Lake Pend Oreille suggests that
eutrophication of the lake is accelerating (Falter and Kann
1987) .
3-85
Analysis of Lake Pend Oreille waters has indicated
relatively low nutrient concentrations in the open water
areas but significantly greater evidence of eutrophication
in developed and confined bays. Relatively little informa-
tion is available regarding nutrient sources in Lake Pend
Oreille. The Clark Fork, which contributes 90 percent or
more of the annual inflow of water to Lake Pend Oreille, is
recognized as an important source of nutrients. Less is
known about the contribution of nutrients from other
tributaries and from near-shore developed zones.
Nutrient Concentrations and Loading
Of the many nutrients required by algae and other
aquatic plants, nitrogen and phosphorus are the two elements
usually in the shortest supply in natural waters. This means
that the growth of algae is often controlled by the con-
centration of nitrogen or phosphorus, or both, in the water
column. The EPA (1986c) has established criteria values for
total inorganic nitrogen and total phosphorus that should not
be exceeded in order to prevent excessive developments of
attached algae in rivers and to prevent eutrophication in
lakes that are fed by rivers. These values are 1,000 ug/1
for nitrogen and 50 ug/1 for phosphorus. The criteria may
not apply equally well in all situations, and they do not
account for other limitations to algal growth.
WQB data demonstrate that the major sources of nutrients
in the Clark Fork Basin are municipal and industrial
wastewater discharges. During low-flow years, there is less
river water available to dilute the wastewater. This is
especially problematic for municipal dischargers, whose
discharge rates are relatively constant from year to year.
It is less important for some industrial facilities, such as
the Stone Container Corporation kraft mill, because their
allowable discharges are largely limited by river flow.
The following summary of FY 85-87 WQB data on river
nutrient concentrations and loads may very well represent a
near worst-case scenario because of the low streamflow
conditions that prevailed during the monitoring period. The
generally higher nutrient loading in 1986 probably reflects a
greater contribution from nonpoint sources.
Silver Bow Creek
Silver Bow Creek from Butte to the Warm Springs
treatment ponds suffered from serious nutrient pollution
problems on a year-round basis during FY 86-87. Measured
concentrations of total phosphorus (Figure 3-27) and total
3-86
5,000
UJ
UJ
OL
in
<
K
O
O
u
1.000 r
o
K
I-
Z
UJ
o
o
o
100 r
10
-
-
1
1
1
.^
E 1
1 :
*
i
1
~
: 1
-
•
1
■
"" «
.
Phosphorus
Criterion (EPA
1986c)
-
2 3
STATIONS
CLARK FORK BASIN STUDY
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
1 SBC b«lov Colorado Tallliugs
2 SBC at nilas Croaalnq naar Ranaay
3 SBC abova Wana Spclnqa (AOI) tnauane ponda
4 ACH Pond 12 diacharqa (Silvar Bow Craak)
(See Figure 3-14 for station locations)
Source: DHES-WQB FY 85-87 data.
FIGURE 3-27. TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS IN SILVER BOW CREEK
3-86a
inorganic nitrogen in Silver Bow Creek were an order of
magnitude higher than any other stream monitoring station in
the Clark Fork Basin. The EPA nitrogen (1,000 ug/1) and
phosphorous (50 ug/1) criteria were routinely exceeded by a
large margin — up to 32 times for phosphorus and up to four
times for nitrogen — at most monitoring locations on the
creek.
The highest nutrient concentrations in Silver Bow Creek
occurred at monitoring station 1, Silver Bow Creek below the
Colorado Tailings. The station is located a short distance
downstream of the Butte municipal wastewater discharge, which
is the principal source of nutrients in the creek. During
periods of low streamflow, more than half the Silver Bow
Creek flow consists of sewage effluent. From monitoring
station 1 downstream to the Warm Springs Ponds, nutrient
concentrations (Figure 3-27) and loads declined somewhat,
presumably as a result of dilution from cleaner tributaries
or ground water inflows, or both, and probably to a lesser
extent from biological uptake. However, concentrations
remained sufficiently high to categorize the stream as
grossly polluted. Silver Bow Creek does not harbor extensive
developments of algae despite its excessive nutrient
concentrations. Algal bioassays conducted several years ago
for DHES (Greene et al. 1986) indicated that the potential
for algal growth in Silver Bow Creek was limited by toxic
metals, most likely copper. Copper is phytotoxic at
relatively low concentrations and is widely used as an
algicide, e.g., copper sulfate.
Warm Springs Ponds
The Warm Springs Ponds were very effective at decreasing
Silver Bow Creek phosphorus concentrations (Figure 3-27,
monitoring station 3 versus 4) and loads during FY 86-87.
Reductions in both nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and
loads were comparable and averaged about 3 . 5-fold less in the
pond outlet as compared with Silver Bow Creek above the
ponds. Biological assimilation, denitrification, and
settling of suspended solids with adsorbed nutrients were
presumably the responsible factors.
The ponds effectively reduced nitrogen concentrations to
levels below the EPA criterion, on the average. Only
infrequent, small-scale exceedences of the nitrogen criterion
in the pond discharge were documented in FY 86, and no
exceedences were measured in FY 87. Although phosphorus
concentrations were significantly reduced, they rarely fell
below the problem level. Measurements of total phosphorus in
the pond discharge exceeded the EPA criterion in 80 to 90
3-87
percent of the samples in FY 86-87, with mean concentrations
averaging nearly three times the threshold value.
Upper Clark Fork
Measured total phosphorus concentrations and estimated
annual phosphorus loads for the Clark Fork from its head-
waters below Warm Springs Creek (station 7) to below Milltown
Dam (station 15) are presented in Figures 3-28 and 3-29,
respectively. Estimated annual loads for total inorganic
nitrogen are given in Figure 3-30.
Nutrient concentrations in Warm Springs Creek and in the
Mill-Willow Bypass were significantly lower than those in
Silver Bow Creek. Each of these tributaries helped to reduce
the nutrient concentrations in the mainstem Clark Fork at
its headwaters.
Nutrient concentrations in the upper Clark Fork
mainstem, in general, decrease below incoming clean tributar-
ies and increase below municipal wastewater discharges. In
Figure 3-28, notable increases in median total phosphorus
concentrations were observed between monitoring stations 9
and 10 and between stations 11 and 12. The primary point
sources of phosphorus in those reaches are the Deer Lodge,
Philipsburg (via Flint Creek) , and Drummond wastewater
discharges. The ground water system is also a possible
source of phosphorus. In 30 water samples collected from
1985 to 87 from 28 wells in the area between Deer Lodge and
Drummond, most concentrations of dissolved phosphorus were
less than 100 ug/1, and the maximum concentration was 300
ug/1 (USGS unpublished data) . The phosphorus load plot
(Figure 3-29) confirms that these reaches contain significant
phosphorus sources. However, the amount of ground water
inflow in this area has not been quantified.
Comparing the measured phosphorus concentrations with
the EPA criterion indicates that concentrations in the upper
Clark Fork frequently exceeded the threshold value, but not
by a large margin. The phosphorus criterion was exceeded in
60 to nearly 80 percent of the samples below the Blackfoot
River during the FY 85-87 monitoring period. Average
concentrations ranged from 1.5 to 0.7 times the criterion.
The highest frequency of exceedence of the phosphorus
criterion anywhere in the mainstem Clark Fork during the FY
85-86 period consistently occurred at monitoring station 10,
below the Deer Lodge sewage outfall. This area corresponds
roughly to the uppermost extent of the Cladophora algal
blooms. Rock Creek marks the downstream extent of the most
serious Cladophora blooms. Cladophora is further reduced
below the Blackfoot River confluence.
3-88
I I I I
C9
T3
r»
00
I
in
00
><
Uu
CO
O"
3
I
CO
u
X
a
01
o
u
3
O
'-0
1 1 1 ; I
I r
II I I I I I — r
II ; I I I I — r
tnh
0)
u
a
M
"COS*
« « o "
• «
IE C
•I
n 3 9 > >
X X (A O O
^ .. _ x> x>
« « c a o
a: c IT a: c
Ul u. u. u. u.
UUU U U
li. " !i
§'5. jO
•> IE 7
E o £
£ a K
K z o
s i s
o o o
ft a> «
H Si o
tC IC IE
u. u. u.
w
(O
00
o>
T-
<
a.
Mi.
>
>•
IS
•a
«
u.
w
«
n
(A
c
i «
• ., - •
or J
* " "
5 u. u.
o u u
£ S
11
lis
UJ
>
Q.
O
t-
C
O
- 5 i i = I
o C 5 » t, 3
-^ m )- £ o (0
O - - » £ »
C (D « ^ a «
IE IE (C IX CC IE
U. u. U. U. U. IL
o o o o o o
1 1 ' I
J_J L
U-L.
I I I
1 1 I
_l L
. mo ^ t<tm ID torn
I I I I I I I |_
O
CO
s
oo
CM
CM
lO
CM
Si
CM
CM
O
CM
OO
9>
1
s
<
U
H
in
CO
CM
O)
s
3-8 8 a
(0
c
o
CO
o
o
c
o
/- 'H
_2 to
-'J t.
r, O
o
— u
3
60
<
u
CO
z
)-<
J
s
<
CO
I
z
o
o
u
CO
<
W
u
H
H
CO
OS
o
<
U
U
H
CO
=)
o
a.
CO
o
x
a*
.J
<
H
o
H
b
O
CO
a
<
o
<
3
Z
Z
<
(-iO»/C/sUO^) pDO-|
CM
I
CO
U
3
3-88b
a
Or
V
in
I
to
U-
CO
t V I
k1
r\ '^ ^ \ "^- N ^i
o
8
o
o
o
o
n
o
CM
3
O
I J05"\/5UC'4 I pOO"
5 ^
n —
0)
u
■s
60
0)
I
I
o
o
w
to
<
CQ
«0
u
yN
M
(0
H
C
O
to
• H
u
U
n
xd
:«:
f\i
u
«e
o
b.
eo
0
c
US
^^
o
-K
h.
^-<
••-1
<
.">
V
4J
J
* r\
Q
O
u
y~
(0
u
St
m
U
U
H
bJ
O
OS
H
U
I— I
Z
<
u
K
O
z
<
H
O
H
U,
O
(A
O
<
o
>J
.J
<
Z
Z
<
1w
3-88c
Nitrogen concentrations and loads showed less sig-
nificant fluctuations below wastewater discharges and
incoming tributaries. The EPA criterion for nitrogen was not
exceeded at any time in the mainstem upper Clark Fork during
the monitoring period.
Middle Clark Fork
Nutrient concentrations in the middle Clark Fork are
variable as a result of dilution from incoming clean water
tributaries and the influences of several major sources of
nutrients. Figure 3-28 indicates a significant change in
Clark Fork total phosphorus concentrations from station 16 to
station 18. These monitoring locations bracket the Missoula
municipal wastewater treatment plant discharge, which
contributes a significant phosphorus load to the river — about
50 tons per year (Figure 3-29) . The wastewater discharge
contributes an even more significant nitrogen load to the
river, averaging more than 100 tons per year (Figure 3-30) .
Exceedences of the EPA nitrogen criterion were not documented
during the monitoring period in the middle Clark Fork. The
frequency of exceedence of the phosphorus criterion, however,
was doubled or tripled from above to below the Missoula
wastewater discharge. Frequencies ranged from 8 to 18
percent in the Clark Fork above the discharge to 25 to 50
percent below for the FY 85-87 monitoring period.
The Bitterroot River joins the Clark Fork a short
distance below the Missoula wastewater discharge. Its inflow
is responsible for significant reductions in Clark Fork
phosphorus concentrations and in the frequency with which the
phosphorus criterion is exceeded. On the other hand, Figure
3-30 indicates that the Bitterroot River (bracketed by
stations 18 and 20) contributes a significant nitrogen load
to the Clark Fork — about 75 to 85 tons per year. Some field
research indicates that the lower Bitterroot River receives a
considerable volume of nitrogen-rich ground water inflow from
the Missoula area. The presumed source of much of this
nitrogen is septic drainfield leachate (Kicklighter 1987) .
The second most significant source of nutrients to the
middle Clark Fork is Stone Container Corporation's Frenchtown
kraft mill. The facility, which has been in operation since
1957, manufactures bleached pulp and unbleached kraft
linerboard. The process produces about 16.5 million gallons
per day (MGD) of treated wastewater that is stored in ponds
and either infiltrated into the shallow ground water or
discharged directly to the Clark Fork according to stringent
permit limitations. Environmental impact statements were
prepared on the facility in 1974 and 1985 (DHES 1974, 1985).
3-89
The effects of the Stone wastewater discharge on
nutrient concentrations in the Clark Fork are less striking
than the Missoula WWTP discharge, in part due to the
additional dilution water provided by the Bitterroot River.
Phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations (see Figure 3-28 for
phosphorus) were marginally higher from above to below the
Stone Container discharge (bracketed by stations 20 and 22) ,
and the frequency of exceedence of the phosphorous criterion
increased only slightly in FY 85-87. The nitrogen criterion
was never exceeded in samples from above or below the plant
in FY 85-87. Stone Container's current wastewater discharge
permit specifies that it shall attempt to reduce nutrient
concentrations and loading in its effluent to pre-1983
levels to meet nondegradation standards. If Stone Container
is unable to meet those reductions by the end of 1991, a
formal review will be conducted and the Montana Board of
Health will make a final determination of appropriate loading
limits for the facility. Limits will be designed to protect
current and anticipated beneficial uses.
One way to accomplish this goal is to minimize nutrient
additions in the wastewater treatment process, and the FY 85-
87 data indicate that this approach is in fact reducing
nutrient concentrations. Mean total phosphorus and total
inorganic nitrogen concentrations were reduced by nearly half
from FY 85 to FY 87. Reductions in nutrient loading are more
difficult to assess because of the low streamflows during the
monitoring period and because the mill's allowable wastewater
discharge rates depend on streamflow. However, the FY 1987-
estimated phosphorus and nitrogen loads from the facility
were a third and a quarter, respectively, of the loads
discharged in FY 85. The FY 87 phosphorus and nitrogen
contributions to the Clark Fork from Stone Container are
estimated to be about ten tons per year each. Clearly, the
facility has made progress in its efforts to reduce nutrient
discharges.
From the Stone Container mill to the Flathead River
confluence, nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations decline
as numerous small-to-medium-sized tributaries provide
additional dilution water and as biological uptake occurs.
Nitrogen and phosphorus loads remain roughly constant or
decline slightly, indicating a lack of significant nutrient
sources in this reach of river. The phosphorus criterion was
exceeded in 13 to 36 percent of the samples for the FY 85-87
period from below Stone to the Flathead River. Exceedences
were less frequent with increasing distance downstream of
the two point source discharges in the middle river.
3-90
Lower Clark Fork
Routinely low nutrient concentrations in the Flathead
River are responsible for an average 40 to 50 percent
reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in the
lower Clark Fork. Concentrations of total phosphorus (Figure
3-28) and total inorganic nitrogen gradually decline toward
the Idaho border, and many measurements are at or near the
analytical detection limits. Throughout the reach, the total
phosphorus criterion is only infrequently exceeded (in 15
percent of the samples in FY 86; never exceeded in FY 85 or
FY 87) , and the nitrogen criteria are never approached.
Figures 3-29 and 3-30 indicate that the Flathead River
(bracketed by stations 25 and 27) contributes significantly
to the nutrient load of the lower Clark Fork despite its
inherently low nutrient concentrations. The plots also show
that Noxon Rapids (bracketed by stations 28 and 29) and
Cabinet Gorge (bracketed by stations 29 and 30) reservoirs
act as sinks for phosphorus and reduce the Clark Fork load by
approximately the amount contributed by the Flathead. The
reservoirs apparently do not influence Clark Fork nitrogen
loads.
Aquatic Macrophyte Problems
Dense growths of rooted aquatic plants (macrophytes) can
affect lakes and streams in the same manner as excessive
algae growths. Aquatic macrophytes are usually found in
shallow zones and they derive nutrients from the bottom
sediments.
The Pend Oreille River in the state of Washington below
the outlet of Lake Pend Oreille is plagued by extensive
growths of Eurasian water milfoil (myriophyllum spicatum) .
Growths have become so extensive that recreation, navigation,
water supplies, and water quality are affected (WATER 1987) .
The Eurasian milfoil problem is affecting Washington water
but it is a potential threat to Lake Pend Oreille and the
lower Clark Fork Basin of Montana. The plant is easily
transported to new locations by boaters, fishermen, or other
recreationists .
Additional Monitoring Efforts
Recent monitoring programs have improved our knowledge
of nutrients and algae in the basin. However, our knowledge
of these issues is insufficient for regulatory decisions.
Monitoring efforts must be sustained to identify long-term
trends, and fundamental questions must be answered about the
3-91
sources and fate of nutrients. Congress amended the Clean
Water Act in 1987 to provide for a comprehensive assessment
of pollution problems in the Clark Fork-Lake Pend Oreille
Basin.
An interagency committee consisting of representatives
from Montana, Idaho, Washington, and EPA Regions VIII and X
has outlined a plan to expand studies of nutrients and
eutrophication in the basin. Details of these plans are
provided in Chapter 5.
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
Introduction
Nonpoint source pollution (NPS) of surface and ground
water is derived from activities such as agriculture,
silviculture, mining, construction, land disposal, hydro-
modification, and others. The sources are diffuse, and
contamination usually results from overland runoff, percolat-
ion, precipitation, or atmospheric deposition rather than
from a discharge at a specific, single location (EPA 1987c) .
Nonpoint source pollution is a major problem in the
Clark Fork Basin, both in the tributaries and along the
mainstem. The basin has a multitude of pollution sources
because its economic base is rooted in agriculture, timber
harvesting, mining, and hydropower production. However,
because nonpoint sources of pollution are diffuse and can
originate from large land areas, identifying and quantifying
their effects are difficult. Effective control of NPS
remains one of the most challenging issues facing resource
managers in the Clark Fork Basins
General information regarding nonpoint source pollution
is provided in Table 3-19. Sediments resulting from erosion
are typically the most widespread nonpoint pollutant. In
many areas, agricultural practices are the most common cause
of water quality problems from nonpoint sources (EPA 1985b) .
Oftentimes, multiple activities in a watershed con-
tribute the same nonpoint pollutant, resulting in cumulative
effects on water bodies. Control programs are complicated by
the variety of pollution sources and multiple ownership
patterns that exist in a given watershed.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) are important tools in
the prevention and control of nonpoint source pollution.
BMPs are methods, measures, procedures, or practices used to
control or reduce nonpoint source pollution. BMPs can be
structural or nonstructural controls or operations and
3-92
TABLE 3-19.
SOURCES AND EFFECTS OF NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTANTS
Pol lutant/
Cause of Impairment
Activity/Source
Potential Receptors
Effects
Sediments
agricultural practices rivers, reservoirs,
forest practices lakes
mining
construction
hydromodi f i cat i on
urban runoff
• Adversely affect
spawning and rearing
capacity for trout when
deposited on stream bottoms.
• Interfere with water
treatment and irrigation.
• Can carry nutrients,
toxins, and pathogens.
Nutrients/Ferti I izer
agricultural practices
forest practices
land disposal
urban runoff
mining
construction
hydromodi f icat ion
rivers, reservoirs,
lakes, ground water
• Can cause excessive
nuisance algae and
macrophyte growth.
• Excess nitrate in drinking
water can be harmful to
infants.
Toxins (primarily metals)
mining
Pesticides
rivers, reservoirs
lakes, ground water
agricultural practices rivers, reservoirs,
forest practices lakes, ground water
• Exert stress on aquatic
ecosystems (can cause
chronic or acute toxicity).
• Can cause acute and chronic
toxicity to fish and other
aquatic organisms.
• Some accumulate in fish
tissues; affect food chain.
Pathogens
agricultural practices
land disposal
marinas and boats
rivers, reservoirs,
lakes, ground water
• Can be a potential source
of disease.
Sal ini ty
agricultural practices rivers, reservoirs
mining lakes, ground water
• Excess salts impair water
for drinking, irrigation,
stock watering, and other
uses.
Acidi ty
mining
rivers, reservoirs,
lakes, ground water
• Can cause saline seeps.
Modifies availability
of nutrients, metals, and
various pollutants.
• Can cause toxicity.
3-92a
TABLE 3-19 (CONT.).
SOURCES AND EFFECTS OF NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTANTS
Pollutant/
Cause of Impairment
Activity/Source
Potential Receptors
Effects
Physical habitat alteration agricultural practices rivers, reservoirs,
forest practices lakes
construction
mining
land disposal
hydromodif ication
• Reduces available habitat
for fish & Mildl ife.
• Reduces biological
production.
• Can modify hydrologicat
cycle.
Petroleum products
marinas and boats reservoirs, lakes,
construction, mining rivers
Cause toxicity to
aquatic organisms.
Temperature
agricultural practices rivers, reservoirs,
hydromodif ication lakes
• Elevated stream tem-
peratures can impair
aquatic life.
its:
De^atering
•tridutturat practices rivers
• Eliminates aquatic
habitat.
• Causes elevated stream
temperatures.
.tHl
^.. X-jX,
3-92b
maintenance procedures. They can be applied before, during,
or after pollution-producing activities. BMPs use the land
in the wisest possible way, whether it be for growing crops
or grazing cattle, building highways or cutting trees. BMPs
are the coordinated, judicious timing of activities and use
of vegetation and materials as components of a total land
management system.
Categories and subcategories of nonpoint source
pollution are listed in Table 3-20. A brief discussion of
the major categories is followed by a summary of specific
nonpoint problems and programs in the Clark Fork Basin.
Agriculture
Agricultural activities can result in the addition of
sediments, nutrients, pesticides, pathogens, salts, and other
pollutants to natural waters. Among these activities are
irrigation, poor feedlot and pasture management (overgraz-
ing) , trampling and erosion of streambanks by livestock, poor
row-crop practices, improper pesticide application, altera-
tion of streambanks and channels, and improperly designed
irrigation return flows. Irrigation withdrawals can cause
dewatering, which may result in elevated temperatures that
adversely affect aquatic life.
Silviculture
Silvicultural practices are another important source of
nonpoint pollutants to streams. Because logging activities
typically occur in headwater areas, the waters that are
affected are usually of very high quality. Silviculture
activities that can cause nonpoint pollution include road
construction, harvesting operations, use of chemicals
(fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides) , removal of
trees, and preparation of sites for revegetation. Sediment
is the major pollutant by volume. Debris from forest
operations can contribute organic matter to surface water
bodies, and removal of vegetation that shades water bodies
can lead to elevated water temperatures (EPA 1985b) . Clear-
cutting can significantly increase water yield, and a
substantial increase in runoff may result in channel degrada-
tion and increased turbidity and sediment loading.
3-93
TABLE 3-20.
CATEGORIES AND SUBCATEGORIES OF NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
Agriculture
Nonirrigated crop production
Irrigated crop production
Specialty crop production
(e.g., truck farming and orchards)
Pasture land (grazing)
Feedlots (all types)
Aquaculture
Animal holding/management areas
Rangeland (grazing)
Streambank erosion
Resource Ex traction/Expl oration/Development
Surface mining
Subsurface raining
Placer mining
Dredge mining
Petroleum activities
Sme 1 1 i ng
Mill tailings
Streambank erosion
Land Disposal (runof f/leachate from permitted areas)
Si Iviculture
Forest management (harvesting,
reforestation, residue management)
Road construction/maintenance
Construction
H i ghway/ road/br i dge
Land development
Streambank erosion
Urban Runoff
Storm seuers
Combined sewers
Surface runoff
Streambank erosion
Sludge
Wastewater
Landf i Us
Industrial land treatment
On-site wastewater systems (septic tanks, etc.)
Hazardous waste
Hydromodi f i cat i on
Channel izat ion
Dredging
Dam construction/operation ■.«..-
Flow regulation/modification
Streambank erosion
Removal of riparian vegetation
Bridge construction
Streambank modi fi cat ion/destabi I izat ion
Other
Atmospheric deposition
Waste storage/storage tank leaks
Highway maintenance and runoff
Spi Us
Natural
Source: DHES 1988c.
3-94
Construction
Construction activities are not a major nonpoint source
of pollution but can cause severe localized problems in some
instances. Sediment is the major pollutant, and erosion
rates from construction sites are generally 10 to 2 0 times
higher than those on agricultural lands (EPA 1985b) . Other
potential pollutants from construction activities are
nutrients from fertilizers, pesticides, petroleum products
and other construction chemicals, and solid wastes.
Urban Runoff
Runoff from urban areas can cause significant water
quality impacts to local surface and ground water resources.
Sediments and debris are the primary pollutants, but metals,
nutrients, and pathogens from animal wastes are also
sometimes present. Septic tanks can contribute nutrients
and pathogens to ground water (EPA 1985b) .
Resource Extraction. Exploration, and Development
Nonpoint source pollution from mining activities can
cause severe water quality impacts to receiving streams. The
most serious NPS pollutants associated with mining are
metals, acid-producing materials, sediments, and radioactive
materials. Many of the pollutants generated at active mines
are considered to be point sources that are regulated under
the Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES)
and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit programs. Runoff of sediment from haul roads and
drainage and leachates from waste piles can be NPS problems
at active mine sites. However, the mining industry in
Montana is subject to water quality regulations, and nonpoint
problems are dealt with through monitoring and compliance.
At inactive mine sites and mine waste disposal areas,
drainage and leachates containing acid, metals, sediment, and
salts can seriously affect surface and ground water systems
(EPA 1985b) .
Land Disposal
Land disposal systems such as landfills, septic tanks,
storage tanks, wastewater treatment areas, and hazardous
waste sites can result in the release of toxins, pathogens,
and nutrients to local surface and ground water systems.
3-95
Hydromodif ication
Sedimentation is the biggest NPS problem associated with
hydromodif ication projects due to dredging, dam and bridge
construction, flow regulation, and erosion from streambanks
that are disturbed.
NPS Problems in the Clark Fork Basin
The most pervasive nonpoint source problem in the basin
is contamination of surface and ground water by metals
derived from runoff and leachate from floodplain mine wastes
and waste disposal areas. Another major problem is sedimen-
tation. A number of activities contribute to this problem,
including intensive grazing and agriculture, silviculture,
mineral exploration and development, construction activities
and hydromodif ication.
The severity of NPS problems varies somewhat in
different parts of the basin due to diverse geology, soil
types, moisture regimes, and land management practices.
Upper Clark Fork Basin
Specific nonpoint source pollution problems in the upper
Clark Fork Basin are provided in Table 3-21. Prevailing
problems in the upper basin are sediments, flow and habitat
alterations, salts, pathogens and nutrients from agricultural
activities; sediments, metals, acid, and habitat alteration
from active and historic mines; and sediments, organic
compounds, and habitat alteration from silviculture prac-
tices.
The most serious NPS problem in the headwaters and upper
river reach is probably erosion of heavy metals-contaminated
sediments into the system. Large waste disposal areas (such
as the Colorado Tailings) and floodplain mine wastes are
major sources of metals during snowmelt runoff and thunder-
storms. The principal problem metals in the upper basin are
arsenic, copper, cadmium, lead, and zinc.
Middle and Lower Clark Fork Basin
Specific nonpoint source pollution problems in the lower
and middle portions of the basin are provided in Table 3-22.
This section of the basin has some of the same NPS problems
as the upper basin, except that there are fewer inactive mine
waste sources. Other problems include elevated stream
temperatures due to dewatering; nutrients and other
3-96
o
■»*,
— V
*- u
— 1.
U 3
•> O
a ■»
..X <
•o
» o
" o
m — «
^ C lb
— o
V M »
< I. o
o o.
<
o
i-6
OH
OS
td
Cm
ex.
U
H
CO
X
u
.J
oa
o
H
.J
O
U — '
e
o o
c —
J3
3
U 0
O •^
w u
c
—
u
—
m
m
%-
■
c
M
w
ja
o
_^
t.
^
lU
•»
b.
B
£
■
3
u
3
c
u
M
«
■D
>
M
V
o
3
X
c
«
u
J3
u
o
3
—
o
«
3
*^
0
«
CA
£
e
■^
M
v>
^
s
C
c
w
s
V
O
0
u
•>
0
k
^
—
3
u
.»
3
*-•
*^
M
3
M
t>
u
u
^
»
V
.^
U
■
3
3
.^
U
•
3
t.
u
i.
U
3
u
k
u
3
**
«->
•*-
U
3
Arf
L.
O
X
w
>
^
O
X
>
t>
<*
Ul
C
^
u
w
UJ
J7
V
0
—
XX
tl
»>
*rf
e
u
c
0
<
K
e
v>
O
u cc
-< 3 3
3 U 1.
a — o
< lA u
*< — c
c o •>
■ ■
A' » 1.
3 <• —
-'3 a
<
Ul
*4
■
^
c
«-•
-•
c
u
«l
■
b
t>
M
«>
«
«-*
V
■
_«
c
—
—
*rf
■V
m
■
T3
A
u
•D
*rf
o
t>
«
•
«*
«
k
VI
X
ffl
w>
X
o
u
u
3
o
to
H
Z
o
z
o
z
I
W « •
W -I 3
— — C
O O 3
V •> l>
O
k
V
-
k
k
o
^
O
t
a
tl
^
»
JIC
»
X
k
fO
>
•
>
.J<
w
t>
u
•—
■>»
«l
M
M
V
•
1.
»
•
CC
b.
k
K
«
»
k
u
^
k
e
u
0
»
k
u
•^
■
*«
•k.
*«
k
u
c
s
V
•
— »
o
•
0
u
M
m
ffl
•
rsf
0
X
M
O
«l
M
u
3
z
■V
«-
c
k
9
k
«
**
o
^*
M
rsj
.af
o
f
M
•D
3
o
1.
— '
**
V
•-
•
u
w
•D
u
•
•o
■
«>
•^
m
•
u
•
■
C
•
>
c
o
•>
X
•o
^
¥^
»
.rf
c
m
If
o
D
*^
<
ffl
*-*
•A
ffl
<
^
ffl
Z
s
ffl
3-96a
<
ca
i^
en
o
u.
OS
<
u
OS
w
a.
Oi
CO
o
a:
a.
z
o
I— (
H
=3
J
o
u
o
OS
o
I/)
H
z
o
z
o
z
H
z
o
-J
03
<
o
>
u
a
lA
O
o
3 ■
o u
<A i3
9
M
3 V
eon
3 •« —
-< 3 ■
-^ ■ a
o u ■
■ « u
•> « V
W -I 3
»- •- c
O O 3
o
w w t.
« « (9
«« I.
•^ O 1.
o
e
c
0
UJ
w
c
o
w
Ul
V
o
^
c
•
*«
*«
c
^
^
c
c
•^
c
•
c
Jtf
«i
C
c
c
^
0
-^
0
N
o
c
■
^
O
«
«
c
•^
•^
•^
•^
<^
•
3
.^
d
A*
«
*«
^
**
^
•
««
«
■
o
01
Ci
e
at
<■
►■
9
Bl
«
«t
■o
•t-
..^
•»-
c
•V*
«
■
«
fc.
L.
•
b.
«rf
b
«
b.
u
c
k
*«
**
u
u
mm.
u
£
b
e
u
«A
W)
o
**
K
►*
u
*^
M
<
K
3 *<
O X
c
O tl
0>
<
" 3 — U
• O *< O —
u a —' o •*•
U I. 3 -< ■•-
3 u u O -O
O X — u o
M Ui i. "D £
V Ol >.
K < X
e
• e
k ■»-
a u
w « u
^ u ■
3 1. I.
U 3 w
— ox
k « Ul
e a
• • o e
k. k — —
3 3 w w
** ** 91 u • U
w w u • u •
3 3 k I. k 1.
U U 3 w 3 w
•^ —OX OX
k k M UJ W Ul
o a •> V
< < K K
c
— «
C
_>
c
■
c
_,
M
c
C
C
_,
c
c
•
<
M
«
<
tl
k
«>
<
■
«
«
•
<
•
•1
—»
■
■^
t>
■
*ri
■
■
■
■
M
•^
•^
k
a
••-
>
•^
k
■^
<^
>
o
**
•o
o
«^
■
•o
o
A
M
•O
"O
0
•o
•o
-^
•^
-^
v
•>
.^
«
3
•
•
«^
•
•i
Ik
E
v>
Ik
z
►-
lA
Ik
X
Z
lA
(A
Ik
lA
•A
lA
»y »-
o
J< ^ J< U
«) V tl
tl t> tl k
k k k II
KM XJ %J t*
C
■X ■ ■ tl
u -< ■ a
o A ■ k
k « a ■
CD o U U
J< k
• tl tl
k tl >
tl k —
> u te
C BO
— J( c o
• k — <••
— o k J(
k Ik a 0
tl lA «
A it ^
■ k ■ m
• ■ k
X -. ■ o
■o
0
o
»
e
o
o
u
j< Ji j( k
• • • t-
• « •
k k -» k •
J< U U >s U k
• k u
• « • « M
k a 'Q k> MM
u -> ■ 3 ^ e
■> > A a —
o 3 « — aw
O O Z k • Ik
a a ■^ »- a ^
3-96b
o
»- u
-- u
U 3
« O
a lA
1/1
<
o
01
<;
u
u
fal
(d
-3
CQ
O
OS
a.
o
^
J
O
Oi
td
O
DC!
O
CO
O
a.
z
o
o
u
CM
I
m
u
CQ
u V
3
u o
I. a
3 «l
O "
v> m
e
c o «
■ ■
3 ■ -^
-'3 a
•^ ■ a
o u ■
A' • «
»> -I >
•- •- c
O O 3
o
m m u
•I ti o
a: <
o
o
v c
o o
e
M * •«- •^ .^
J3
3
"D -<
O ■
C
»
0
V
u
«
••-
u
3
L.
A4
3
**
3
»
u
**
ma
4J
u
•
_*
3
.^
k.
k
3
U
3
3
M
U
■»•
U
0
X
■^
>
•^
•>
ut
L.
_«
u
t;
o>
•V-
a
ae
<
(A
<
c
o
C 4->
o ■
•^ (.
M «l
m *•*
W — '
V <
v < ■
■ •<
— » —
t> -> ■
VI lb X
« <
■
•I -J
lA lA.
C
c
0
t)
tl
V
V
0
•^
1.
k
u,
t.
4-«
3
3
3
3
4^
u
U
*J
w
*«
4^
V
u
u
«
^
■rf
-rf
^^
u
a
u
L.
3
3
3
3
1.
I.
3
W
U
U
U
U
3
*rf
0
X
•^
•••
•^
•^
0
X
M
tu
t.
1.
1.
t.
•>
UJ
«
t>
a
0
EX
«»
K
<
<
<
<
cc
0
c
c
c
**
e
0
0
0
•
0
3 "
O X
oti^ < < va <
- « m -^
a— » > a ^^ >
♦^"DO o o "oja o
a a -^ w -#
N r-
Z 's
3 .
O
a
u
u
o
w
c
a
o
3 -D
•D C
C O
3 U
O a
u C
V <
3-96c
(A
<
oa
o
e •
> ■
o —
c
o
a.
c »-
o
s
DC
O
ai
<
u
a:
u
cu
a,
3 a
o u
lA A
3
lA
9
O
■0
I 8
"• » «
«• ■- ■« •
« » we
a _ ^ * • •
9 a «) Q «e «
5 = • c
f c • c « o ■
E « ' • = «
• w - « ^ . ,
? • •"Bl. «3
o u >-o-« >j:
• • u»t.a u o
!■ -* •01.— a —
CO
s
u
J
o
a:
2
O
*— (
H
J
O
a-
u
u
q:
=>
O
00
H
Z
o
(X
z
o
z
H
z
o
-J
CO
<
3 -
O X
COD
3 a -^
-•3 a
-> a a
o u ■
a a L.
« t* «
k. ^ M
" a a
M -I X
♦• •- C
O O 3
o
iti m ^
Haw
•^ U L.
C < O
«
o
o ■
— ' 3
£ a
u w
a o
« u
c u
» «
a. a.
e
c
«l
C
,^
V
0
V
o
k
o
«
*4
k
'^
u
•^
3
•^
u
U
•
3
AiJ
3
*d
M
M
3
.^
u
M
to
U
**
«
u
««
u
o
u
•
-^
u
■
3
3
^
0
^.
a
b.
u
3
1.
b
U
k,
3
•*-
u
3
M
U
3
**
•»-
«-•
U
o
■o
b.
0
X
•*"
0
X
>
m
V
u
o
>
tt
w
UJ
L.
«
UJ
«<
C
fc.
^
X
X
<i
o
tt
•^
0
Ol
X
•r-
•*
se
<
«
(A
u
<
X
M
o
c
c
o
•
-••
M
M
<
«
•
c c -•
» a <
■ ■
— — >
O 'O o
a • _>
«A U.
w
a -• « 3
c — •
a <
■
— 3
-a o
• -•
■
a
M. lA
a u
<
a -I
♦< u
a a
• M
b 111 t. w W
« U •03
*' a. Ol
C a
X X a I
"O O "D C I
c " e a
3 w 3 w a
o -^ o c *>
t — u o —
O C 19 X lA
a
u
«
-• e
a o
" a
u
o
o
o
X
3-96d
*
o
CO
<
CQ
o
OS
<
u
OS
u
a,
PL.
S
U
D3
o
OS
z
o
p— I
H
,-J
J
O
Cu
u
CJ
OS
O
w
H
Z
o
a.
z
o
z
H
z
o
CN
I
m
CQ
<
o
a
c
a
e
" «- c
c o «■
■ B
M tl I.
9 w ••-
-■3 a
— ' ■ CL
O U E
a. ••
— «>
~ >
3 *"
— • 3
3 U
— >
a —
< u>
o
c
TO
O
•O f
c
o
u
e CO
e o L.
— — 3
W u *<
•I U tl u -<
us u ■ 3
•- I. I. 1. u
3 - 3 « —
OK OX >
c
c
»
o
tl
o
«f
L.
•^
u
•^
u
3
«-•
3
4^
3
«
u
«-•
u
*<
^
u
c
-^
3
_,
3
u
t.
3
C
3
u
3
«-•
U
*«
U
.^
O
K
••-
M
■^
>
m
Ul
u
c
b.
^
t>
o
o
o
—
oe
<
u
<
to
c -• ■•-
tl < u
■ V
— s «
•D O O
t> — K
lA u. (D
•o
tl
•o
tl
■o
c ->
tl <
■
— »
T3 O
tl w
s <
-o tl ae
o 1.
^ u ■
I. .
« ■ z
•< 3 *
■ u •-
3 Z «M
C M
U »- «l
C <-> M
U
c
tl
■o
o
E
3-96e
*
e
•- u
-»- i.
U 3
•) O
Q lO
a:
O
OS
Qfi
U
a,
U
H
Z
£
U
-J
CQ
O
a:
a.
z
o
o
u
OS
§
(A
o
z
H
Z
o
CM
s
o
o
ti
3
u o
L. a
o —
in «
^ •- c
c o •>
-•an
— ■ a
o u ■
a. —
« « «i
^ « •
M ^ X
■D
•- •- C
0 0 3
O
M W k
• • u
— > u
•^ o u
Z < O
•D
O
Oi
J< ■ c
Cm 0
• "^ -^
■ « ■
■ e B
DC —
*• £ I.
•0 U —
e
i
m
«
■
a
c
o
C
I
« c c
L. tl O O
3 1.— -<-
*•* a ** 4^
w w u U
3—3 3
U 3 k I.
•^ M ** **
> — • •» M
-- 1. C C
— » o o
v> < u u
-< u
3 '-•
O X
3 •-•
O X
II < ti
■ e
— » —
•DO -O
II —• II
C -I
II <
■
■o o
11 ~*
V) u.
c
■
•D
II
M
<o
u
c
o
u
c
o
o
a
b
u
u
s
.M
e
jd
<
•
^
•
u
»
1.
•
arf
•
L.
a
b
3
•
u
•»
u
(9
9
J<
*o
«
2
■
3
C
^
if
o
1.
O
•
— »
(.
a
•
a
■
»
CM
u
3
X
•
^-
b
u
u
z
a
•
•
m
«
M
*«
r*
•
»
>
>
•o
>
■o
o
•
U
ti
^
0
C
^
c
u
f-
«
X
•^
.O
O
•^
o
M
wf
■»
M
«9
m
a.
M
»
3-96f
*
"" >«
CO
<
CQ
OS
o
OS
<
L3
OS
u
a,
cu
w
C/5
s
u
la
o
OS
a,
z
o
►-I
H
J
■J
O
a.
u
OS
ID
o
en
O
Oi
z
o
z
H
z
o
a
CM
I
.J
pa
u o
1. a
a ti
o •-
COD
■ ■
3 m —
— « 3 «
— • a
o u ■
■
■ MI.
V V V
J)
9
a
b
3 *>
O X
M Ul
u —
•> «. I. o u «
3 3 f - 5 U
" *- _< «( o -< ♦.
•^ — = U ■ 3 _
= 3 O I. 1. U 3
" U — 3 «- — u
■" — > 0 X > —
*• «- — ' M Ui — / I.
<» 0> — II — a
< i< u> .> .. !r
<
O 3
O
•o
o
c -• -<
f < <
G
— > a
'O O o
tl -• _.
lA Ik kk
■ — -o
" -D —
« tl U
C -J
1 <
■
•o o
•I —*
I w
> •
JK tl -o
tl > c
» — 3 <^
I. K O tl
U I. u
J< U ■>-
X >. Wl
O O -^
A ife « <
■X -• tl
tl — tl
> u —
-• U — w
W U < w
c o
a a
« 3
O
c
M
lA
O
a
O II
•« -X O ^ J< >
• tl ••- 11 t; •«-
• II j< a v e
^ 1. u • I.
•J o • c o *<
— — o
^ « m « tl o >-•
a -> I. w k «
• »- tl o — 1. a
fc ■ w ■ tl a
O « *' (. tl M c
V tl *« tl I; M •^
-* c - > I. ^ •
• f _l .^ r- m .
3-96g
■o
o
<
o
cc
u
a:
u
cu
a,
£
-]
ca
o
a.
z
o
l-H
H
o
a.
-u
OS
o
W
Z
►H
O
Oi
z
o
z
o
o
-J
CQ
<
c
e
c
L (^
■o
o
3 «
O •'
C O V
-■ 3 C
-> • a
o u ■
lA _i X
■D
». «. C
O O 3
O
■ ■• u
« «l I*
^ u
•^ o u
■o
O
c
•I o ti
1. "- u
3 «< 3
W If U AJ
-^ u c — «
3 1. k 3
U 3 M u
— O X -^
1- M UU U
ova
< K <
^ V c « c
*• o u o I. o
«. - 3 ^ 3 ^
3 M *4 «^ Arf w
-"UB 3U* 33
3Lk UL.I. Uk
U34' -oa^j ■•-«<
— ox >0X >a
o «> -^ If 1- o
< QC lA K lii u
C
0
c
c
c
^
0
0
0
n
■^
•^
•^
u
M
**
4^
l>
«
•
m
w
u
b.
fc.
^
tt
•f
•I
<
4^
*<•
Arf
*«
«^
m^
c
^
41
<
<
«
•)
<
«
-rf
■
Atf
>
2
«
•^
3
.*.
0
O
AJ
■o
0
JQ
— f
.^
41
«f
^
«
u>
Ik
S
(A
Ik
X
•D
«
M
£ 3
— O
•O 3
V
■ 1.
c a
4( M
• •
• • j<
*• ^ U ~ I)
U • u c «
■O O u
(■ C <• M ^ U
o o a - •
c u e 1. • e
— • — •• b e
>- C k • u M
ci < a o n
«
■a
•< « 9>
U w
3-96h
<
CQ
!^
O
a:
<
Dc:
w
cu
IX
r>
w
H
z
00
s
w
J
as
O
a,
z
o
H
1
■3
a.
u
u
o
CO
o
z
o
z
H
z
o
I
w
J
09
<
o
o
3 <-•
O X
<
"- C
O •)
3 •> —
•^ 3 ■
-< ■ a
■
■ " u
V V V
** • •
M -I >
■o
»• •- c
0 0 3
o
■o
tl
I <
•a
o
JO
j< a:
u O --^
u o »
"- o
I J< ■
o u c
— «D I.
•o
c
o
<
•o
<u
e
«
u
CO
V
u
jC
JJ
U "O
H a>
4J
- «
0) s
w ^
0) <D
>• >
•
0> «
u
a N
00
II (d
00
M
ON
M
^~
-•o
V V
tn
4J U
w
(0 o
X
h u
o
0) -H
•o c
ft o
..
E 5
Id
II II
O
s z
OS
r>
o
* *
CO
*
3-961
■ c
m —
<
CQ
O
<
u
OS
u
3
o
-J
Q
Z
<
w
a
u
s
u
J
O
a:
— 1.
U 3
•I O
a. M
c
a O
a •
s s
« e
a I.
0 L
a 3
■ a
■J <
^
V
t.
•
^
«
•-
•*
V
c
■
^
^
>
•
•
ftk
=
k
a
m
-rf
»
\
m
«
e
M
3
■
e
c
•
1.
»
e e
e <
— \
•
w
*^
« c
•o
3
3
9 —
V
c.
"O
b ■
b
9t
C
^
k. t.
o
M
Vt
•■
M
tk
"" «»
•I
V
u
w
;
b.
^
u
O
c
3
m
3
0
O
m
0
*«
•t
—
»
o
«
u
•
U
w
&
*
u
3
*
u
■
■1
■
9
u
«
■
^
m
0
^
^,
u
u
«t
O
«
—
3
3
**
u
••
k
—
C
•D
U
0
X
*rf
w
^
*«
w
I.
0
■i
Ul
•
3
s
»
3
•3
u
V
Z.
-^
«
&
^
>«
»
as
a
&
u
3
a
=
<
o -a
I. •
■a s
Z
o
e e •>
=3
.J
.J
o
CI.
(d
O
oe.
=3
o
M
H
Z
M
O
z
o
z
CM
I
PO
Id
>J
00
<
— a a
o u ■
— a u
a — —
— • c ■ e c • —
< k » » • b, k
•I — ■ — * It
3 a k — I. a. ^
O ■ — -9 — » U
— IS > 3 • ■
— — C
O O 3
e
— u w
X < o
• -a
> c
— 3
•e o
— A
*• > • •» *« ^
tt — > K
B — . B
•X e j( ■ ~ M
>■ " >. m •
o e ^ o v A' V
•> O ■ ». ■ M k
~ • » u
-X ^ Jts .x j: e
i- « - k - i J
■ ■ ■ ■ « • 0
k «
■ ■
> a
3-96J
(A
<
i<
be:
o
Ui
OS
:3
u
OS
u
a
z
<
[x]
J
O
Q
CA
CQ
O
OS
CU
Z
o
H
O
&■
o
o
CO
H
Z
l-l
o
Z
o
z
H
z
o
u
CM
CM
I
CO
u
.J
3
c o «
■ ■
** V u
3 «i f-
m
w
u
«i
b
tt
L
^
4^
*rf
m
m
V)
^
•^
••-
C
o
0
3
O
M
M
u
V
«
O
««
U
•^
u
u
z
<
o
•D
O
c a.
o
u w
<■ ■
C t.
o w
3
o
•o
c
o
a
— ' U
3 (.
0>
<
Jl
o
— 3
> o
•»-
t>
«
V
b.
c
•^
M
■
•p*
t>
w
«
u
*S
•»-
L.
M
^
o
**
■^
•D
A'
u
^t
u
3
«
V
3
■
m
o
Z
M
1/1
Z
m
U)
M
t)
<
w
*rf
•
*«
«^
C
C
•^
.^
C
w
tt
tl
I.
<
t)
■
■
•^
tl
M
■
*^
•^
u
w
W
>
.^
.^
•D
w
u
-^
0
•0
^
V
3
■0
«
.^
tl
«
lA
Z
CD
V)
u.
Ul
X
«rf
•^
*»
CI
L.
«
CA
«
c
u
L.
b
1.
•
w
tl
M
t>
A'
a
4->
•^
4-t
c
c
m
"D
■
o
3
•
2
u
i.
•D
u
T3
a
c
a
C
V
lA
3
&
3
c
O
0
o
M
•
O •*•
<-* V
3-96k
o
*».
UJ HI
W5
<
ca
O
b.
02
u
e
TO
o
c
•o
o
Id
a
s
u
tf3
_3
o
« o
U «l
I. w
3 •
o u
(A ^
3
tfl
C C
o <
— \
Arf ex «•
c c ■
•" 19
1. -^
I. M e
\ • c
Ob ^
C ■ I.
c e
o <
■ c ■
a> ••- •
e
e
OX —
4* UJ U
« a
e
ecu e «
•IOO«l.« o o
I."-— 1.31. ^ ^
3>'W3*'3 M w
*'IIUU ** ^ M u •»
->ua3 w3 _. 3 ua
31.1.1. 3U 3 I. 1.1.
Lt3w4-« u*^ u •« 3*«
"-OX- -.> — w ox
UMUJC I.W fc. c «iHJ
DOOO^OI Oft
2
3
o
M
H
z
o
Oi
z
o
z
*- •- c
c o •>
a ■
*rf «« u
3 «i —
w 3 a
-> a a
o u ■
Q. ••
« • «
** a a
lA -I 3
•o
•- «- C
0 0 3
o
M •> U
a «i u
«
u
M 3
*4 w «« a
c c a -^
a a 1. 1.
■ •«- a V
"- u a M
*D M B u
« 3 a a
V> Z I- ID
— c —
M m M
a a
Z
o
CM
CM
I
cn
u
PQ
<
■o
o
•»
a a •
— ■■» a
3-0 k
O C U
<• 3
WO ^
■»• C 3
«
•
a •'
a k
O a
k a
a. e
3-961
CO
<
CQ
o
OH
<
u
W
o
J
Q
2
<
U
J
Q
Q
H
CO
^-'
w
o
D-
O
t— I
H
:3
o
CL.
O
CO
H
z
I— I
o
a.
z
o
z
H
z
o
o
CM
CM
J
CQ
<
•Sc
o
*■•
V
UJ
Ul
Ul
X
Ul
Ul
Ul
Ul
u
>
X
X
c
X
X
c
X
X
v%
O
Oh
u
«»
•^
«
M
V-
u
m
•^
(.
«4
u
3
w
«f
o
i.
Q.
V)
•
(A
o
c
e
0
V
a
V
O)
b
u
V
**
t.
*^
M
3
«
c
O
u
X
0
(A
3
lA
3
•
3
X
C
0
C
o
b
u
•V
m
o
ae
If
b
3
V
t-
**
3
**
9
3
*•»
3
**
u
O
--
w
u
w
w
CI
u
w
c
O)
3
^
3
*^
^
u
(D
3
3
tl
U
3
u
3
3
u
b
3
U
0
*^
•^
W
4-*
U
U
3
4^
U
to
■
>
•^
«
•*•
w.
0
X
>
u
lA
C
0
<
c
0
u
c
o
u
D
<
<
M
V
se
e
0
Ul
b
<
(A
C
O
*4
u
«
m
•
m
0
♦*
t.
V
b
**
•*•
c
A'
*>>
^
c
o
«l
■w
..rf
«rf
^
•
B
<
<
M
«
<
<
^
b
u
4-»
«
w
W
«
4-1
M
■
^
m
^
3
M
•^
**
c
•^
*^
C
C
.»»
c
C
**
■c
c
^
-^
3
«
■
«*
U
«
4>
1)
L.
V
f
u
m
V
u
tt
«
0
*J
■
tl
AJ
m
•^
«>
m
•^
«> M
■
tl
G
4.*
&
JO
•D
o
J3
T3
^
U
X
u
U ^
A
•o
u
T»
03
«
l»
«
C
V
3
n
V
3
« c
«
t>
•
V
z
tA
ca
X
(A
Z
CO
«n
X
ffi lA
X
«A
la
4A
X
■
m
w
t.
V
«
«
t.
jtf
^-t
*«
m
«
lA
-1
3
«-
<^
c
o
O
3
O
m
^■
1^
»rv
—
M
•■
to
lA
w
M
t.
V
*t
o
^
%-
•f
u
t.
ac
<
0
0
u
u
•
>
m
II
u
»
«i
u
«l
«
3
O
u
b
II
^
b
>
ae
^
jC
u
•^
u
c
b
_#
U
c
U
a
a
a
u
.^
0
o
t>
-^
V
«>
o
>
X
kb
m
*'
0
c
K
c
f
**
a
«
*D
•^
•^
— >
a
^
^
■
3
C
n
«A
4A
a.
4A
3
lA
0
b
M
It
0
•o
v
c
0)
4J
«
(U
Vj
J=
4J
II
T3
H
(U
•»
2
<u
u
f—j
0)
ra
>
>
•
(U
0)
u
CO
II
eo
II
u
00
CO
ON
•V
^
»
•V
0)
<u
CO
4-1
u
u
«
o
32
)-l
XJ
Q
OJ
• ^
•o
C
o
o
• •
E
E
U2
II
II
O
s
z
O
-!«
*
CO
3-96in
pollutants from septic tanks or drainfields (in the Missoula
area and possibly along the reservoirs and Lake Pend
Oreille) ; and sediments, metals, flow alterations, and
elevated temperatures from hydromodification. Some
hydromodification effects occur during construction of
hydroelectric power plants, during operational drawdown and
maintenance periods, and during the course of normal flow
regulation.
Current NPS Programs
A number of local, state, and federal programs have been
developed to identify and control nonpoint source pollution
problems in the state. These programs, many of which include
the Clark Fork Basin, are listed in Table 3-23.
Most recently, a comprehensive NPS management program
has been initiated by the DHES-Water Quality Bureau. The
framework for this program was provided by Section 319 of the
Federal Clean Water Act, and it is considered the state
umbrella program for NPS pollution control. This and other
recent programs are discussed below.
DHES-Water Quality Bureau
The Federal Clean Water Act of 1987 established a new
direction for the control of water pollution. Because
nonpoint source pollution was recognized as a serious
impediment to meeting the goals of the act, it was amended to
include a new Section 319, entitled Nonpoint Source Manage-
ment Programs. This section provides the legal basis for
implementing nonpoint source progtams and sets forth certain
requirements that the states must meet to qualify for
assistance under the act. An assessment report and a
management program must be completed by a state to be
considered for Section 319 grants. The assessment report is
intended to be an analysis of nonpoint source water quality
problems. The management program sets forth a process for
correcting these problems. For the state of Montana, these
two items will be produced separately but will be considered
together as the basis for nonpoint source decision-making.
The state assessment report must include the following:
• Identification of navigable waters that require
additional action to control NPS so that water
quality standards and the mandates of the act can
be met
3-97
TABLE 3-23.
CURRENT NPS PROGRAMS IN MONTANA
Program
Administering Agencies
Local State Federal
Program NPS Activities
Type Extent
State Water
Conservation
DHES-UOB
BLM
Voluntary
Quel i ty
Districts
DNRC-
USPS
Management
Conservation
EPA
Program
Districts
(Section 208,
Division
303e, 319)
(CDD)
Statewide Agriculture
Si Iviculture
Construction
Resource Extraction
Abandoned Mine
Land Reclama-
tion Fund
DSL
GSM
Other
Statewide Resource Extraction
Cumulative
Watershed
Effects
Cooperative
DSL
Voluntary Regional Silviculture
Hazardous and
Sol id Waste
Management
Programs and
Superfund
DHES-SHWB
EPA
Regulatory Statewide Resource Extraction
Land Disposal
Storage Tanks
Hazardous Waste
Storage
HJR 49 Forest
Management and
Watershed Effects
Study
EQC
Statewide Silviculture
OSM Active Mining
Regulatory
Responsibi I i ties
DSL
OSM
Regulatory Statewide Resource Extracti(
Watershed Pro-
tection and Flood
Prevention Pro-
gram-SCS (PL566)
SCS
Incentive Statewide
Natural Stream-
Conservation
DNRC
bed Land
Districts
DFWP
Preservation
Act Permits
(310)
Stream Pro-
DFWP
tection Act
Permi ts
Regulatory Statewide Hydromodif icat ion
Regulatory Statewide Hydromodi f icat ion
3-97a
TABLE 3-23 (COMT.).
CURRENT NPS PROGRAMS IN MONTANA
Program
Administering Agencies
Local State Federal
Program
Type Extent
NPS Activities
BLM's Land
Management
Responsibi I i-
t ies- Interior
'StN
Regulatory Statewide Agriculture
Si Iviculture
Construction
Resource Extractf&ti
USPS Forestry
Land Management
USPS Regulatory Statewide Silviculture
Resource Extrac<f6n
BOR Activities
Interior
BOR
Other
Statewide Hydromodif icatfon
Cooperative
Extension
Service
Acti vi ties
USDA Voluntary Statewide Agriculture
Si Iviculture
Agricultural
Conservation
Program
ASCS
Incentive Statewide Agriculture
Pesticide
Appl i cat ion
L i censing
Program
liijA
tpk
Rt^gulatory State'wide Agriculture
US Fish and
Wildlife Service
Programs
USFUS
Other
Local
Habitat
Manageinent
State Certi-
fication
pursuant to
Section 401 of
Clean Water Act
lirdfB
Corps Regulatory Statewide Hydromodif icatfon
USPS Agriculture
Si Iviculture
Resource Extradtion
Renewable
Resource Devel-
opment Funds
and Water
Development
Program Funds
DtfRC
Incentive Statewide Agriculture
Silviculture
Resource Extraction
233 Program for Conservation DNRC-
funding conser- Districts CDD
vation projects
through Conser-
vation Districts
Incentive Statewide Agriculture
Si Iviculture
Source: DHES 1986.
3-97b
Identification of categories, subcategories, or
specific nonpoint sources that contribute sig-
nificant pollution to those navigable waters
Description of the process for identifying best
management practices and measures to control NPS
and to reduce pollution levels
Identification and description of state and local
programs for controlling NPS pollution.
The state management program must specify the BMPs and
measures that will be used to reduce pollution and describe
the programs that will be utilized to implement those BMPs.
The management program must also provide an implementation
schedule, certification by the state attorney general, and a
discussion of available funding.
The assessment and management programs for the state of
Montana were submitted to EPA on August 4, 1988.
Silviculture Programs and Activities
Environmental Quality Council. House Joint Resolution
(HJR) 49, enacted by the 1987 Montana Legislature, directed
the Environmental Quality Council (EQC) to conduct an interim
study on the relationship between forest management and
watershed effects in Montana. Specific objectives of the
study are to evaluate:
• How current forest management practices affect
Montana watersheds
• The range of management practices that both
conserve watersheds and maintain the economic
viability of forestry operations
• The existing administrative framework (regulatory
and voluntary)
• Actions that would achieve both watershed and
timber goals if determined that such actions are
needed.
The EQC has established a Best Management Practices
Technical Committee and a Watershed Effects Working Group to
assist them in this effort. The Best Management Practices
Technical Committee is responsible for developing a set of
forest management practices that will conserve watershed
3-98
values during the process of accessing, harvesting, and
regenerating timber. Committee members have reviewed
forestry BMPs used in Montana and other states and are
developing a set of BMPs that can be readily understood by
Montana landowners and timber operators. A draft version
was issued in September 1988. Management practices for
riparian zones, the final topic on the committee's agenda,
were be addressed in a fall 1988 meeting.
The Watershed Effects Working Group has developed a
written questionnaire that seeks to identify areas in Montana
where forest practices have caused watershed damage and areas
where logging has been conducted in environmentally sensitive
sites without affecting watershed values. This questionnaire
was mailed to about 1,000 foresters, water quality special-
ists, biologists, and other professionals involved in
forest/watershed management in Montana. This group also
coordinated a series of on-site audits of forest management '
practices on private industrial, private nonindustrial,
state, and federal lands. The audits were conducted by
teams of five specialists who visited a total of 38 randomly
selected timber sales, some of which were in the Clark Fork
Basin. Team members evaluated whether best management
practices were used and how effective these practices proved
in preventing soil erosion into adjacent streams. Evaluation
of BMPs has been used successfully by a number of other
states to indicate the degree of compliance by operators and
to determine where to focus limited state resources to avoid
watershed damage.
Results of questionnaire and the on-site audits are
included in a draft report released in November 1988 (EQC
1988) . The Council is focusing on the work of the Cumulative
Watershed Effects Cooperative, a vtSluntary state-private-
federal group that is developing a method to assess and
respond to potential cumulative effects in multiple-ownership
watersheds. A study report and recommendations from EQC's
study will be submitted to the 1989 Legislature.
Cumulative Watershed Effects Cooperative. The Cumula-
tive Watershed Effects Cooperative was formed in 1986 under
the direction of the Montana Department of State Lands,
Division of Forestry. The cooperative is composed of the
major landowners involved in forest management in the Lower
Clark Fork and Flathead Basins, including U.S. Forest Service
(Region 1, Lolo, Flathead, and Kootenai national forests) ,
Bureau of Land Management (Garnet District) , Bureau of Indian
Affairs (Flathead Indian Reservation) , Champion Inter-
national, Plum Creek Timber, Department of State Lands, an4^
the Conservation District Division (DNRC) as well as the
Water Quality Bureau (DHES) , the Department of Fish, ---'i
3-99
wildlife, and Parks, the Montana Association of Conservation
Districts, the Montana Logging Association, and the Montana
Wood Products Association.
In April 1987, the members of the cooperative signed a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) adopting a set of minimum
best management practices on their lands. In November 1987,
the Montana Association of Conservation Districts also
approved the MOU's Best Management Practices. The Conserva-
tion Districts are responsible for implementing the Natural
Streambed and Land Preservation Act of 1975 (310 Law) . More
recently, members of the cooperative have been developing a
three-step process to identify, verify, and respond to
cumulative watershed effects.
Clark Fork Coalition. In 1987, the National Wildlife
Federation and the Clark Fork Coalition began working on
strategies to control nonpoint sources of pollution on forest
lands in Montana. A paper published by the Coalition in
October 1987 (Knudson 1987) reviewed nonpoint water quality
problems associated with forest practices, discussed the
value of clean water and recreational resources, and
suggested possible management strategies. Volume II of the
report was released in draft form in March 1988 (Knudson
1988) . This report includes suggested best management
practices and a set of water quality conservation regulations
to guide those forestry practices that can adversely affect
water quality. These draft standards have been submitted to
EQC for use in its NPS work on forest practices. The
Coalition is also considering submitting some form of these
standards in a rule-making petition to the Montana Board of
Health and Environmental Sciences.
Agriculture programs
Conservation Districts. Conservation districts are
legal subdivisions of state government responsible under
statute for soil and water conservation activities within
their boundaries. They develop and carry out long-range
programs that result in the conservation and improvement of
soil and water resources, provide assistance in the planning
and application of conservation measures, and encourage
maximum participation of the general public and all local
public and private agencies to fulfill this purpose.
Although the districts deal with a variety of NPS problems,
their efforts have been primarily directed at those related
to agriculture.
3-100
Conservation districts are the designated local
management agency for nonpoint source pollution control
programs in Montana, and they have been involved in water
quality improvement programs for many years. Districts will
again play a vital role in the state NPS program proposed
under Section 319. They will provide guidance and assistance
in the implementation of selected BMPs by district cooper-
ators, sponsor projects on selected watersheds, and cooperate
in a water quality education program. Several districts have
independently expressed interest in developing local NPS
control programs on selected streams or watersheds within
their boundaries, in addition to the initial activities
proposed under the Section 319 programs.
Resource Extraction Programs
EPA-Super f und . The Superfund law requires EPA to
identify, investigate, and clean up uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites not regulated under other programs. There are
nonpoint source problems at many of the Superfund sites in
the Clark Fork Basin, which were discussed earlier in this
chapter. Effective management of these sites by EPA and the
DHES-Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau (SHWB) is crucial to
controlling NPS pollution in the upper basin and in improving
water quality in the Clark Fork.
State Agencies. Montana's mining laws and regulations
are administered by a variety of agencies led by the
Department of State Lands. The DSL-Reclamation Division is
comprised of the Coal and Uranium Bureau, Hard Rock Bureau,
Open Cut Bureau, and Abandoned Mine Lands Bureau. The DHES-
WQB administers the Water Quality Act that includes the
MPDES permit program addressing surface and ground water
quality and maintenance of water quality standards. The DNRC
administers the Water Use Act dealing with water rights.
Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation. This program expends
funds received from the federal Office of Surface Mining
(OSM) for reclamation of lands disturbed by the mining of
coal, uranium, hard rock minerals, and open cut minerals.
The program is crucial to the control of NPS pollution
associated with historical mining in the basin (at sites
other than those designated under Superfund law) .
3-101
GROUND WATER QUALITY
Introduction
Ground water is used extensively in the Clark Fork
Basin, primarily for domestic purposes, irrigation, live-
stock, and industry. It also supplies base flow to the Clark
Fork and its tributaries. Although the ground water resource
has not been studied as intensively as the surface water
system, a fair amount of ground water data exists for
portions of the basin. The headwaters. Deer Lodge Valley,
and Milltown-Missoula areas have been characterized in some
detail. However, very little if any work has been done to
describe the ground water system between Garrison and
Milltown and in the basin below Missoula. This section of
the report describes ground water quality in the Clark Fork
Basin. The discussion focuses primarily on recent investiga-
tions (1983 or later) , although it addresses historical
studies briefly.
Historical Ground Water Quality Studies
The earliest investigator to describe the ground water
resources of the Butte area was probably Meinzer (1914) , who
studied the alluvial aquifer in the Blacktail Creek Valley.
Botz (1969) also examined ground water quality and hydraulic
characteristics in the Blacktail Creek alluvium, which is the
principal aquifer in the upper Silver Bow Creek Basin. Botz
described the aquifer as relatively thick with a large
quantity of water stored in the interlayered fine gravels,
sand, and silty and clayey sand. He reported that ground
water quality was generally good except along Silver Bow
Creek, where the flow of poor quality surface water to the
ground water system resulted in degradation of the aquifer.
A number of studies were also conducted to evaluate the
ground water system near the Berkeley Pit and AMC's former
Butte operations, including: Stout (1961) , Botz and Knudson
(1970), and Hydrometrics (1980).
Konizeski et al. (1968) conducted an in-depth study of
the geology and ground water resources of the Deer Lodge
Valley, from the headwaters to Garrison. However, the study
was primarily a physical characterization of the valley
rather than an assessment of ground water quality. Some of
these findings were discussed briefly in Chapter 1.
Boettcher and Gosling (1977) described the water
resources of the Clark Fork Basin upstream from St. Regis.
Their report included general information on the quality
(common constituents) and availability of ground water,
3-102
surface water-ground water interrelationships, and ground
water use. The authors noted degraded water quality in the
valley fill aquifer in the southern Deer Lodge Valley, but in
most areas water from the Quaternary valley fill was of
excellent quality. Water derived from Tertiary age sedimen-
tary rocks was excellent to good, with localized areas of
high total dissolved solids. They also indicated that water
use in the basin was low in comparison to the size of the
area and the amount of water available. With proper
management, the authors said, the aquifers could be developed
to ten times their use in 1975 without severely affecting the
water resource regimen in the area.
McMurtrey et al. (1965) studied the geology and ground
water resources of the 180 square mile Missoula Basin,
including the Missoula Valley from Missoula to Huson and the
Ninemile Valley. They reported that the ground water was
generally of good quality and suitable for most domestic,
irrigation, and industrial uses. The Quaternary deposits
were the most important aquifer in the Missoula Basin, and
large yields could be expected from wells in the floodplain
of the Clark Fork and the low terrace bordering the flood-
plain. An estimated 30 million acre-feet of water is stored
in the Tertiary and Quaternary sediments, of which about 8
million acre-feet is available to wells.
Geldon (1979) also studied the Missoula Basin. He iden-
tified three types of geologic units that furnish water to
wells, with the Quaternary-Tertiary alluvium supplying the
largest yield from unconfined sand and gravel layers. Geldon
also described the ground water in all units to be generally
of good quality. He predicted that continuing reliance on
ground water to supply an expanding population and agricul-
tural base would likely lower the water table in some areas,
causing some shallow wells to go dry.
Juday and Keller (1978) conducted a study of the ground
water serving the Missoula Valley in 1978. Several hundred
wells were sampled in this study, and only three of these had
nitrate levels that approached or exceeded the federal
drinking water standard of 10 ppm. Col i form bacteria was a
problem in about 25 percent of the wells sampled. However,
the authors concluded that overall the ground water supply
serving the Missoula Valley was of high quality. Data
generated in their study are considered baseline water
quality data for the area (Missoula City-County Health
Department 1987) .
3-103
Current Ground Water Quality
The Clark Fork Basin contains a number of contaminant
sources that degrade or have the potential to degrade the
ground water system. Many of these sources, including
tailings ponds, floodplain tailings, reservoir sediments,
pole treatment facilities, and wastewater treatment plants,
were described earlier in this chapter.
Several industries in the basin are permitted by the
DHES-Water Quality Bureau under the Montana Ground Water
Pollution Control System (MGWPCS) program. These are listed
in Table 3-24.
Solid waste sites in the basin are another source of a
variety of pollutants that may cause localized ground or
surface water problems. Solid waste sites in the basin
licensed by the DHES-SHWB are listed in Table 3-25. Some of
these landfills are thought to be causing contamination of
both ground water and surface water. The effects of others
are unknown.
TABLE 3-24.
ACTIVE MGWPCS PERMITS IN DEER LODGE, GRANITE,
MINERAL, MISSOULA, POWELL, AND SILVER BOW
COUNTIES AS OF 11-15-88
Permittee
County
Date Date
Issued Expires
CSC Mining Company
P. O. Box 1086
Wallace, ID 83873
Granite
3-11-85 1-31-92
Contact Mining Company, Inc.
P. 0. Box 337
Philipsburg, MT 59858
Granite
10-19-83 12-31-90
MCM Development Corp.
120 West Park Street
Butte, MT 59701
Granite
8-14-87 7-31-92
Silver Eagle Mining Co.
P.O. Box 5628
Helena, MT 59604
Powell
8-16-88 10-31-94
MPM Partnership
P.O. Box 237
516 W. Broadway
Philipsburg, MT 59858
Granite
10-20-88 9-30-93
Source: DHES 1988b.
3-104
TABLE 3-25.
LICENSED SOLID WASTE SITES IN THE CLARK FORK BASIN
Drai nage
Effect Solid Waste Facility
Clark Fork
Heron Class II Landfill
Trout Creek Class II Landfill
(ink Thorapson Falls Class II Landfill
• Plains Class II Landfill
uok Felstet-Superior Class II Landfill
•* BFI Missoula Class II Landfill
• Eko-Compost Class II Compost Site
City of Missoula Class III Landfi'H
Norm Close Class III Landfill
Washington Construction Class III Laodfil,l
WilUam Wheeler Class III Landfill
•* Frank Bauer Class III Landfill
Powell County/Deer Lodge Class II Landfill
• Butte-Silver Bow Class II Landfill
Blackfoot/Clark Fork
Little Bitterroot/Flathead
Warm Springs Creek/Clark Fork
Flint Creek/Clark Fork
Lincoln Class II Landfill
Hot Springs Class II Landfill
Anaconda/Deer Lodge Class II Landfill
Philipsburg Class II Landfill
Charles Parke Class II Landfill
Clcarwater/Blackfoot/Clark Fork
Bi tterroot/Clark Fork
*
K. G. Drew Class II Landfill
Sula Class 1 1 Landf i 1 1
Darby Class II Landfill
BitterroOt Valley Class II Landfill
Flathead Ri ver/Flathead Lake
unk Poison Class II Landfill
unk William Ingram Class III Landfill
unk Plum Creek Timber Class III (Pablo)
unk Plum Creek Timber Class III (Columbia Falls)
unk unknown
Indicates sites highly suspected of contributing to
contamination of adjacent surface water resources,
either through surface runoff or through direct ground
water connection.
Indicates sites that are suspected of contributing to
ground water contamination to some degree. Might be
indirect source of surface water contamination.
Source: DHES 1988d.
3- 104a
The following sections present the results of several
recent investigations that describe the physical and chemical
characteristics of ground water in the Clark Fork Basin.
These studies include:
Summit and Deer Lodge Valley studies (Hydrometrics
1983a)
Sludge injection site study (Duaime and Moore 1985)
Hydrogeology of the Colorado Tailings (Duaime et al.
1987)
Phase I Silver Bow Creek RI studies (MultiTech
1987a, b,c)
Stage I studies for Anaconda Smelter RI (Tetra Tech
1986b)
Remedial action study for Milltown Reservoir (Woessner
et al. 1984)
Sole source aquifer petition, Missoula Valley Aquifer
(Missoula City-County Health Department 1987)
Several studies are also ongoing, including Butte mine
flooding monitoring, Phase II Silver Bow Creek RI investiga-
tions, and a USGS study of the shallow aquifers in the upper
basin.
Upper Silver Bow Creek Area
The upper Silver Bow Creek area has received a tremen-
dous amount of attention in the last five years, and a fairly
large ground water data base has now been established. These
data are discussed below.
Although the series of reports by Hydrometrics (1983a)
dealt primarily with rehabilitation options in the head-
waters, it generated or discussed some ground water data as
well. Hydrometrics reported degraded ground water quality in
the following areas:
in the alluvium east of the Berkeley Pit and west
of the South Dump
near the Clark Tailings and City-County Landfill
along Silver Bow Creek from Texas Avenue to the
downstream end of the Colorado Tailings
near the Ramsay Flats and other floodplain areas
beneath and peripheral to the Opportunity Ponds.
Phase I of the Silver Bow Creek Superfund hydrogeologic
investigations was conducted from January to July 1985 to
determine general contamination sources, evaluate the extent
and severity of ground water contamination, and examine
ground water-surface water relationships. As a result of
3-105
Phase I studies, specific geographic areas were selected for
a more detailed Phase II study, conducted from December 19^5,
to January 1986.
Ground water contamination sources identified during tha
Superfund investigations of Silver Bow Creek are summarized
in Table 3-26. Contaminants are likely entering the surface
and ground water via several mechanisms, including:
infiltration of water through tailings, upward movement of
metallic salts to the surface via capillary action and
entrainment by surface runoff, and direct erosion and
entrainment of streamside tailings (MultiTech 1987a) .
MultiTech (1987a) concluded that ground water in the
Silver Bow Creek study area is a severely degraded resource
that may pose hazards to human health, aquatic life, and the
environment. Present and future use of the ground water
resource in upper Silver Bow Creek would be limited.
Samples from several monitoring wells in the study area
exceeded federal drinking water standards for a number of
metals and other trace elements. Several domestic wells
showed exceedences of secondary drinking water standards.
Butte Mine Flooding. When the Anaconda Minerals Company
ceased operations in Butte in 1982 and stopped pumping water
out of the Kelley Shaft, the water level in the shafts rose
to the level of the Berkeley Pit bottom within one year. The
water level in the pit is now rising at a rate of about 72
feet per year. Water levels have also risen in various min©
workings in the Butte area. Water samples from the Berkeley
Pit and the Kelley Shaft have been collected by the MBMG and
Camp, Dresser and McKee. Laboratory analyses for selected
parameters are provided in Table 3-27. Values for arsenic,
cadmium, copper, and zinc are very high, and there is concern
that contaminated water from the pit and mine workings may
eventually discharge to the alluvial aquifer and further
impair an already degraded ground water system. Because of
strong hydrologic connection between the ground water and
surface water in some areas. Silver Bow Creek and ultimately
the Clark Fork could also be adversely affected. If the pit
or shaft water were to intrude into the alluvium, there could
be multiple violations of federal and state water standards.
Although EPA has conducted preliminary studies to
address the mine flooding issue (Camp, Dresser and McKee
1987, 1988a, b) , additional work is ongoing to refine
predictions and to develop strategies to deal with potential
problems.
3-106
TABLE 3-26,
Potential
Source
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
SOURCES FOUND DURING THE SBC RI
Type
RI Findings
Upper Metro
Storm Drain
(Parrot)
Weed
Concentrator
Buried Tailings
Discharge of Process
Waters
WWTP Vicinity
(Butte Reduc-
tion Works)
Colorado
Tailings
Buried Tailings
Surface Tailings
Subsurface material has
extreme levels of metals.
Ground water in, beneath,
and downgradient from
tailings is degraded.
Not evaluated, but a po-
tential source, and may
have amplified problems
from buried tailings in
MSD area.
No site-specific tailings
analysis. Ground water
beneath and downgradient
is severely degraded.
Tailings have elevated
metals and contaminated
soils and ground water
beneath (MBMG data) .
Metals concentrations in
ground water increase
to the northwest.
Anaconda
Pole
Treatment
Ramsay Flats
Surface Soil
Contamination
Surface Tailings
Fluvial Surface Tailings
Tailings along
SBC and CFR
Surface soils have
extreme levels of
arsenic. Ground water
was not characterized.
Tailings contain up to 60
times background metals.
Surface efflorescence
contains extreme concen-
trations of metals (up to
15 percent) . Underlying
shallow ground water is
degraded but, due to low
gradients and transinis-
sivity, does not move
away from the site signi-
ficantly.
Tailings have elevated
metals. Ground water may
be locally affected but
no significant contamina-
tion was found.
Source: MultiTech 1987a.
3-106a
TABLE 3-27.
CHEMICAL ANALYSES FOR SELECTED PARAMETERS,
BERKELEY
PIT AND
KELLEY SHAFT SAMPLES
Approximate
Sample
Depth Below
Total
Concentration (ub/I)
Location
Sampler
Date
Surface (ft)
As
Cd
Cu
Pb
Zn
Berkeley Pit
MBHG
11-21-84
1.0
54
1,230
89,600
170
196,000
Berkeley Pit
MBMG
11-21-84
62.0
197
1,540
164,000
160
255,000
Berkeley Pit
MBMG
6-18-85
1.0
21
1,000
63,000
...
134,000
Berkeley Pit
MBHG
6-18-85
100.0
426
1,620
229,000
329,000
Berkeley Pit
MBMG
10-17-86
0.5
16
1,000
114,000
178,000
Berkeley Pit
MBMG
10-17-86
110.0
33
1,620
196,000
—
375,000
Berkeley Pit
MBMG
10-17-86
220.0
41
1,740
204,000
460,000
Berkeley Pit
MBMG
10-17-86
330.0
50
1,800
214,000
472,000
Berkeley Pit
MBMG
10-17-86
390.0
123
1,690
213,000
477,000
Berkeley Pit
CDM
10-16-87
0.0
10
1,040
135,000
134
208,000
Berkeley Pit
CDM
10-16-87
3.0
10
1,060
138,000
130
215,000
Berkeley Pit
COM
10-16-87
10.0
49
1,310
159,000
134
276,000
Berkeley Pit
CDM
10-16-87
49.0
58
1,740
214,000
187
392,000
Berkeley Pit
CDM
10-16-87
102.0
699
1,880
218,000
646
496,000
Berkeley Pit
CDM
10-16-87
216.0
,290
1,850
213,000
343
500,000
Berkeley Pit
CDM
10-16-87
328.0
,200
1,900
214,000
663
503,000
Berkeley Pit
CDM
10-16-87
426.0
,380
1,860
209,000
576
505,000
Kelley Shaft
MBMG
5-30-85
1235.0
,210
490
10,600
457,000
Kelley Shaft
MBMG
5-30-85
1475.0
,870
830
10,900
—
596,000
Kelley Shaft
MBMG
5-30-85
1788.0
16
,580
1,280
6,200
1,590,000
Kelley Shaft
MBMG
5-30-85
2200.0
16
,130
1,170
6,480
1,550,000
Kelley Shaft
MBMG
10-30-86
1090.0
3
,390
<2
700
232,000
Kelley Shaft
MBMG
10-30-86
1400.0
3
,590
<2
540
...
234,000
Kelley Shaft
MBMG
10-30-86
2200.0
7,
,000
12
1,670
...
510,000
Sources: Sonderegger et al. 1987;
CsRip, Dresser, and McKee 1988a.
3- 106b
Colorado Tailings Area. Studies of the Colorado
Tailings area have documented degraded ground water quality
in the vicinity of the tailings. Duaime et al. (1987)
reported that water quality generally deteriorates from south
to north and from east to west in the tailings area and that
ground water quality within the tailings is worse than that
outside the deposit. The wells closest to Silver Bow Creek
had the worst water quality. Ground water flows from
southeast to northwest through the tailings and then
discharges into Silver Bow Creek.
Several researchers (Rouse 1977; Beuerman and Gleason
1978; Botz and Karp 1979; Peckham 1979; Hydrometrics 1983a;
Duaime et al. 1987) have documented the effects of degraded
ground water quality in the Colorado Tailings area on Silver
Bow Creek surface water quality. Although all of these
studies reported worse water quality in Silver Bow Creek
below the tailings than above, there was disagreement on the
percentage of metals load actually contributed by the
tailings. It is clear, however, that the Colorado Tailings
are a source of metal contamination to both ground and
surface water and that some remedial action will be required.
Metro Sewer Sludge Injection Site. The Butte-Silver Bow
Metro Sewer WWTP pipes sludge from its plant in Butte to
storage lagoons at the injection site seven miles west of
Butte at Silver Bow, Montana. The site covers 80 acres and
is directly east of the Stauffer Chemical Company phosphate
plant. Since 1980, sludge that averages 2 to 3 percent
solids has been injected from late spring to late October.
The estimated life of the operation is 20 years (Duaime and
Moore 1985) .
A total of eight monitoring wells were installed at the
site in 1982 and 1983 by the Montana Bureau of Mines and
Geology. Twenty-one of the 23 samples collected between 1982
and 1984 from these wells, plus an existing site well, met
established primary or secondary drinking water standards.
The lead limit was exceeded in two preliminary samples, but
subsequent samples from those wells were below detection
limits. Water quality was generally consistent and similar
among the wells, although some had higher chloride and TDS
values than others.
Duaime and Moore (1985) concluded that there was no
significant degradation of local ground water from the sewage
sludge injection site, but suggested that monitoring be
continued on a yearly basis.
3-107
Warm Springs and Opportunity Ponds
Superfund investigations have documented degraded ground
water in the vicinity of the Warm Springs Ponds and the
Opportunity Ponds (MultiTech 1987b; Tetra Tech 1986b) .
Ground water downgradient of the ponds systems is con-
taminated, frequently exceeding federal drinking water
standards for arsenic, fluoride, iron, and sulfate. This
contaminant plume extends at least one-half mile downstream
from the Warm Springs Ponds. However, no domestic wells are
in the vicinity of the contaminated ground water; therefore,
there is no apparent or immediate threat to public health.
No measurable effects of contaminated ground water inflow to
the Clark Fork were found during the RI study periods.
Ground water from both the Opportunity Ponds and the Warm
Springs Ponds areas were the main sources of contaminant
inflow to the Mill-Willow Bypass (MultiTech 1987a) .
Warms Springs Ponds. Extensive Phase II Superfund work
for the Warm Springs Ponds system has been completed by CH2M
Hill. Ground water investigations included an electro-
magnetic survey in the area between the Mill-Willow Bypass
and the Warm Springs Ponds system and in the area below Pond
1, installation of 14 monitoring wells at key locations
within and adjacent to the area, ground water sampling,
ground water level monitoring, and aquifer testing. The
objectives were to better define the extent and severity of
ground water contamination near the ponds and to better
quantify hydraulic characteristics of the area ground water
system. A data report with the results of these Phase II
activities is expected to be released in early 1989. The
feasibility study for the ponds is -also expected to be
completed by early 1989. A number of corrective or control
options for the ponds will likely be considered, including
improved treatment practices at the existing system,
structural modifications, and others.
Opportunity Ponds. A plume of ground water enriched in
sulfate exits the Opportunity Ponds area to the northeast.
Highest concentrations of trace elements measured by Tetra
Tech (1986b) were 24 parts per billion (ppb) arsenic, 37 ppb
copper, and 166 ppb zinc. At present, a ground water mound
exists over a large portion of the tailings ponds, and the
water table is above the base of the tailings in over 70
percent of the area. However, it is estimated that ground
water levels will approach equilibrium in approximately 30
years, and the steady-state water table should be about 15
feet below the base of the tailings in the center of the pond
system. As the ponds have been drying out, an oxidizing
3-108
front has been moving very slowly down through the tailings.
Geochemical modeling of the pond system has predicted that
the oxidizing zone will reach the bottom of the tailings
ponds in 10,000 to 20,000 years. This oxidizing zone could
serve as a source of solutes to ground water for a long time.
However, if there is a sufficient thickness of unsaturated,
calcareous alluvium beneath the tailings to neutralize the
acidity they release, most of the metals would likely be
attenuated rapidly. The model predicted that worst-case
future ground water concentrations (thousands of years from
now) at a distance of 1,000 meters downgradient of the ponds
are expected to be 3 ppb cadmium, 34 ppb copper, <1 ppb lead,
4 ppb zinc, and 80 ppb arsenic. Although sufficient data
were not available to accurately predict the effect of
tailings leachate on the Clark Fork, a preliminary analysis
indicated that future low-flow solute concentrations in the
Clark Fork might be:
Arsenic 16-20 ppb
Cadmium <1-1 ppb
Copper 24-61 ppb
Lead <2 ppb
Zinc 32-33 ppb
Sulfate 230-330 ppm
These concentrations are only slightly higher than
existing concentrations in the Clark Fork below the Warm
Springs Ponds (Tetra Tech 1986b) .
Floodplain Mine Wastes
As discussed earlier in this chapter, mine wastes are
deposited in the channels and floodplains of Silver Bow
Creek, Warm Springs Creek, the Mill-Willow Bypass, and the
Clark Fork. These materials are found in large quantities
for over 100 miles and have significant potential to
contaminate the ground water resource. Sulfide oxidation of
these wastes may release soluble metals into the ground
water, and preliminary modeling indicates the possibility
that the deposits could contribute significant amounts of
trace metals to local ground water during a wet season.
Warm Springs to Milltown Data
In 1987, the USGS initiated a study of the shallow
aquifers along the Clark Fork between Warm Springs and
Milltown, Montana. The project was designed to assess the
physical and chemical characteristics of ground water,
seasonal changes in the systems, and ground water-surface
water interrelationships.
3-109
Fifty-six samples were collected from 50 wells (Figure
3-31) completed in a variety of geologic formations. The
dominant ions in the ground water sampled were calcium and
bicarbonate. Twenty-seven of the samples from 21 of the
wells contained at least one constituent value (or charac-
teristic) that equalled or exceeded either the primary or
secondary drinking water standards established by the EPA
(198 6a, b) . Constituent concentrations that exceeded these
standards include sulfate, dissolved solids, iron, manganese,
and nitrate. One well had a pH value outside the acceptable
range. Exceedences for iron and manganese were most common
in water from wells less than 50 feet deep, and exceedences
for sulfate and dissolved solids were most common in water
from wells more than 50 feet deep. Most of the wells sampled
are located near the mainstem Clark Fork. Therefore, the
general water chemistry derived in this study may not be
representative of the Clark Fork Valley as a whole.
Clark Fork streamflow was measured at 16 sites from Warm
Springs to Turah in October 1986. No significant losses in
streamflow were measured throughout the reach. However,
gains in streamflow, presumably from ground water inflow,
were measured from Racetrack to Deer Lodge. A final report
on this study will be published in 1989.
Mi 11 town Area
The principal ground water system in the vicinity of the
Milltown Reseirvoir is the unconfined valley fill alluvial
aquifer, composed of well-sorted sand, gravel, and boulders.
The aquifer thickens from about 40 feet near the reservoir to
over 100 feet north of Milltown. Ground water flow direction
is generally parallel to the Blackfoot River and the Clark
Fork. Recharge to the system is derived from the Clark Fork
and the Blackfoot River just above the reservoir and from the
reservoir itself. Discharge is to the Clark Fork below the
dam (Woessner et al. 1984).
Woessner et al. (1984) conducted a study of the ground
water in the Milltown area to identify the source of arsenic
contaminating wells in Milltown (discussed earlier in this
chapter) and to locate a new water supply. Many of the
existing wells sampled before this project was started
(August-September 1983) were contaminated with arsenic, iron,
and manganese, and nearly all other constituent concentra-
tions exceeded background levels. Samples collected in
November and December 1983 from project monitoring wells,
sand point wells in the reservoir sediments, and selected
existing wells showed high levels of arsenic, iron, man-
ganese, and TDS at a number of sites. The highest concentra-
tions occurred in the southern Milltown area and in the
3-110
a
a-
<
to
<
I— I
s
u
X
u
Oi
jj
H
<
OS
x;
ac
o
£>::
DC
<
u
ct:
u
a,
(X,
H
CO
Q
:d
H
CO
u
i-i
<
3
3
O
CO
o
CO
3
m
w
OS
D
U
3-1 10a
reservoir sediment ground water. The lowest concentrations
were found in the northern portion of the study area,
reflecting high-quality recharge water from the Blackfoot
River (Woessner et al. 1984).
The authors concluded that the distribution of metals in
the ground water and ground water flow patterns proved that
reservoir sediments were a likely source of contaminants to
the alluvial ground water system. The sediments contain very
high concentrations of heavy metals that are extremely
enriched above natural levels and rival many severely
contaminated sediment systems. Because the reservoir
contains approximately 120 million cubic feet of sediment,
it represents a huge source of metals to the surface and
ground water systems (Woessner et al. 1984) .
In January 1987, the Montana Power Company installed
three monitoring wells within ten feet of each other on the
containment side of Milltown Dam. The wells were completed
in three different lithologic units at depths of 45, 30, and
15 feet (Hydrometrics 1987) . The wells were sampled in
February and March of 1987. Results of these water analyses
are summarized in Table 3-28.
TABLE 3-28. RESULTS OF MFC SAMPLING OF MONITORING WELLS
AT MILLTOWN DAM (FEB. - MARCH 1987)^
Well
Total Recoverable
15A (45-)
15B (30M
15Cfl5n
Metals
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
Arsenic
<5 to 22
'■<5 to 58
42 to 102
Cadmium
<1 to 4
<1 to 1
<1 to 7
Copper
<10 to 210
<10 to 70
<10 to 180
Lead
<10 to 150
<10 to 40
<10 to 80
Zinc
10 to 600
<10 to 200
<10 to 1570
^ Range of values from three samplings.
Source: Montana Power Company 1987b.
Some of these values are quite high relative to drinking
water standards and aquatic life toxicity criteria and
provide further evidence of the effect of contaminated
sediments on the ground water system in this area.
3-111
Missoula Area
Aquifers in the Missoula area were discussed briefly in
Chapter 1. The most productive of these, the Missoula
Aquifer, is the major source of qround water in the Missoula
Valley and the sole source of drinking water for area
residents.
Recent chemical data for the Missoula Valley Aquifer are
available from the Mountain Water Company and the Missoula
Aquifer Study, which is being conducted in cooperation with
the Missoula City-County Health Department (MCCHD) and the
University of Montana. Data from 1984 to 1986 indicated no
violations of State of Montana primary drinking water
standards, with many of the trace metals below detection
limits. The Missoula Valley Aquifer Study did show some
coliform bacteria contamination, although Mountain Water
Company monthly samples showed no such contamination. Small
community water supplies are sampled once every five years
for chemical parameters, and data from 3 3 such supplies
indicate no exceedence of Montana primary or secondary
standards (Missoula City-County Health Department 1987) .
Maintaining the high quality of the Missoula Aquifer is
of the utmost importance, as it supplies individual wells,
two municipal water systems, over 30 small community systems,
and several large industrial users (including Stone Container
Corporation) . The MCCHD submitted a petition to EPA in
December 1987 for a sole source aquifer designation for the
Missoula Aquifer to ensure a reliable high quality source of
water for current and future users. The EPA granted the
petition in June 1988.
Much of the Missoula Aquifer is overlain by thin, coarse
soils, and depth to ground water is generally shallow.
Natural attenuation of contaminants by adsorption, neutral-
ization, ion exchange, biodegradation, and other processes is
limited; therefore, the aquifer is quite susceptible to
contamination. Potential sources of direct contamination
identified by the MCCHD are listed below.
Yellowstone Pipeline (high-pressure gasoline pipeline)
Milltown Reservoir sediments
Pesticides from the Missoula County Weed Control Program
Browning-Ferris municipal waste landfill and historic
landfills
Burlington Northern Railroad diesel refueling site
Sewage disposal seepage pits
Underground fuel and chemical storage tanks
Urban storm water
Septic systems
Industrial waste ponds
3-112
Burlington Northern Railroad and Interstate 90 trans-
portation corridors (transportation of hazardous
materials and wastes)
Because the Clark Fork provides 46 percent of the total
recharge to the Missoula Aquifer, surface water quality of
the Clark Fork is obviously very important. Upstream
activities in the streamflow source area are of major
concern, although there is a decreasing gradient of potential
impact to the aquifer from surface water contamination in the
upstream direction (MCCHD 1987) . The petitioners have
defined the project review area as the designated area and
the portion of the streamflow source area within a 15-mile
radius of Missoula. This represents the area where major
development projects would likely have the greatest effect on
the quality of the Missoula Aquifer.
Lower Clark Fork Basin
Little information has been published on ground water
quantity or quality in the Clark Fork drainage basin between
Huson and the Montana-Idaho border. The lack of knowledge
regarding the ground water resources in the lower drainage
basin suggests that it might be prudent to conduct at least a
reconnaissance ground water study of the area, particularly
in light of the potential mining development in this portion
of the basin. Recommendations for ground water studies are
outlined in Chapter 5.
FISHERIES, RECREATION, AND AESTHETICS
Effects of Surface Water Quality Degradation
In the mainstem Clark Fork, trout populations appear to
be affected by a variety of water quality factors, including
dewatering, elevated temperatures, excessive nutrients, and
siltation. However, the major factor suppressing trout
populations appears to be metals.
Recruitment of brown trout to the mainstem Clark Fork
above Milltown Dam is limited primarily to tributaries and
perhaps the river itself in the Warm Springs area. Among the
tributaries currently known to support major spawning runs
from the river are Warm Springs, Gold, and Rock creeks, and
the Little Blackfoot River. The contribution from Flint
Creek is currently unknown but will be assessed in the
future .
3-113
All tributary flows are probably significant in
improving water quality but increases in trout abundance
appear to be significant only below the mouth of Rock Creek.
Fish kills have been observed frequently in the upper
Clark Fork over the last several years. State agencies have
documented kills that occurred on August 9, 1983; August 1,
1984; June 18, 1987; July 3, 1987; and May 27, 1988. All
five kills were associated with thunderstorms and are
believed to be a result of metals entering the river due to
rainfall on streamside mine tailings. Although documentation
has been more thorough for some kills than for others, it has
included photographs of red water immediately after storms,
water samples indicating that a slug of metals entered the
stream during the storm, high concentrations of metals
(particularly copper) in the gills of fish that were killed,
extremely high concentrations of metals in pools of water
adjacent to the stream, and other subjective evidence
pointing to the conclusion that the fish were killed by
metals (Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks files) .
In response to concerns that tailings present in the
Mill-Willow Bypass have been the origin of several fish
kills, the Anaconda Minerals Company is currently modifying
the bypass to divert water from the upper portions of the
bypass into the Warm Springs Ponds during summer. This
change is expected to isolate some of the more immediate
sources of metals from the upper river but will not entirely
eliminate the possibility of tailings entering the river
during thunderstorms.
High concentrations of metals are also present in the
river during spring runoff. No documentation shows that
metals present in the river during spring runoff kill adult
trout. However, metals present during runoff events are
believed to chronically stress populations and may cause
acute toxicity, especially to sensitive, early life stages.
Such occurrences could easily go unnoticed. Many biologists
also believe that the absence of rainbow trout from much of
the upper river is due to their lower tolerance to metals
than brown trout.
Several investigators have evaluated the toxicity of
river water in the Clark Fork drainage (Table 3-29) .
Bionomics (1979) tested the toxicity of water discharged from
Warm Springs Pond 2 to early life stages of rainbow trout
(eggs and fry) and to Daphnia middendorf f iana. which is a
native daphnid, or water flea. water, but all fry,
including those exposed to dilutions of 50 and 7 5 percent
pond water, experienced reduced growth. Copper and zinc
concentrations in a 50 percent dilution of pond 2 water
averaged 25 and 65 ug/1, respectively. Additionally, Daphnia
3-114
u
§1
ll
as o
oo
CO
r^
h*
a>
o>
f-H
<— I
^-^
o
3
•^
'g
o
o
•H
•H
CO
OQ
1
8 H-
O U-i
•H <«-(
CO o
fx Be
I
o
N
3
!>•
■M *— ^
■H 1^
rH K
s
IB •
CO
□
•JJ U1
§•
^1
dO V
•^
^ 1
cd
s
■«)• 0
o
3
i
£ ?
(N
s
Oi
S
8
K
g3
«
R
s
«
£
i.
M
I
Q
f
8.
S3
U
1
I
I
^
^ "I §
§
t
■«-'
s
& *j r~
3 b IT.
« (3 -I
S
I 2
£
(N
£
»
S oo
£
in
>< CO
IS
3-1 14a
ft
a
i
1
1
C
3
'Sf
m
a)
a:
o
n
r
to
O
0)
tJ
-§
(0
^
n
X
H!
£ g*
w to
^ .2
IV
cS
^
o>
r^
f-H
13 ^--
j^
§ N
1
^1
^
T3 5
5
1
m
>^
M
C
u
rfi» O
s
8
R ^
I
•9
1
o< c
o
0) -H
(N
1
s
5 ^ «j o>
o
U (71
■!-> C
» '^
O Li
Dl.
S
0) 1/1
t>i g CO
JC n -^
o
o
O4 c
0)
f-H
£ ^ 2
3-1 14b
middendorff iana reproduction was significantly impaired by
exposure to 100 percent pond water but not by exposure to 50
percent pond water (Bionomics 1979) . Copper and zinc
concentrations in 100 percent pond water were 3 3 and 77 ug/1,
respectively. Identical tests with Daphnia magna produced a
similar result (Bionomics 1978) ; numbers of young per female
were reduced by exposure to 27 ug Cu/1 and 31 ug Zn/1
(measured as total recoverable) .
Janik and Melancon (1982) , during a site-specific water
quality assessment of Silver Bow Creek and the upper Clark
Fork, completed a few bioassay tests with Daphnia and
bluegill. In these tests, Daphnia were not adversely
affected by Clark Fork water nor was ventilation rate in
bluegill. However, bluegill in Clark Fork water showed
evidence of acetylcholinesterase inhibition. Total and
dissolved copper and zinc concentrations during the survey
averaged 30 and 22 ug/1 of copper and 101 and 91 ug/1 of
zinc. The report did not include specific information on
metals concentrations that were present in the bioassay
water.
Parrish and Rodriguez (1986) tested the chronic toxicity
of Clark Fork water in the Deer Lodge vicinity to early life
stages of rainbow trout, including separate tests using green
eggs, eyed eggs, and fingerlings. Tests were conducted in
May and early June 1985 to coincide with runoff; however,
unusually dry spring conditions resulted in lower-than-normal
streamflows and concomitantly low metals concentrations.
Percentage mortality of both eyed eggs and fingerlings was
higher in 100 percent Clark Fork water than in various
dilutions, but results were not conclusive. During the test,
acid-soluble copper concentrations ranged from 10 to 78 ug/1.
For the water hardnesses that were present, EPA chronic and
acute criteria for copper were calculated to be approximately
20 and 31 ug/1, respectively. Most of the mortality occurred
during the last week of the tests, when copper concentrations
exceeded the acute criteria (weekly average concentration
reached 78 ug Cu/1) .
Phillips et al. (1987) conducted in situ tests with
finger ling rainbow trout in the Clark Fork drainage from mid-
April until late July 1986. Fish were held in the river at
seven locations between Anaconda and Clinton, including a
control site in Racetrack Creek. Over the course of the
test, nearly 90 percent mortality occurred in Silver Bow
Creek, where acid-soluble copper averaged about 200 ug/1 and
acid-soluble zinc 400 ug/1. Cumulative mortality at mainstem
sites included 25 percent at Warm Springs, 15 percent at
Deer Lodge, 7 percent at Gold Creek, and 21 percent at
Bearmouth (Table 3-30) . Only 3 percent mortality occurred
below the confluence with Rock Creek (Clinton) . No mortality
3-115
i-H i3
<D
^-^
<v
I-H
on
61
s
3
k(
u
<D
i
§
o
o
E
u
o
A « ja ^
O O* i/^ m r*- i-t
00 ts iH es
Si
Cvl 00
00
U3
00 (^ 00 I \0 in o
<}■ rl I PI in iH
vo <^ o -t o -* ^
iH vO O rj r^ oo es
1-1 0> PJ CM rH iH rH
I I I I I I I
00 Jt O vO ^ O O
(M vO « Oi C rH r~
•*i •* 00 r~- in in PI
« 00 t»j i~~ -* in o
evi
CM
rt
c-0
o
CM
oo
CM
CM
3
rH
O
O
«
r-t
rH
O
O
ft
o
iH
Cvi
CM
r-l
r^
00
o
/— s
^^
^^
^^
^^
^^
r-i
^_^
^^
/— *
o
m
o
m
CO
m
^— ^
J-
o
y^
^~^
/— >
^-^
in
r^
O^
en
lO
CM
O
J-
o>
CO
00
r^
^
o
■H
r^
vO
rH
rH
CM
•-<
C-1
c^
-*
vO
in
L->
CO
CO
-*
in
Jr
(^
■4-
<^
1
CM
1
1
1
1
J-
1
CM
^»-'
in
<ri
CM
rH
CM
^-^
V.-'
CO
ro
rH
rH
^—-
rH rH r^ O CO ^
00 .* lO »0 00 3
CO »-l
--. c
o a
rH \0
I I
in o
o o
o ^
r^ O
rH 1^
I I
in m
rH 00 o> in in oo
O -^ in in m CM
CM
CM 00 CJ< 00 in rH
rH r^ O^ CO c<^ CO
f^^ O ^— * ^"^ ''^ '"^ ■'"^
O CM o o o o o
fH in in in CO J- CM
I I I I I I I
in o O O m m in
<> 00 in ■* m 00
rH CM C^l rH rH
^^
60 «i
f-t
d
01
Jll
o
u
•H
u
6C
S 5
4J
a,
o
^ 3
c
c
t/i
hJ
u 5
o
0
4J
t)
g
iH
rH (5
e
<u
0)
0)
0)
^
o
3 <S
rH
o
4-1
4->
4-1 4J
4J
o
eU
n
IB <S
<B
J
M
M
M M
>j
^
(S
U
u
U U
IH
u
o
a
O O
o
<d
b-
fm
(b li.
IJH
u
IH
u
0)
J<
M
>i X
>:
9)
>
13
u
(B
is 13
13
0)
4->
IB
4J
HI
5
O 0)
^ &
•rl 0)
(A
Oi
? V4
(1)
0) 3
0)
U </)
5 -S
V)
o
U 4J
o
Ul -H
rH I4H
0) •r^
in S)
Oi 'H
> vt
0)
o
uh
il
01 in
60 a>
•o 4J
O -n
iJ VI
0)
<1)
c
<v
u
0)
a
o
V4
t4H
4J
c
^4
(1)
•H
4-1
u
•H
00
4J
^ £
c «
60 >
•H 0)
C« rH
o u
c/i o o u o u
0)
u
kl
3
o
3-n5a
occurred at the control site in Racetrack Creek. Mortality
in Silver Bow Creek and in the Clark Fork at Warm Springs,
Deer Lodge, and Bearmouth was statistically higher than at
the control site. Copper and zinc concentrations present
during the test are summarized in Table 3-30.
Additional bioassays were conducted during May and June
of 1987 (Phillips and Hill, unpublished data) , including
tests of both rainbow and trout fingerling and swim-up-stage
fry. Test sites were the same as those used during 1986.
Tests began on May 4 and were completed by July 1. The test
vessels were eguipped with an automatic feeding system that
provided hatchery food to the fry four times per day. Fry
were less tolerant than fingerling during these tests. Rates
of mortality for fry were: Warm Springs (18 percent) , Gold
Creek (36 percent) , Bearmouth (55 percent) , and Silver Bow
Creek (92 percent) . Mortality at the latter three sites was
significantly higher than the 8 percent observed at the
control site and the 10 percent observed at Clinton (down-
stream of Rock Creek) . A pair-wise multiple comparison
technique was employed using Bonferroni adjusted confidence
intervals. Rates of mortality for fingerling were: Warm
Springs (7 percent) , Bearmouth (12 percent) , Gold Creek (24
percent) , and Silver Bow Creek (88 percent) . Mortality at
the control site was only 2 percent. Mortality at both Gold
Creek and Silver Bow Creek was statistically higher than the
control .
The Warm Springs bioassay location is on the east side
of the river and is in the plume of Pond 2 discharge water.
During both the 1986 and 1987 bioassays, maximum and average
zinc concentrations were higher at this site than at
downstream sites. High metals concentrations below the ponds
occurred during periods of high winds .-that stirred up
particulate materials in the Warm Springs Ponds. Unlike
resident fish in this vicinity of the river, the bioassay
fish were unable to seek refuge from the higher metals
concentrations by moving into water originating from either
Warm Springs Creek or the Mill-Willow Bypass. Such movements
may allow resident fish to escape high concentrations of
metals.
In summary, the instream bioassays indicate that early
life stages of rainbow trout are adversely affected in Silver
Bow Creek and in the mainstem Clark Fork. Statistically
significant mortality has been documented from Warm Springs
to near Bearmouth. This occurred even during years when
metals concentrations were relatively low because of modest
runoff. Tributaries that contribute good-quality water to
the river may provide potential refuges from high metals
concentrations, but the extent to which these are utilized by
resident fish has not been documented. Use of refuges may
3-116
partially explain why trout densities are sustained im-
mediately downstream of the Warm Springs Ponds.
It is difficult in a natural environment such as the
Clark Fork to gauge the conditions that fish and other
aquatic organisms are exposed to because metals concentra-
tions may fluctuate greatly over short intervals of time.
For example, even frequent sampling such as that conducted by
Phillips and Hill (three times per week) may not describe
conditions that are present during short, intense thunder-
storms. In any case, various authors have documented that
Silver Bow Creek and Clark Fork waters are sometimes toxic
to some invertebrates and early life stages of fish. Toxic
responses have been observed when metals concentrations were
as low as 20-50 ug Cu/1 and 30-80 ug Zn/1 and when water
hardnesses ranged from approximately 100-200 mg/1 (as CaC03) .
At water hardnesses of 100 and 200 mg/1, federal criteria
documents recommend that metals concentrations should not
exceed 12 and 21 ug Cu/1 and 37 and 66 ug Zn/1 to prevent
occurrence of chronic toxicity. Toxicity information for
the Clark Fork indicates that these criteria are not overly
protective and at times may provide only a very narrow
margin of safety.
Some preliminary metal speciation work has been done by
researchers at the University of Montana. They hypothesized
that because trout populations in the upper Clark Fork
decline downstream from the sources of metals near Butte and
Anaconda, water chemistry changes might result in a greater
prevalence of toxic metal species downstream. To test this
hypothesis, the researchers applied several approaches to
modelling metal speciation to water chemistry data from the
upper Clark Fork (Caciari and Watson, in review) . These
approaches ranged from a simple model developed by the EPA's
Western Fish Toxicology Station (WFTS) at Corvallis, Oregon,
which predicts the percentage of free copper from alkalinity
and pH, to a complex multiequation equilibrium model
(MINTEQ) .
The different modeling approaches predicted a similar
amount of free copper, but the MINTEQ model predicted much
higher levels of copper hydroxide and lower amounts of copper
carbonate than the other approaches. None of the approaches
showed any substantial downstream trend in metal speciation,
largely because there was no substantial downstream trend in
pH or alkalinity. Seasonal trends cannot be discerned based
on one year of data. Because the simple WFTS model is in
good agreement with more complex models, it should be applied
to the Clark Fork's past and future data sets to determine if
seasonal or longer-term trends emerge.
3-117
Reduced water quality has a significant effect on
recreation and aesthetics. Excessive algae growth, suspended
solids, and color are water quality conditions that directly
affect aesthetic quality. Residents of the Clark Fork Basin
have complained that foam, scum, algae growth, and sediments
have increased in the middle and lower segments of the river.
Idaho residents have complained of algae and bacterial scums,
especially in near-shore areas surrounding docks and beaches.
These physical and visual impacts of reduced water quality
are important but they are seldom quantified or measured
directly. Often these problems are the indirect result of
other, more basic water quality conditions.
Effects from Existing Hydropower Development
Historically, the Clark Fork was a major spawning
ground for fish migrating out of Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho.
Some historical records suggest that fish may have travelled
as far upstream as Missoula, a distance of 211 miles from
Lake Pend Oreille (Malouf 1974) . The three dams on the lower
Clark Fork modified the habitat and blocked access to
spawning grounds for fish migrating out of the lake. The
Thompson Falls Dam, constructed in 1916, blocked migrations
for all but the lower 70 miles of river, and the Cabinet
Gorge Dam, constructed in 1953, eliminated the remaining
fishery for migratory westslope cutthroat trout, kokanee
salmon, and bull trout (a fish ladder was constructed at the
Thompson Falls Dam, but information regarding its usefulness
is lacking) .
Each of the lower river reservoirs is a run-of-the-river
impoundment, constructed for the primary purpose of hydro-
electric power production. The operations of the power
plants, including drawdowns and the physical characteristics
of the reservoirs, combine to create adverse conditions for
fish production. The relatively rapid water exchange, or
flushing rate, in each reservoir limits the plankton
production needed to sustain greater fish populations. Fish
food availability (aquatic insects and other benthic
organisms) are also severely affected by water level
fluctuations and reservoir drawdowns. Spawning beds within
the reservoir and access to tributary spawning areas may be
severely diminished depending on the timing of reservoir
drawdowns and the onset of spawning. Testing has also shown
that large numbers of fish species predisposed to migrate
(i.e. rainbow) are flushed downstream during spring runoff.
During the period of 1953 to 1963, large numbers of
trout and kokanee salmon were stocked in Cabinet Gorge
Reservoir, but a self-sustaining fishery was not established.
Since 1963, fish stocking in Cabinet Gorge has been suspended
3-118
except for some limited plants of catchable-size rainbow
trout and plants of brovm trout eggs in Elk Creek, a
tributary to the reservoir. The egg plants are a new attempt
to establish a self-sustaining brown trout population.
More attention has been focused on Noxon Rapids
Reservoir in recent years, because a successful fishery in
Noxon will have a positive influence on the Cabinet Gorge
Reservoir fishery. Like Cabinet Gorge, early attempts to
establish a fishery at Noxon Reservoir were successful, but
relied on annual stocking. Populations of brown trout, bull
trout, lake whitefish, and perch are found in each reservoir,
but their numbers or quality have been insufficient to
maintain an acceptable fishery.
In 1986, a new operation plan for Noxon Rapids Reservoir
was put in effect by the Washington Water Power Company.
Prepared through joint efforts of WWP, the Montana Department
of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and the Northwest Power Planning
Council, the plan reduces the extent and frequency of
reservoir drawdowns, especially at critical times of the
year. The four major points of the agreement are as follows:
1. Maximum drawdown is limited to ten feet, except in
the second and succeeding years of a critical water
period, as defined by the Pacific Northwest
Coordination Agreement, drafting may reach 36 feet,
but only on a pro-rata basis with all other
reservoirs in the coordinated system.
2. By May 15 each year the reservoir will be operated
within four feet of full pool until September 30 to
protect most in-reservoir fish spawning activities,
reduce effects of drawdown on aquatic plant and
animal communities, and assure recreational access
during major use months.
3. The rate of drafting will be limited to two feet per
day and ten feet per week to reduce bank erosion.
4. WWP reserves the right to deviate from the opera-
tional criteria in the event of an emergency, such
as project maintenance, system power failures, or an
extended period of weather extremes.
In addition to this agreement, WWP is continuing to
support the state's effort to establish fish populations in
the Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids reservoirs. A full-time
WWP biologist is currently studying the effects of the new
operating criteria at DFWP's direction. Also, a three-year
3-119
pilot fisheries development program funded by WWP and DFWP
was recently extended by two years.
Test netting in Cabinet Gorge Reservoir indicates lake
whitefish, largemouth bass, yellow perch, and brown trout
populations are possibly increasing. Evidence of brown trout
spawning in reservoir tributaries has also increased during
the past seven years.
Sampling of fish populations in Noxon Rapids Reservoir
show fairly stable results from 1960 through 1982, followed
by a marked increase in 1987. The increase was largely
suckers and yellow perch, but brown trout populations show
some signs of increase. Improved habitat resulting from the
new reservoir operations policy is expected to result in
increased fish numbers and improved growth rates.
Large drawdowns of the lower river reservoirs seriously
affect aesthetic quality and recreational opportunity. As
reservoirs are drawn down, large areas of mudflats are
exposed to wind and water erosion. Not only do these areas
have low aesthetic qualities, but access to the water for
fishing, boating, and swimming is restricted.
A new threat of hydropower impacts on fish and wildlife
resources began in 1978 with the passage of the federal
Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) . This act
stimulated a flurry of proposals for small-scale hydropower
projects on tributary streams throughout western Montana.
Resource managers were concerned that hydropower facilities
constructed in some stream reaches would seriously affect
important fish habitat and spawning areas, block fish
movements, alter water quality, and modify wildlife habitat
(Zackheim 1984). -:
An important action was taken in August 1988 when the
Northwest Power Planning Council adopted a proposal to
designate certain stream reaches in western Montana to be
protected from future hydroelectric power development.
Stream areas with critical fish and wildlife habitat or value
are designated as protected areas. The NWPPCs action became
effective on September 14, 1988 through the amendment of the
Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (NWPPC 1987)
to include the protected area designations.
Many stream reaches within the Clark Fork Basin have
been designated as "protected areas". Additional information
on the specific protected areas is available from the NWPPC
offices in Helena, Montana, or Portland, Oregon.
3-120
The designation of protected areas is a major step by
the NWPPC to rebuild fish and wildlife populations that have
been damaged by hydroelectric power development. Although
the NWPPC does not license hydropower facilities, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, which grants licenses to non-
federal hydropower projects, must take the NWPPC 's designa-
tions into account in their decision-making.
Effects from Irrigation Projects
This section discusses the effects of irrigation on the
fisheries, recreation, and aesthetics of the Clark Fork. The
discussion addresses large irrigation storage projects as
well as smaller, individual projects and uses of water for
irrigation purposes.
Large Storage Projects
Nevada Creek Reservoir. The Nevada Creek Reservoir is
located on Nevada Creek ten miles southeast of Helmville in
the upper Blackfoot River drainage. The project supplies
water to irrigate approximately 13,000 acres of hay land.
The full storage capacity is used for irrigation.
Nevada Lake provides mediocre fishing for rainbow trout
that are stocked annually. Because of the extreme annual
irrigation drawdown, little if any natural reproduction
occurs. Limited amounts of both summer and winter fishing
currently occur. Any improvement in fishing quality under
the current operation and use of the stored water is
unlikely. The lake waters are usually turbid, and the
extreme drawdowns by late summer are aesthetically unpleas-
ing. The reservoir does have the potential to produce a
decent fishery if water level fluctuations could be mini-
mized.
Nevada Creek flows through private ranchland along its
entire length below the dam and is used to convey water from
the reservoir. A large state ditch, the Douglas Canal,
distributes a major share of the water. The North Canal and
other private ditches take out additional water.
Nevada Creek has good physical habitat in some areas,
but the trout fishery is limited by low flows during the
winter months when the dam gates are shut down. Also,
siltation in the stream bottom limits spawning potential.
A limited brown and rainbow trout fishery occurs, mostly of c
local nature. The DFWP is currently studying the stream in
cooperation with the Nevada Creek water users to determine
3-121
minimum flows required below the dam. Low flows reduce the
otherwise reasonably good aesthetic qualities of the stream.
Flint Creek Project (East Fork Reservoir) . The Flint
Creek Project is located on the East Fork of Rock Creek 20
miles southwest of Philipsburg in Granite County. East Fork
Reservoir is a somewhat isolated lake, receiving only
moderate recreational use. The fishery consists primarily of
rainbow trout stocked annually. However, there is a small
bull trout population that reproduces naturally in the East
Fork above the reservoir. These fish do occur in the
fisherman's catch. Fluctuation in water level limits fishery
production, and the aesthetics are not good during late
season drawdowns. It is, however, a rather scenic lake at
full pool.
The project diverts water from the Rock Creek drainage.
Without the project, this water would be available for the
main Rock Creek "Blue Ribbon" trout fishery. The impacts of
this loss of flow on Rock Creek have not been quantified.
Flint Creek receives some benefit from irrigation return
flows. Leaky delivery canals in the Flint Creek Valley also
contribute East Fork water to Flint Creek. However, the
return flows are reused along Flint Creek. Flint Creek
suffers from dewatering, siltation from streambank erosion,
and higher-than-desirable water temperatures in the lower
reaches .
The fishery in Flint Creek is composed primarily of
rainbow and brook trout in the upper reach and mostly brown
trout below Maxville. It is a popular fishery but has
limitations due to the environmental Qonsequences of land
uses and irrigation. The stream flows through a scenic
agricultural valley. Low flows due to irrigation withdrawals
reduce the aesthetic qualities in some reaches. The DFWP has
applied for an instream flow reservation in Flint Creek from
the dam on Georgetown Lake to the mouth. However, this alone
will only preseirve the status quo of the current low-flow
conditions.
Painted Rocks Lake. Painted Rocks Lake is located on
the west fork of the Bitterroot River about 30 miles south of
Darby in Ravalli County. Stored water purchased by the DFWP
is used to improve low streamflows in the Bitterroot River.
Extensive irrigation in this major river valley depletes
natural flows and in most years causes the stream to go
nearly dry at Bell Crossing near Stevensville.
3-122
since its original purchase in 1958, the DFWP has
released water from the reservoir for instream purposes.
However, it was unusual for those releases to reach dewatered
downstream areas because the water was diverted by the
irrigators along the way.
In 1985, 1986, and 1987, the DFWP reached an agreement
with the irrigators that would allow a major portion of the
released water to reach Bell Crossing. A water commissioner
was appointed by the court to monitor and enforce diversions
of water. This was a satisfactory program during those low-
water years, but the agreement was not fully implemented due
to summer rains that increased streamflows (see the agreement
between the irrigators and the DFWP on the following page) .
Painted Rocks Lake contains primarily westslope
cutthroat trout and is a limited fishery maintained by
stocking. Rainbow and brook trout occur in fewer numbers.
There is, however, considerable other recreational use of the
lake, such as boating, camping, waterskiing, and swimming.
These activities become limited as the pool level drops. In
low-water years, there is sometimes no pool at all in late
fall and winter. When it appears the lake will not contain
adequate water during a low-water year, it is DFWP policy to
not stock fish during that year. The reservoir lies in a
very pleasing scenic mountain area and is an extremely
aesthetic spot when the water level is adequate.
The Bitterroot River flows 80 miles from the junction of
the east and west forks to its confluence with the Clark Fork
at Missoula. It is a very popular fishery for rainbow and
brown trout as well as mountain whitefish during the winter.
Other species include westslope cutthroat, brook trout, and
bull trout. It is a floatable stream when flows are
adequate, and local guides provide some services to fisher-
men. The stream flows through the beautiful Bitterroot
Valley and is a major aesthetic attraction along with the
high mountains and riparian lowlands.
Dewatering is the principal problem that must be con-
tinuously monitored. DFWP has filed a claim for instream
flows at the request of the Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife
Association under Section 85-2-223 of Senate Bill 76. The
claim is currently pending in the Water Court.
3-123
Draft Water Exchange Proposal on the Bitterroot River
May, 1988
The Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks wishes to extend to those who
irrigate from the Bitterroot River a water exchange proposal similar to the
agreement of 1987. The exchange consists of:
1. A quantity of water up to 3,000 acre-feet would be made available by
DFWP, early in the irrigation season, for irrigation use at any flow
rate from Painted Rocks Reservoir.
2. DFWP could request participating irrigators to reduce irrigation
diversion to maintain instreara flows of A02 cfs (16,080 inches) at
Bell Crossing after September 15.
3. DFWP would keep flow records at Bell Crossing and monitor reservoir
releases.
4. DFWP would pay costs associated with the river commissioner to protect
water purchased for instream flow. In years when irrigators also buy
water costs for the commissioner would be shared.
In return, irrigators would agree to the following:
1. Pay DNRC to have the dam gates opened and closed when water is
released for irrigation.
2. Sign the petition for the appointment of a river commissioner in years
when the DFWP needs one to deliver stored water to Bell Crossing.
3. A water commissioner would deliver sufficient water to provide a flow
of not less than 100 cfs (ApOO inches) at Bell Crossing.
4. Fall shutdown of irrigation ditches will be done in a manner to
stimulate fish movement out of canals back to the river.
One person would be appointed to represent the department and one person to
represent the irrigators in matters concerning the management of Painted
Rocks water. At a minimum, holders of 15 percent of the water right must
be party to this agreement.
3- 1 2 3a
Georgetown Lake. Georgetown Lake is located on the
North Fork of Flint Creek in Granite and Deer Lodge counties
about 18 miles west of Anaconda. Under an old decreed water
right, a minimum of 30 cfs is released from the dam for
irrigation in the Flint Creek Valley. The irrigators in the
valley have been trying to obtain additional water from the
project but have been unsuccessful. MPC has filed a FERC
application to abandon use of the project for hydropower
purposes. Granite County has agreed to receive the project
from MPC if FERC approves, and it is requesting a new license
from FERC.
Georgetown Lake is a very important recreational lake.
It lies in a high elevation scenic area and is one of the
most heavily fished lakes in the state. Numerous species of
fish have been stocked over the years, including rainbow,
westslope cutthroat, and brown trout, grayling, and coho and
kokanee salmon. The lake currently contains primarily
rainbow trout, brook trout, and kokanee salmon.
Depending on what happens with MFC's application to
FERC, historical water use could be altered. If irrigation
interests gain control of the water supply, changes could
occur in lake levels as well as flows in both Flint Creek and
Warm Springs Creek. The State of Montana is currently not
interested in assuming responsibility for the old dam.
Extensive repairs are needed to maintain and improve the
power production system. However, state agencies and local
residents are interested in preventing any degradation to the
lake's fishery and recreational values.
Montana Resources, Inc., which bought the Butte mining
properties from AMC in 1985, holds extensive water rights in
the Warm Springs Creek drainage. AMC used this water for
copper refining in Butte. The Butte operation under MRI is
smaller and does not require the former quantities of water.
There is some indication (and concern) that some of these
water rights may be sold. If this occurs, there may be
impacts to irrigation interests as well as to instream flows
in Flint Creek and Warm Springs Creek. Some of the Warm
Springs Creek water was temporarily stored in Georgetown Lake
prior to being pumped back over into Warm Springs Creek for
transfer via pipeline to Butte.
3-124
Lower Willow Creek Reservoir. Lower Willow Creek
Reservoir near Hall provides water to lands in the lower
Willow Creek and lower Flint Creek valleys. The reservoir
has a limited westslope cutthroat fishery, and fishery
potential is poor because of extreme reservoir drawdown and
poor water quality. Willow Creek above the reservoir
contains a genetically pure strain of westslope cutthroat
trout, a "Species of Special Concern" in Montana.
The Granite County Conservation District has applied for
a water reservation to construct another dam upstream from
the present reservoir to provide supplemental water for
lower Willow Creek and Flint Creek. This new storage
facility is not expected to have a significant adverse impact
on Clark Fork streamflows but would eliminate local cutthroat
stream fishing in the portion of Willow Creek inundated by
the new reservoir.
Lake Como. Lake Como is located on Rock Creek in
Ravalli County between Hamilton and Darby. The project is
located on the east slope of the scenic Bitterroot Mountains
and supplies water for irrigators in the Bitterroot Irriga-
tion District. The aesthetic qualities are excellent when
the reservoir is full, or nearly so, but decrease with
increased drawdowns. With sufficient water, recreational
uses include fishing, boating, waterskiing, and swimming.
It provides a limited fishery for rainbow and westslope
cutthroat trout. The project affects flows into Rock Creek
below the dam. A canal one mile below the reservoir diverts
the flows released and dries up Rock Creek during the
irrigation season. There is adequate flow in most of the
stream below the dam only during spring runoff when the
project spills. Therefore, the stream provides only a limited
rainbow trout fishery, even though the aesthetic qualities of
the area are otherwise quite good.
Other Irrigation Projects
According to the Montana Registry of Dams, published in
1968 by the old Montana Water Resources Board, there are 80
dams with reservoirs holding 50 AF or more water in the Clark
Fork Basin. These include the large projects previously
discussed. Most are privately owned, and many of them lie in
the Selway-Bitterroot, Anaconda-Pintlar, and Flint Creek
mountain ranges. Table 3-31 lists the number of dams by
county and the number used for irrigation. There are also
numerous smaller reservoirs (less than 50 AF) throughout the
basin used for irrigation, stock water, and fish and
wildlife.
3-125
TABLE 3-31,
INVENTORY OF DAMS BY COUNTY WITH 50 AF
OR MORE CAPACITY IN THE CLARK FORK BASIN
County
No . Dams
No. Used for Irrigation
Deer Lodge
3
Granite
15
Mineral
0
Missoula
17
Powell
16
Ravalli
23
Sanders
6
1
14
0
11
11
23
2
Total
80
67
Source: Montana Water Resources Board 1968.
Ravalli County has the highest number of small storage
projects, which were constructed many years ago. Most lie on
the west side of the Bitterroot Valley. Almost all of them
utilize existing high mountain lakes in the Selway-Bitterroot
Mountains. Dams were built on the outlets to store addition-
al water for late-season irrigation use.
The impacts of these small projects is not completely
known. Many of the mountain lakes provide fishing for
persons who hike into them, as many are in roadless and
wilderness areas. Dams at some lakes have been breached for
safety reasons, creating water too shallow for fishery
production. Other dams are still in place but unused, and
the higher water levels of those lakes produce better
fisheries. Lakes with adequate depth provide moderate
fishing opportunities for various trout species. There is
minimal natural reproduction in inlet and outlet streams in
some lakes, and most are maintained by periodic stocking.
These lakes are extremely aesthetic, but drawdowns detract
from this pleasantness in some cases.
Because the projects store snowmelt and the stored
water is released after spring runoff, there is probably a
beneficial effect on the flow of tributary streams in late
season, at least up to the first point of diversion.
However, most of these tributaries are partially or totally
dewatered by the time they reach the Bitterroot River.
Return flows from use of the stored water may help hold up
flows in the lower Bitterroot.
3-126
other Water Uses
Other water users in the Clark Fork Basin also cause
individual as well as cumulative impacts on streamflows. In
the upper basin, the main Clark Fork and most of its tribu-
taries are affected by irrigation diversions. Warm Springs
Creek, the Little Blackfoot River, and Flint Creek are major
tributaries with fisheries affected by diversions. Portions
of the Clark Fork above Deer Lodge suffer from extreme
dewatering, as do most of the smaller tributaries, such as
Lost, Rock, Dempsey, and Racetrack creeks. These streams all
provide fishing for trout, but their potential is limited by
reduced flows for irrigation.
The Clark Fork downstream of Drummond shows the effects
of dewatering to a lesser extent than upstream reaches
(tributaries excluded) because there is less irrigated land
downstream of Drummond relative to the water supply. Hence,
the effects of dewatering are less apparent.
The dewatering problems occur in July and August in most
years but begin earlier or last longer in dry years. Nearly
all diversions are for agricultural use.
Dewatered streams occur because of the cumulative
effects of both old and new water rights. Many rights have
priority dates before the turn of the century. Since 1973,
when Montana implemented the new water law, water users have
had to apply for and be issued a permit to appropriate water.
Practically all permits in the basin are issued with few
conditions that will help the dewatering problem.
The effects of dewatering streams with fish populations
are all generally the same — loss of physical habitat, higher
water temperatures, lower food production, and decreased
dissolved oxygen. The extent of these impacts depends on the
degree of dewatering and the local conditions within the
stream, the most severe being actual loss of a fish popula-
tion when a stream stops flowing.
Fishing opportunities are reduced, aesthetic qualities
are poorer, and floating (where the stream is large enough)
becomes difficult or impossible when insufficient flows
occur, resulting in fewer recreational opportunities.
Instream flows are a partial solution to the dewatering
problem. However, because instream flow rights cannot affect
senior diversionary water rights, they only preserve the
status quo of stream depletion. The rights do not prevent
dewatering, but can reduce future demands on the streams once
they are acquired. Rewatering of streams that have severe
flow problems can only be accomplished through new
3-127
strategies, such as purchasing and leasing senior water
rights, building new storage projects, and conserving water
to free up additional water for instream uses. Some of these
strategies will require new legislation, but if they can be
implemented, they will help improve the stream fisheries as
well as their recreational and aesthetic values.
3-128
CHAPTER 4
FUTURE WATER NEEDS AND ACTIVITIES
The Clark Fork Basin is blessed with an abundant natural
resource base that supports the forest products industry,
mining, hydropower, agriculture and ranching, recreation, and
many other uses. However, because these interests often
compete for land and water, careful and informed resource
management decisions must be made, particularly with regard
to future development in the basin.
This chapter describes real and potential future water
needs in the basin and examines the question of how much
water is available for future development. One issue
currently in the forefront is that of instream flow.
Maintaining enough water in the Clark Fork at all times to
protect aquatic resources, water quality, public water
supplies, and hydropower needs is of vital concern. Another
issue is the resurgence of mining in the basin, touched off
by the current favorable market price of gold. Such a boom
could place more water demands on the Clark Fork and its
tributaries, not only for the mines themselves, but also for
the towns that may grow as a result of mining activity.
These issues and others are discussed below.
WATER RESERVATIONS
Introduction
As discussed in Chapter 2, Montana's 1973 Water Use Act
allows public entities, such as conservation districts,
municipalities, counties, and state and federal agencies to
reserve water for future uses. These include diversionary
and consumptive uses as well as instream flows for the
protection of fish, wildlife, and water quality. Some of
these public entities may seek water reservations to satisfy
future demands for water in the Clark Fork Basin. Potential
consumptive and instream flow needs in the basin are
discussed below.
Consumptive Water Needs
Potential future consumptive water needs in the Clark
Fork Basin include water for domestic and municipal supplies,
waste disposal, agricultural uses such as stock watering and
irrigation, and for industry (such as mining) . At this
writing, none of the communities in the basin has filed plans
to expand either its municipal water supply system or its
4-1
waste disposal system. However, if growth should occur in
some areas of the basin, additional surface and ground water
demands could be placed on the Clark Fork system. Potential
future irrigation and mining water needs are discussed
separately following the sections on instream flow needs.
Instream Flow Reservation Needs in the Basin
In addition to the flows already requested by DFWP in
the upper river (above Milltown Dam) , the DFWP has developed
the following tentative list of streams and stream reaches
within the Clark Fork Basin that need instream flow reserva-
tions for protection of fisheries resources:
River Mile
150.
.4 1
157.
, IL
162.
.5R
Montana - Idaho Border
Elk Creek (tributary to Cabinet Gorge Reservoir)
Bull River (tributary to Cabinet Gorge)
9.7L East Fork Bull River
25. 9L South Fork Bull River
26. 3R North Fork Bull River
167. OL Pilgrim Creek (tributary to Cabinet Gorge)
168. 7R Rock Creek (tributary to Cabinet Gorge)
175. 7R Marten Creek (tributary to Noxon Rapids Reservoir)
9.5R South Fork Marten Creek
185. 9R Vermilion River (tributary to Noxon Rapids)
2 07.5L Prospect Creek
2 . 6L Clear Creek
212. 7L Cherry Creek (tributary to Thompson Falls Reser-
voir)
214. 6R Thompson River (tributary to Thompson Falls
Reservoir)
6.9R West Fork Thompson River
15. 7R Fishtrap Creek
17. 9L Little Thompson River
245. OR Flathead River (probably will not include river or
tributaries below Kerr Dam, because all are on the
Indian Reservation)
249. 3R Seigel Creek
265. 9 L Tamarack Creek
270. 7L St. Regis River
1.6R Little Joe Creek
4.5R Two Mile Creek
8 . 2R Ward Creek
13. OL Twelve Mile Creek
18. 7L Big Creek
30. 2L Randolph Creek
286. 6L Cedar Creek
289. 6L Trout Creek
4-2
305. OL Fish Creek
8.6L West Fork Fish Creek
8.7L South Fork Fish Creek
319.7L Petty Creek
325. IR Ninemile Creek
328. 2R Sixroile Creek
River Mile
334. IR Mill Creek
350. 5L Bitterroot River and major tributaries that are
unspecified at this time.
358.2R Rattlesnake Creek
Rock Creek tributaries: unspecified at this time —
above Mi 11 town Dam
Blackfoot River tributaries: unspecified at this
time — above Milltown Dam
In addition, the mainstem Clark Fork from Milltown
Dam to the Idaho-Montana line (excluding the
reservoirs) will be divided into reaches for the
reservation request.
To date, no community in the Clark Fork Basin has
applied to reserve instream flows for future municipal needs.
Forest Service Instream Flow Needs
The U.S. Forest Service has the authority and respon-
sibility to regulate occupancy and use of national forest
lands, to prevent environmental degradation, and to protect
national forest resources. When a project is proposed in a
national forest that requires the use of water, instream flow
needs are made a condition of occupancy and use of national
forest land. To be approved by the U.S. Forest Service, all
construction projects in the national forest must provide for
achieving and/or maintaining the stability of channel systems
(16 use 551) . Also, projects must minimize damage to scenic
and aesthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat and
otherwise protect the environment.
4-3
IRRIGATION
The Water Resources Division of the DNRC uses a land
classification system to determine the suitability of land
for irrigated agriculture. The system separates arable lands
into three classes based on soil type and climate. Class 1
represents land with the highest potential productivity;
Class 2 lands are of intermediate potential; and Class 3
represents irrigable lands of the lowest value. Table 4-1
lists the arable acres in each class for seven subbasins of :
the Clark Fork drainage.
TABLE 4-1.
ESTIMATED ARABLE LAND IN SUBBASINS OF THE
CLARK FORK
Subbasin
Land Class
1 2 3
(acres) (acres) (acres)
Total
Arable
Acres
Upper Clark Fork
Flint-Rock Creeks
Blackfoot
Middle Clark Fork
Bitterroot
Flathead
Lower Clark Fork
950
27,531
48,722
4,386
6,471
12,419
44,754
7.186
160,752
45,893
121,614
51,442
60,807
180,065
111.666
210,424
45,893
126,000
57,913
73,226
252,350
118.852
Total
28,481
123,938 732,239
884,658
Source: DNRC Land Classification System Database.
These figures represent the upper limit of irrigation
development imposed by soil, topographic, and climatic
factors. The number of potentially irrigable acres is
reduced when economic factors, such as water delivery costs,
are considered. For example, Elliott (1986) estimated that
only about 13,300 acres could actually be irrigated
profitably in the upper Clark Fork, which is approximately 6
percent of the arable acreage shown in Table 4-1 for that
subbasin. Further study is required to determine if economic
factors would have the same effect on other parts of the
Clark Fork Basin.
Water availability is another major constraint on future
irrigation development in the basin. The DNRC (1988a)
evaluated the irrigable lands identified by Elliott (1986)
and found that water was not available throughout much of the
4-4
irrigation season for lands that would have been supplied
from tributary flow. Water availability considerations
further pared the number of acres of irrigable lands in the
upper Clark Fork to about 8,400.
MINING
A number of companies have recently submitted plans to
DSL to mine gold, silver, and copper in various tributaries
of the Clark Fork. These proposed projects must be closely
scrutinized to ensure that environmental degradation is
minimized and that water quality is not further impaired.
Some of the larger operations propose to utilize a cyanide
heap leach process to recover gold from the ore deposit. In
this process, crushed ore is placed on a leach pad and
sprayed with a dilute cyanide solution to dissolve the gold
and silver values in the ore. This solution percolates down
through the ore and collects on the pad liner. The gold-and-
silver-bearing solution is pumped to a process plant for
removal of the gold and silver. The solution is then pumped
back onto the ore pile, and the process is repeated until
recovery of metals from the ore falls below acceptable
economic levels (Sunshine Mining Company 1988) . Because the
cyanide heap leach process has the potential to cause
environmental problems, new mine plans proposing to use it
will be reviewed very closely. Comprehensive water monitor-
ing programs for leach pad facilities will be necessary to
ensure protection of the water resources.
New mines proposed in the Clark Fork Basin are discussed
briefly in the following sections. More detailed information
can be obtained through the DSL, the agency responsible for
administering the state's hard rock mining rules and
regulations.
New Butte Mining. Inc.
In October 1987, Butte Mining Pic (London) purchased
two major mining claim blocks on the Butte Hill from Montana
Mining Properties, Inc. New Butte Mining, Inc. (NBMI) , was
formed as the operating company for Butte Mining Pic and will
actively mine these two claim blocks and a third that was
purchased later. NBMI plans to develop new and old under-
ground workings along multiple vein systems in the Butte Hill
for silver, lead, zinc, and gold. Extensive surface and
subsurface exploration activities have begun to verify
grades, tonnages, and metallurgical processing data.
4-5
The conceptual operating plan, submitted to DSL in
August 1988, calls for new construction and/or modification
of the Weed Concentrator in Butte to separately process the
underground ore. The Weed Concentrator is currently operated
by Montana Resources, Inc. (MRI) . Tailings would be mixed
with MRI's tailings and pumped to the existing Yankee Doodle
Tailings Pond. The mine would produce 1,500 tons of ore per
day and operate two shifts per day, five days per week. The
concentrator circuit would operate 24 hours per day, seven
days per week. The estimated total work force would be about
200 people (New Butte Mining, Inc. 1988) .
As part of it's operating application, NBMI has
completed an environmental baseline study and anticipates few
environmental problems. The rising ground water in the Butte
mines is currently 800 feet below NBMI's operations and
should not approach its' levels because of the elevation of
the workings on the hill, under the city of Walkerville.
NBMI estimates that there are enough base and precious
metals left in the Butte district to provide employment
opportunities and profit potential for many years to come,
depending on the price of these metals and environmental and
operational considerations. NBMI plans to submit an
application to DSL for a full-scale mining permit in December
1988 and hopes to begin mining by mid-1989.
Pegasus Gold Corporation
The Pegasus Gold Corporation submitted an application in
February 1988 to mine gold and silver in the German Gulch
drainage, located about 18 miles southeast of Anaconda and 18
miles southwest of Butte. Pegasus acquired the property from
Montoro, which withdrew its application after encountering
difficulties during the permitting process. Pegasus Gold is
a Canadian corporation with headquarters in Spokane,
Washington. Pegasus also owns the Montana Tunnels and
Zortman/Landusky projects.
DSL issued a mine permit to Pegasus in July 1988. The
development and construction phase was completed in early
fall and mining commenced in October. The mine plan for the
project calls for open pit mining methods with a cyanide heap
leach facility on the Beals Hill saddle (7,600 feet). The
operating permit boundary encompasses 1,182 acres. The ore
deposit contains low-grade gold, silver, and various other
elements. The ore will be crushed to one-half inch, and no
fine tailings will be generated. The heap leach facility has
two clay liners and a 40 ml/PVC liner to prevent ground water
contamination. There will be cyanide destruction capability
on site (Pegasus Gold Corporation 1988) .
4-6
Activities near German Creek will be limited to a road
and a freshwater pipeline. The operation will require 1.0
cfs from the creek, which is about 15 percent of low flow.
Although there is some moisture perched in the subsoil, the
site as a whole is fairly dry (Pegasus' most productive well
yields only eight gpm) .
The expected life of the mine is ten years, but the area
has not been completely explored. The total resource is 11.8
million tons of ore, with 8.7 million tons of mineable
reserve. Average annual gold and silver production are
expected to be 33,000 and 25,000 troy ounces, respectively.
The operation would be seasonal (March to October or Novem-
ber) and would employ approximately 65 people. Every attempt
would be made to hire locally and to use local suppliers.
Extensive baseline environmental data were collected by
Montoro, and Pegasus has collected additional data on ground
water, cultural resources, wildlife, and air quality that are
included in the permit application.
Cable Mountain Mine. Inc.
Cable Mountain Mine, Inc. , submitted an application to
the Montana Department of State Lands in February 1988 for a
placer gold mine about 12 miles west of Anaconda. The mine
is in the Cable Creek area of the Flint Creek Range, near the
historic Cable Mine. The mine permit boundary encloses about
94 acres with a disturbance area of about 51 acres (Cable
Mountain Mine, Inc. 1988) .
The company received a permit from DSL in July 1988. It
is currently in the development phase and recently submitted
amendments to the mine plan. The operation will employ 13
people to mine and process approximately 1.8 million tons of
gold-bearing sand and gravel over a three-year mine life, and
to reprocess about 18,000 tons of existing stamp mill
tailings. The design mining rate is 3,000 cubic yards/day,
and the operation will utilize standard hydraulic/gravity
separation methods for placer gold recovery. Coarse waste
rock will be placed on a waste dump or backfilled in the pit.
Fine tailings material will be routed to a settling pond.
About 2,000 gpm of process water will be required to operate
the plant. This water would be derived from pit inflow, adit
discharge, and if needed, dewatering wells (Cable Mountain
Mine, Inc. 1988) .
The mine site and historically disturbed areas will be
reclaimed to provide erosion control and stabilization. All
disturbed areas will be recontoured, regraded, and planted
with trees and shrubs. The final open cut will be left as a
small lake.
4-7
Sunshine Mining Company
The Sunshine Mining Company of Kellogg, Idaho, submitted
an application in January 1988 to mine gold and silver at the
Big Blackfoot Mine three miles west of Lincoln. The proposed
mine area is located on private lands controlled by Sunshine
Mining and on portions of federal land (Helena National
Forest) . The application is still in the completeness review
stage. The Forest Service has recently decided that an EIS
will be required, while the DSL is proceeding with a prelimi-
nary environmental review (PER) before deciding whether an
EIS will be necessary.
The project site is in the southwest portion of Lincoln
Gulch, which is tributary to the Blackfoot River. The mine
pit would be directly north and west of the Blackfoot River,
and the ore processing facility would be in the basin of an
intermittent drainage that flows east to Lincoln Gulch. The
operation would utilize standard open pit mining methods, ■' ■
including topsoil salvage, ripping and blasting of rock, and
a truck-shovel operation for loading and hauling. The open
pit would be developed in four sections, with the first two
sections of the pit backfilled with waste rock and overburden
from the last two sections. Waste and overburden from the
first section of the pit (about 660,000 tons) would be placed
in a waste rock dump, which would be revegetated along with
the backfilled portion of the pit during the life of the mine
(Sunshine Mining Co. 1988) .
The proposed operation would produce approximately 2 . 3
million tons of ore. The ore would be transported to a
crusher, located at the leach pad facility about 1.5 miles
from the Blackfoot River, where it would be crushed to three-
inch minus. The leach pad would be a total containment
facility with a double liner system and a net precipitation
storage pond. A specialized water monitoring program for the
leach pad facility would be maintained during the operational
and post-operational phases of the project. Reclamation of
this facility would include a procedure to neutralize the
residual cyanide in the ore pile.
The project would require approximately 60 gpm of water,
which would be derived from two wells and the precipitation
pond. After the first year, most of the water would come
from the pond. Potable water would be obtained from on-site
wells.
The operation would employ a maximum of 55 people. The
project is expected to have a seven-year life; however, if
the leaching process proved economical beyond year seven, it
might be extended.
4-8
The primary aim of the reclamation plan for this project
is reforestation. All disturbed areas would be revegetated
with tree seedlings and bunch grasses.
Montana Mining and Timber Company
The Montana Mining and Timber Company (MMTC) submitted
an application for a gold placer operation on Gold Creek to
the Department of State Lands and the U.S. Forest Service in
February 1988. A mine permit was issued by DSL in August
1988.
The mine area is located along the upper reaches of
Gold Creek on both patented land and land administered by the
Deer Lodge National Forest. The mine area includes the
Pineau and Master mines, both of which are previously
disturbed, unreclaimed placer mines (Montana Mining and
Timber Company 1988) .
The total mine area for the proposed Gold Creek project
is about 244 acres, with a disturbance area of 109 acres.
Approximately 1.2 million to 1.5 million tons of gravel will
be processed at a rate of 3,000 to 4,000 tons/day. The life
of the mine is expected to be two years, with year-round
operations requiring a work force of 39 people.
The company will use standard hydraulic/gravity
separation methods for processing at the Master Mine Camp.
Separators and a thickener tank system will be used to remove
suspended sediment from the tail water. The sediment will be
slurried to a sediment burial site in the Master Mine area,
dewatered, and buried. Runoff catchment ditches and sediment
control ponds will be constructed downgradient of each mine
block for erosion control. Mining will be restricted to
within 100 to 200 feet of the south and middle forks of Gold
Creek, and all settling ponds will be located out of the 100-
year floodplains. Channel diversion or dewatering are not
expected to occur (Montana Mining and Timber Company 1988) .
Water requirements for the project will be about 50 gpm,
which will be supplied by two wells currently in use on the
site. If needed, additional water can be obtained from the
Middle Fork of Gold Creek under an existing water right.
Baseline surface water, vegetation, soils, and meteoro-
logical data collected for this project are included in the
application. The mine site will be reclaimed to provide
erosion control and stabilization and to return the disturbed
areas to wildlife habitat. Trees and shrubs will be planted
for cover diversity.
4-9
Mark V Mines. Inc.
Mark V Mines, Inc., submitted an application to the DSL
and the U.S. Forest Service in September 1988 to mine gold in
the Williams Gulch drainage of Rock Creek. The proposed
underground mine, called the Bagdad Gold Project, is located
about 25 miles west of Philipsburg in the Lolo National
Forest (MSB, Inc. 1988).
Mark V proposes to extract the ore using standard small-
scale underground methods. Milling-grade material would be
removed from the mine and stockpiled, to be transported
periodically to a custom mill in Philipsburg. Waste rock
would be used for underground backfilling. While there is
currently an access road within the Lolo National Forest, the
plan calls for a new access road primarily within the Deer
Lodge National Forest. This new road is proposed to avoid
potential sedimentation in Williams Gulch, reduce traffic on
Rock Creek Road, and reduce the effects of increased traffic
on private landowners along Rock Creek (MSE, Inc. 1988) .
Approximately 90,000 tons of ore reserves have been
identified by exploratory drilling, and geologically
indicated reserves are estimated at one million tons. Mark V
hopes to begin production in early spring 1989, with a
minimum projected mine life of ten years. The optimum level
work force would be 25 to 30 people, producing 150 to 200
tons per day (MSE, Inc. 1988) .
The maximum probable water discharge from the mine is
80-100 gpm. This mine water would be treated in several
steps prior to discharge to a drainage ditch next to the
access road.
Because of the mine's proximity to the sensitive
resource values of Rock Creek and the potential for public
controversy surrounding the proposed Bagdad Project, the U.S.
Forest Service has decided to prepare an environmental impact
statement for the site, which is expected to be completed by
January 1989. DSL is proceeding with a PER.
American Eagle Mining Company
The American Eagle Mining Company has been operating a
placer gold mine in Quartz Gulch of Rock Creek since 1987.
This mine, located about 20 miles west of Philipsburg,
currently operates under the small miner's exclusion (less
than five acres' disturbance, fewer than 36,500 tons of
material per year). In January 1988, the company submitted
an application to DSL and the U.S. Forest Service to expand
its operation to 41 acres. The application was found to be
4-10
deficient and incomplete by DSL, and at this writing the
company has not resubmitted its application.
In March 1988, the DHES-Water Quality Bureau filed suit
against the American Eagle Mining Company for violating the
Montana Water Quality Act. In September 1987, the company
discharged wastewater from its placer wash ponds without a
permit. In October 1987, multiple impoundment structure
failures resulted in the deposition of significant quantities
of sediment in the drainage below the mine site. The DHES-
WQB has sought an injunction against further mining activity
until water quality violations are permanently corrected and
environmental damage repaired, and it opposes the issuance of
an operating permit until these problems are resolved.
ASARCO. Inc.
ASARCO has proposed to construct a 10,000 ton/day mine
and mill complex to develop its silver-copper ore deposits
under the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness. The project site is
located on Kaniksu National Forest land, which is admini-
stered by the Kootenai National Forest in Sanders County, on
the west fork of Rock Creek approximately six miles northeast
of Noxon. The ore body would be accessed through development
adits with portals located outside the wilderness boundary.
The underground mining would be a large-scale, mechanized,
room-and-pillar operation. The ore would be crushed and
ground at the ore processing complex to liberate metal-
bearing sulfides. A flotation process would then be used to
remove the sulfides. The copper-silver ore concentrate
(about 51,000 tons/year) would be trucked to Noxon for rail
shipment to a smelter (ASARCO, Inc. 1987) .
The water requirement for the mill would be approxi-
mately 3,000 gpm, which would be derived from mine water
drainage, freshwater wells, wastewater from sewage treatment,
plant site runoff, thickener overflow, and reclaimed water
from the tailings impoundment. Domestic water needs are
expected to be about 3 0 gpm.
Tailings generated during the operation would be
slurried in a pipeline to an impoundment area located mostly
on private lands with portions on federal land. The impound-
ment area would be continuously expanded, covering approxi-
mately 376 acres during the projected life of the mine. The
utility corridor containing the tailings pipelines, water
pipelines, power lines, and telephone lines would generally
parallel USFS Road No. 150, which would be partly relocated
and upgraded to a two-lane road. ASARCO has proposed
reclamation objectives and developed a plan to rehabilitate
all areas disturbed during mine construction, operation, and
closure.
4-11
Construction and development of the mine and processing
complex would require about three years. The maximum
estimated mine life at full production is 30 years, with a
total production of 3.6 million tons of ore per year. Full
production employment is estimated at 305 to 355 people.
ASARCO originally submitted its mine permit application
to the U.S. Forest Service and the DSL in May 1987. These
agencies responded with a list of deficiencies, and ASARCO
submitted its responses to the deficiencies in December 1987.
The state and U.S. Forest Service are continuing with their
completeness review. In January 1988, a public scoping
meeting was held to discuss the project proposal, the
environmental analysis process, and the numerous environ-
mental issues that have been raised regarding this project.
The major issues of concern are threatened and endangered
species, wilderness, the stability of the tailings impound-
ment, and water cpaality.
U.S. Borax
The United States Borax and Chemical Corporation (U.S.
Borax) submitted a conceptual plan for a silver-copper mine
in the Cabinet Mountains to the Department of State Lands and
the Kootenai National Forest in January 1988. The mineral
deposit is located 10 miles northeast of Noxon and 22 miles
south of Libby. Mineral exploration in the upper Rock Creek
drainage began in 1977, and acquisition of mining claims
started in 1981. The mining claims were originally con-
trolled by Pacific Coast Mines, Inc., Jascan Resources, Inc.,
and Atlantic Goldfields, Inc. This association formed the-,
Montana Silver Venture, of which U.S. Borax was the desig-
nated operator. The operation was pvrrchased by Noranda,
Inc., in October 1988.
The mining claims are located on federal lands in the
Kaniksu National Forest. The project area is located in both
Lincoln and Sanders counties. The company is considering a
number of location alternatives for the evaluation adit,
production adits, processing plant, tailings disposal, and
ancillary facilities. Additional engineering, environmental,
and economic evaluations are required before the preferred
alternatives can be selected. The major decision of whether
to develop the mine in the Rock Creek drainage basin or to
develop it from the east side of the Cabinet Mountains on
either Libby Creek or Ramsay Creek has not been made. Either
scenario would involve developing the mineral deposit under
the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness.
The mining operation would involve excavating and
crushing the ore underground, transporting it to the surface
4-12
plant for further crushing and grinding, and processing the
copper-silver concentrate by flotation. Tailings generated
from the process would be thickened and piped to a tailings
disposal area. Water from the tailings disposal pond would
be recycled to the process plant.
The approximately 1,800 gpm of water that would be
needed to slurry the tailings at 50 percent solids would be
collected from the underground excavations. Potable water
requirements are estimated to be about 100 gpm.
The geologic ore reserve is over 100 million tons with
an average grade of 2.1 ounces of silver/ton and 0.8 percent
copper. The ore production rate is expected to be about
10,000 tons/day and 3.5 million tons annually. The next
phase of development would include a decline into the deposit
to provide data for defining the overall mine plan. This is
expected to take 2 to 3 years and employ 35 to 50 people.
The construction phase for the mine and processing plant
would also require 2 to 3 years and employ 300 to 4 00 people.
The projected mine life is 20 years, and 300 to 350 people
would be employed in the production phase (U.S. Borax 1988) .
U.S. Borax will have to obtain an operating permit
subject to joint review by both the Montana Department of
State Lands and the U.S. Forest Service. The company has
described a program to develop the necessary environmental
baseline data for the permit applications in the conceptual
plan. Based on the agencies' approved plan of study, U.S.
Borax is proceeding with the collection of environmental
baseline data for the project area. Baseline data collection
and the EIS process may take up to three years.
FOREST PRODUCTS
Economic forecasters indicate that the forest products
industry will continue to be the backbone of western
Montana's economy. While the rapid growth of the 1970s is
not likely to be repeated, sustained production is expected.
Many factors can influence the industry and its future, such
as changes in the U.S. housing industry, adequacy of timber
supply, future energy costs, and competition with other
timber-producing areas (Keegan and Polzin 1987) .
Timber harvest during the past decade has relied heavily
on timber from private lands. Most projections indicate that
private timber sources will be very limited or depleted
during the next decade. At the same time, the demand for
lumber and wood products is expected to increase dramati-
cally.
4-13
The diminished private timber supply is expected to
result in new demands for harvest in national forests. The
U.S. Forest Service has completed forest plans for each of
the national forests in the Clark Fork Basin. The plans show
the average harvest in the past and indicate the number of
acres available for timber management in the future (Table 4-
2) . Actual harvest in national forests in the future will be
increasingly managed to meet the Forest Service's multiple-
use criteria and to provide sustained yields of wood
products. As timber supplies diminish and demands increase,
forest management efforts will be intensified.
TABLE 4-2.
TIMBER MANAGEMENT IN NATIONAL FORESTS OF THE
CLARK FORK BASIN
Average Annual Suitable
National Total Area^ Harvest (millions Timber
Forest (millions of acres) of board feet)i: facres)-^.
Deer Lodge
Bitterroot
Lolo
Kootenai
Flathead
Helena
1.3
1.6
2.2
2.1
2.3
0.975
60.0
594,771
28.0
589,000
98.5
1,402,000
173.0
1,800,000
101.3
835,747
16.8
488,000
1
2
3
Areas include parts of drainage not in Clark Fork Basin.
Based on average harvest over variable time periods.
Estimated acres suitable for producing commercial
timber. In some instances may include areas that are
designated as wilderness.
Sources: USDA 1985b, c; 1986a, b; 1987a, b.
WATER AVAILABLE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
The following sections describe water available for
future development in the Clark Fork Basin. The first
section addresses those issues associated with surface water,
the second with ground water, and the third with water
exchanges. The probability of new federal irrigation
projects is discussed last.
4-14
Surface Water
There are a number of issues that affect the avail-
ability of surface water for new uses in the Clark Fork
Basin. These issues include the number and magnitude of
existing rights and the extent of the aboriginal fishing and
cultural water rights claimed by the Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation. The water
rights of the tribes is an important issue that should be
analyzed beyond this report. The concerns related to
existing water rights and claims include those claims
submitted as part of the statewide adjudications and the
large hydropower water rights that use most of the flows of
the Clark Fork Basin. However, it should be noted that the
larger water users have not objected to new uses of water,
and it has not yet been established that their water rights
would be adversely affected by these new uses. These issues
are elaborated in the following sections.
Hydropower Water Rights
A number of large run-of-the-river power facilities are
located in the Clark Fork Basin. They include the Milltown,
Kerr, and Thompson Falls hydropower facilities, which are
owned and operated by the Montana Power Company, and Noxon
Rapids and Cabinet Gorge, which are controlled by the
Washington Water Power Company. The WWP claimed 35,000 cfs
through the statewide adjudications and received a provi-
sional permit in 1976 from the DNRC for an additional 15,000
cfs for the Noxon Rapids facility.
Analyses conducted by Fitz (1980) and Holnbeck (1988)
suggest that water available to upstream users for future
upstream development is severely limited because of Noxon
Rapids. Based on data from the period 1961-1986, if WWP is
certified to have a 50,000 cfs water right, then no water is
available for appropriation to upstream users in eight years
out of ten. On an average basis, approximately 5,900 cfs
would be available for future use between May 25 and June 17
in five years out of ten. In three years out of ten, an
average of approximately 21,000 cfs is available between May
25 and June 17. The long-term average flow of the Clark Fork
below Noxon Rapids is 21,020 cfs (USGS 1987), which is
considerably less than the 50,000 cfs capacity of the
turbines at the Noxon Rapids facility. But by virtue of the
appropriation doctrine, the rights must reflect the actual
maximum use at any given time. Additional data are illu-
strated in Table 4-3 and Figure 4-1.
4-15
TABLE 4-3. TIME PERIODS WHEN FLOWS EXCEED 50,000 CFS,
CLARK FORK BELOW NOXON RAPIDS
1961-79 1961-86
Average starting date May 22 May 25
Average ending date June 17 June 17
Maximum number consecutive days 65 65
Minimum number consecutive days 0 0
Average consecutive days 24 22
Average total days 30 28
(consecutive plus intermittent)
Source: Holnbeck 1988.
The DNRC's policy is that before issuing any new
provisional permits, the applicant must show that water is
physically available in the specific source of supply
requested. The burden is also on the applicant to show that
the rights of prior appropriators will not be adversely
affected if the new provisional permit is granted. However,
absent any objections, DNRC does not require such proof.
In the winter of 1987, the DNRC contacted WWP, MPC, BOR,
and Montana State University (MSU) and proposed a cooperative
study to assess the direction and magnitude of changes in
hydropower generation that have likely occurred or could
occur under different irrigation scenarios. The study began
in summer 1988 and will be completed by late 1988-early 1989.
The study should help ascertain whether the basin should be
closed and no new provisional permits granted, whether a
block of water can still be developed before basin closure is
initiated, or whether some other action, such as a negotiated
reallocation of WWP's rights, is more appropriate.
There may be little or no water available for appropri-
ation from the Clark Fork drainage upstream of Noxon Rapids.
This includes the Flathead River drainage basin and the Clark
Fork mainstem and its tributaries (e.g., Bitterroot and
Blackfoot rivers, Rock Creek) . Even if water is available
for appropriation upstream of Noxon Rapids, it may not be
available in specific tributaries where it may be most
needed. The water supply, existing water rights, and public
interest values must be analyzed within each subbasin to
ascertain whether water may be appropriated for future
beneficial uses.
4-16
vD
00
s
<
Q
m
I— I
<
O
X
o
s
o
u
OS
o
ai
<
u
as
O
<
OS
O
O
OS
Q
z
O
1—1
H
<
OS
Q
W
OS
1=1
4-16a
Existing Water Rights
Water rights in the Clark Fork Basin are of two
categories — those perfected after July 1973 and those in
place prior to that date. Water developments after 1973 were
subject to permitting requirements that provided a means of
assuring a reasonable correspondence between water rights and
actual use. Pre-1973 water rights were not officially
recorded with any degree of accuracy. The statewide
adjudication program was created to recognize and confirm
pre-1973 water rights in Montana, based on claims of actual
water use submitted by right-holders.
Table 4-4 compares the water supply characteristics of
Clark Fork subbasins with the acres, volume, and flow of
irrigation claims filed for pre-1973 uses. These data are
compared with calculated actual water demand for acreage
under irrigation facilities in 1980.
One reason that the number of acres associated with
adjudication claims is greater than the DNRC's estimate of
actual acreage in use is that the same irrigated acreage has
been claimed under more than one water right. For example,
water from two or more sources may be claimed to irrigate the
same ground. However, the differences that remain between
claims for pre-1973 uses and reasonable estimates of present
use and available water likely reflect a substantial
inflation of many claims. If the acreages and flows claimed
are not verified and revised where necessary to reflect
actual use, inflated claims will be incorporated into the
final decree, greatly complicating future water right
enforcement and water allocation efforts. For example, the
final decree might grant a claimant the right to irrigate 200
acres, when in fact only 120 acres have historically been
irrigated. The claimant could legally irrigate 80 addition-
al acres under the existing water right with a corresponding
increase in actual water use. Junior users could be affected
with little opportunity for appeal, and water available for
future use in or out of stream could be reduced or elimi-
nated.
Ground Water
Few aquifers in the greater Clark Fork Basin have been
investigated in the detail necessary to accurately determine
sustainable ground water yields. Certainly, large volumes of
water reside in storage in the valley fill sediments of the Clark
Fork valleys. Most of the major aquifers receive relatively
abundant recharge, and several possess hydraulic and depositional
characteristics that make them favorable targets for develop-
ment. All, however, are integral components of the Clark Fork
4-17
TABLE 4-4. COMPARISON OF STREAMFLOUS WITH CLAIMED RIGHTS AND ESTIMATED
ACTUAL WATER USE FOR IRRIGATION
Subbasin
Average
Annual
Flow
cfs AF
Adjudication Claims
for Irrigation
(pre-1973 rights)
Acres cfs AF
Estimated Actual
Acreage in use in
1980
Acres AF
Upper Clark
Fork* (above
Hilltown) 1.633 1,183,000
Blackfoot 1,402 1,016,000
Bitterroot 2,486 1,801,000
210,210
238,210
510,252
Flathead** 12,388 8,979,000 110,210
Lower Clark '
Fork* (from I
MiUtown I
past Noxon I
Rapids) 21,020 15,230,000 I 56,730
3,385 996,068
80,953 1,319,765
106,930 2,308,270
126,354 55,677,877
1,590 357,763
28,821
100,681
112,755
174,917
413,000
106,180
483,710
711,700
31,659 345,110
* Adjudication claim figures for these basins adjusted to eliminate most duplication of
claims for the same acreage.
** Adjudication claims submitted for Flathead Indian Irrigation Project listed flow rates
and volumes, but no acreages.
Sources: USGS 1987; DNRC 1988a; DNRC 1986; Elliott 1986.
4-17a
hydrologic system. The level of development considered accept-
able in a given aquifer system should depend both upon local
considerations of ground water availability and surface water
sources that recharge the aquifers and that ultimately receive
ground water discharge from the aquifers. Because all aquifers
receive some recharge from precipitation, only other recharge
factors are discussed here.
Lowland reaches of most smaller streams in the basin
contain alluvial deposits that transmit ground water. The
hydraulic characteristics of these deposits range from marginal
to very favorable in terms of water yield to wells. They are
typically limited in extent, and large well yields usually
indicate nearby recharge from surface water bodies. Their
location in tributary valleys frequently limits the use of such
aquifers to supplying domestic and stock needs, although small-
scale irrigation withdrawals are occasionally possible. Local
industrial operations, especially mines, derive process water
from some of these aquifers and present a potential for increased
withdrawals in some areas.
Secondary permeability (fracture and joint systems) controls
ground water flow in most of the consolidated rocks occurring in
the Clark Fork Basin. Precambrian-aged Belt series rocks, which
are widespread in the basin, generally yield only small quan-
tities of water to wells. Exceptions occur in areas where major
fault systems provide relatively transmissive flow paths,
typically along the margins of important structural basins. In
these areas, well yields are occasionally adequate for community
supplies and even modest irrigation. Despite their large areas
of exposure throughout the region, these aquifer systems are at
some risk for local overdevelopment, particularly in areas of
increasing residential density, because of their storage and
recharge limitations. <
Bedrock aquifers featuring deep ground water circulation
often express themselves as the thermal springs that are
scattered throughout the basin. Some of these present the
possibility of additional commercial development of geothermal
water.
The important high-yield aquifers of the Clark Fork region
occupy the major structural/topographic basins and are composed
of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated sands and gravel deposited
by fluvial and glacial processes. They vary substantially in
hydraulic characteristics, their mode of interaction with surface
water bodies, and their relative degree of development.
4-18
Clark Fork Basin
Missoula Aquifer. By measures of existing use and aquifer
capability, the Missoula Aquifer is the most significant ground
water system within the mainstem Clark Fork. Existing with-
drawals are on the order of 61,000 AF/year, and an annual
recharge of more than 87,700 AF was estimated for 1986. More
importantly, the unusually favorable hydraulic characteristics of
the aquifer material imply that very large increases in ground
water withdrawals could be supported by the aquifer, as long as
the Clark Fork is available as a source of natural and/or
induced aquifer recharge (Clark 1986; Missoula City-County Health
Department 1987) . Because this relationship implies responses in
Clark Fork flows to ground water withdrawal, such increases in
ground water use could be incompatible with instream flow
objectives or existing water rights in the Clark Fork system.
Upper Clark Fork. The aquifers of the Deer Lodge Valley and
Silver Bow Creek are described in Chapters 1 and 3. These
aquifers have a demonstrated record of supporting large well
yields, at least locally. The existing high-yield wells serve as
municipal, irrigation, industrial, and commercial water supplies.
Relatively abundant recharge suggests that the aquifers could
support higher levels of ground water development, ignoring for
the moment any water quality concerns. Ground water leaves the
upper Clark Fork through evapotranspiration or through discharge
to gaining reaches of the Clark Fork.
Bitterroot Valley. Valley-fill sediments of the Bitterroot
Valley cover a relatively thin mantle of Quaternary-aged alluvial
gravels (generally on the order of 50 feet in thickness) , which
overlie at least several hundred feet of Tertiary-aged sediment
of varying composition. The Quaternary gravels are generally
permeable and can yield several hundred gpm to wells, depending
on their saturated thickness. Bitterroot Valley aquifers
generally receive recharge from irrigation losses and losing
reaches of tributary streams; ground water flows toward the
Bitterroot, which receives ground water discharge along most of
its lowland reach (McMu^rtrey et al. 1972). Ground water uses
from the Quaternary gravels include irrigation, municipal, and
some industrial withdrawals. Less productive aquifers on the
valley margins supply generally low well yields to an ever-
increasing number of residential ground water users. In a number
of areas, aquifers underlying elevated benches are heavily
dependent on irrigation return flows and ditch seepage for
recharge. Changing land uses and abandonment of some irrigation
systems leave these high-elevation aquifers subject to lowered
water tables and local water supply shortages.
4-19
Blackfoot River Basin. The Blackfoot River Basin contains
two identifiable regions where accumulations of valley-fill
sediments contain relatively large quantities of stored ground
water and where favorable aquifer characteristics are at least a
possibility. One underlies the river reach beginning ten miles
upstream of Lincoln and ending two miles below the town. Here
sediment accumulations up to 300 or more feet thick receive
recharge from the Blackfoot River. The existing withdrawals are
mainly small ones from domestic supply wells. There are a few
more productive wells utilizing this aquifer, and some test data
indicate that well yields of a few hundred gpm may be locally
possible (Coffin and Wilkie 1971) . Major increases in ground
water use would result in induced aquifer recharge from the
Blackfoot River and/or decreased ground water discharge to
downgradient gaining reaches of the river.
The extensive glacial sediments underlying the lower
reaches of Nevada Creek, the North Fork of the Blackfoot, and
lower Monture Creek suggest that productive aquifer material may
exist in places. These aquifers currently supply mostly domestic
and stock wells and little information exists regarding the
potential for greater ground water uses.
Lower Flathead Basin
Little Bitterroot Valley. The Lonepine Aquifer (Donovan
1985) of the Little Bitterroot Valley stores a relatively small
volume of water in comparison with the regional Kalispell Valley
Aquifer, but it is a locally important source of irrigation,
domestic, and stock water. In addition, it has interesting
management aspects to its behavior and use.
The Lonepine Aquifer consists of very permeable gravels
overlain by a massive thickness of Lake Missoula silts, which
provide for effective aquifer confinement and artesian flow
conditions. Most large withdrawals from the aquifer are from
flowing wells used for irrigation and for supplying a commercial
resort dependent on the geothermal flows that contribute recharge
to the Lonepine system. Approximately 1,130 AF/year currently
flow past the area of irrigation use (eventually reaching the
lower Flathead River or shallow alluvial aquifers) . Pumping from
the aquifer could allow for the capture of more of this through-
flowing water and probably would induce additional aquifer
recharge from the Little Bitterroot River. However, large
additional withdrawals are not compatible with the maintenance of
flowing wells in the area. Additional development could force
the replacement of existing irrigation systems and the adoption
of new modes of operation by the current water users.
4-20
The nearby Sullivan Flats-Big Draw Aquifer is another
system with favorable characteristics for high-yield wells but
with apparent constraints on the scale of development. In this
case, the aquifer discharges virtually all of its modest annual
flux (1,700 AF/year) through a spring that appears to be heavily
appropriated for surface water use.
The Mission Valley. This southern region of the Flathead
Valley has a complex deposit ional history that accounts for a
variety of known local aquifer systems. These are underlain by a
thick sequence of glacial and glaciofluvial debris that is a
widespread regional aquifer.
Heterogeneous interstratif ied glacial deposits form the
regional ground water flow system. It is recharged along the
Mission Mountain front and at the north end of the Mission
Valley. Regional flow paths are toward the south and west,
discharging toward lower Mission Creek and the Flathead River
(Boettcher 1982) . Locally favorable aquifer characteristics
allow for yields of several hundred gpm from some municipal and
irrigation wells, and flowing wells are possible in several
areas. Annual recharge to the system probably far exceeds
withdrawals, suggesting that the area is physically capable of
supporting additional ground water development. Large additional
withdrawals would occur at the expense of reduced head in the
aquifer and reduced ground water discharge to the surface
environment.
The shallow aquifers overlying the regional flow system
exhibit their own hydraulic characteristics and some degree of
functional separation from the regional aquifer. Some of these
are confined by surficial deposits of lakebed silts, resulting in
local artesian aquifers in which wells may flow. The shallow
aquifer of the Post Creek area is the most significant of these
and supports domestic, irrigation, and commercial water uses
often designed around flowing wells. Recharge to these flow
systems may (as in the case of the Post Creek Aquifer) be
abundant, but at the same time, existing uses are somewhat
vulnerable to well interferences because of relatively low
aquifer pressures.
Jocko Valley. The Jocko Valley contains several hundred
feet of valley-fill sediment, at least some of which must
receive recharge from the Jocko River and irrigation systems in
the area. The hydrologic characteristics of the aquifer material
are not yet well described, and the aquifer's capability to
support large ground water withdrawals has not been demonstrated.
The existing wells are mainly small ones, used for domestic and
stock water.
4-21
Water Exchanges
Water exchanges may be an option to provide for future
water development in the Clark Fork Basin. Three possibilities
are discussed, including: 1) contracting for water from existing
storage facilities, 2) sever and sell of existing water rights,
and 3) leasing by the state or private parties.
There are a number of storage facilities in the Clark Fork
Basin whose releases satisfy existing water needs when the
natural water supply cannot. While the storage capacity of many
of these reservoirs may already be committed to supply the needs
of existing users, others may have water available for purchase.
For example, the state-owned Painted Rocks Project on the West
Fork of the Bitterroot River has had water available for purchase
under contract for some time.
Water purchased from storage can be used in two ways.
First, released water can be diverted directly by a user who is
physically located downstream of the facility. Second, stored
water can be purchased to replace water that would be depleted
because of a new use higher in the drainage. The new user
purchases the water and arranges for its release to eliminate the
impact of the new use on a downstream right. Whether this
approach can be taken depends on the existence of a storage
facility above the affected senior appropriator.
New users can also buy existing water rights and change the
use and source of supply. This new water development, however,
cannot adversely affect any senior or junior water users and must
be approved by DNRC. There must be a willing buyer and a willing
seller, and the transfer must satisfy the criteria under Montana
law. Many western states have already implemented this approach
to provide for new uses after basins become fully appropriated.
The large hydropower facilities in Montana may be willing to
sever and sell part of their water rights. This latter option
may be feasible if it is based on the power company's demand for
power (e.g., surplus power) and its ability to recover the lost
hydropower revenues.
For flows greater than 4,000 AF and 5.5 cfs, the DNRC
currently has the authority to lease a limited volume of water
from existing and future state, federal, and private reservoirs.
For most of those reservoirs, the DNRC is the only entity that
can lease water if they are included in a temporary preliminary
decree, a preliminary decree, or a final decree. The DNRC must
also acquire the water rights in its own name or enter into an
agreement with or purchase the water from the entity holding the
water right. Thus, the DNRC has the ability to lease stored
water for future uses. Legislative action would be required for
private parties to lease their rights. However, at this time, it
4-22
is not known whether leasing is necessary or even a viable
option.
The Probability of New Federal Irrigation Projects
The Missoula Valley project, authorized in 1944, was the
last federal project authorized and constructed in the study
area. The probability of a new federal irrigation project in
western Montana appears rather remote. The Bureau of Reclama-
tion, in its Assessment and Implementation Plan of 1987, stressed
that its primary mission as a water developer will be changed to
a water resource management agency. The key finding of the study
is that, "The Bureau's primary role as the developer of larger
federally financed agricultural projects is drawing to a close.
There have been no new construction authorizations of this type
since 1968" (BOR 1987). Most U.S. Congressmen believe that the
BOR has completed its primary mission of reclaiming the West.
Additionally, with the surplus crops now being produced, many in
Congress find it difficult to continue subsidizing new irrigation
projects. In view of these circumstances, it does not appear
advisable to plan on or expect such projects in the future.
4-23
CHAPTER 5
ACTION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
The management of aquatic resources in the Clark Fork
Basin is the statutory responsibility of many agencies.
Although rules and statutes place some limits on their
flexibility, state, federal, and local governments can
maximize their effectiveness through basinwide planning and
cooperation.
This chapter presents an action plan for maintaining and
enhancing the quality of water and related resources in the
Clark Fork Basin. It identifies primary issues and recom-
mends the agency or coordinated agency actions needed to
resolve them. In some instances, the action may be an interim
step that must be taken before final solutions are obtained.
It should be clearly recognized that the plan will continu-
ally evolve — the results of past efforts, as well as plans
for new programs, will require continuous reevaluation. Most
importantly, the responsible agencies must progress in a
logical sequence to address priority issues in coordination
with other agency efforts.
The action plan attempts to categorize the recommen-
dations according to major issues, but there is clearly
overlap among categories. This overlap demonstrates the
critical need for coordination and continuous integration of
information into a Clark Fork Basin management plan.
COMPONENTS OF THE PLAN
Data Management
Throughout the past few decades, various individuals and
organizations have collected environmental data in the Clark
Fork Basin. These data were often not published or were
generally unavailable to other interested parties. However,
through a cooperative agreement with the EPA, the DHES has
developed a central Clark Fork Data Management System. The
initial emphasis of this system is to store and manage data
collected for CERCLA (Superfund) purposes. Other data
pertaining to the Clark Fork Basin are also important to
Superfund and other programs and will be added to the system
as needed. The Clark Fork Data Management System is also
5-1
tied to the Natural Resources Information System and the
Geographical Information System administered by the Montana
State Library. It is essential that valid scientific data
pertaining to the Clark Fork Basin are entered in the overall
Clark Fork data file, and strong support should be given to
funding this comprehensive data management system.
Public Involvement
The purpose of the Clark Fork Basin Project has been to
summarize existing information and encourage coordination of
agency activities. The project has been aided in this
process by the strong public interest expressed throughout
the basin.
Implementing the action plan and making progress on
Clark Fork issues will require an informed and interested
public. All phases of the planning process should be open to
public participation. Government agencies should make
information available to the public and should seek public
involvement in decision-making.
Public interest groups, such as the Clark Fork Coali-
tion, which represents more than 70 organizations and
several hundred individuals throughout the Clark Fork Basin,
and the Northern Lights Institute, are particularly impor-
tant. Their efforts to inform the public on important
issues and to work with all levels of government and industry
on permitting issues have aided in conflict resolution. The
Northern Lights Institute and the Clark Fork Coalition
propose to use a community-building approach to environ-
mental problem solving by creating a "standing forum" of
citizens who are committed to improving conditions on the
river.
Public interest groups are encouraged to participate in
the implementation and formulation of the Clark Fork action
plan.
Funding
One of the most difficult and essential components of
the plan is funding. While existing state and federally
funded programs can meet many requirements, most new programs
will require special funding.
The Clark Fork Project was initially funded through a
direct grant from the Anaconda Minerals Company and later
with monies from the Resource Indemnity Trust Fund. Some
5-2
funds were also available through cooperative agreements with
the EPA.
Funds for many of the various agency efforts in the
Clark Fork Basin have been supplied by private firms as
required by federal and state permitting processes. For
example, Champion International, Inc. (now Stone Container
Corp.), funded the fishery data collection required for the
Frenchtown Mill discharge permit EIS, and the Montana Power
Company has funded water quality data collection at the
Milltown Dam site. Other firms and municipalities have
funded data collection and analysis as needed for permit
applications and renewals. Various interest groups, such as
Trout Unlimited, have contributed funds directly for
conducting special investigations.
The EPA and the DHES have committed large sums of money
to the investigation of hazardous wastes at Superfund sites
in the upper basin. Recently, Congress appropriated $315,000
to the EPA to investigate water pollution problems in the
Clark Fork-Lake Pend Oreille Basin. These funds have been
distributed to state agencies in Montana, Idaho, and
Washington to assess problems of nutrients and eutrophi-
cation.
Future funding will require diverse sources and
innovative methods to derive maximum benefits. Public
interest groups must continue to seek funds, and states must
continue to work together to obtain funding for interstate
projects. Joint federal, state, and local support for long-
term monitoring projects will be needed to sustain progress.
Careful planning and agency cooperation should make many
reclamation projects eligible for funding through the
Resource Indemnity Trust Fund.
Certain projects may be funded partially or entirely
through grants from foundations and industries. Successful
funding in these instances will require careful coordination
and integration of public interests.
Recommendations
The action plan is based on recommendations from ten
technical work groups. Representatives of federal, state,
and local governments and industries worked together to
summarize existing conditions and to propose actions needed
to correct problems and to improve the management of water
resources. Because of the widely divergent interests and
responsibilities of work group members, the recommendations
pertain to a wide range of topics.
5-3
In general, the following recommendations emphasize
abatement of pollution and careful planning of future basin
developments to minimize impacts on water and related
resources. Some recommendations require immediate agency
action, while others suggest interagency investigations and
planning.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upper Clark Fork Reclamation
A great deal of attention is currently focused on the
upper Clark Fork, where elevated levels of metals are
prevalent on land and in the waters. Remedial investigations
and feasibility studies are underway at the four Super fund
sites between Butte and Milltown. While most reclamation
activities in the upper basin will be tied to Superfund, the
extent and timetable for these activities is not certain.
The following section outlines priority issues in the upper
Clark Fork. Some of these are already being addressed to
varying degrees through the Superfund process. "" ' "
Butte Mine Flooding
When the Anaconda Minerals Company ceased operations at
the Berkeley Pit in 1982, all dewatering pumpage was
discontinued. Since that time, the water level in the pit
has risen and there is concern that this poor quality water
may encroach into the alluvial aquifer and eventually
adversely affect Silver Bow Creek and the Clark Fork. Since
1984, water levels in the Travona mine shaft and other mine
workings have risen, and there is concern over the potential
for discharge of contaminated ground water to the alluvium
and/or the ground surface. EPA has several studies underway
to evaluate these potential problems. The following two
recommended actions are necessary first steps in this
process.
1. Define the geohydrology of the mine area. While
some work has been done to characterize the geo-
hydrology of the mine area, it is an extremely
complex and altered system. More detailed
information is needed so that the potential effects
of mine flooding can be predicted.
2. Develop an overall water management system to
reduce the inflows to the Berkeley Pit.
5-4
Warm Springs Ponds
The headwaters area of the Clark Fork has a multitude of
heavy metals sources. A large part of the metals load in
Silver Bow Creek is attenuated by the Warm Springs treatment
ponds. However, the ponds are filling with sediment, and as
their capacity diminishes, so will the level of treatment
they provide. The ponds were designed to contain flows of
about 700 cfs, but much smaller flows have been diverted
around the ponds into the Mill-Willow Bypass because of dike
failure or collection of debris on the gates. When the ponds
are bypassed, untreated Silver Bow Creek water enters the
Clark Fork, and metals concentrations rise, often above EPA
acute aquatic-life criteria. In addition, intense summer
thunderstorms can cause fish kills by mobilizing metals that
have accumulated in the bypass. If the pond dikes failed
because of earthquake or flood damage, millions of cubic
yards of toxic sludge and sediments could be released to the
river.
As a whole, the Warm Springs Ponds system has been a
useful sediment trap for Silver Bow Creek and has greatly
improved water quality in the Clark Fork. However, the fact
that water is frequently diverted around the ponds demon-
strates the need to improve the system to control and reduce
the movement of dissolved and suspended toxic elements from
Silver Bow Creek into the Clark Fork. Stabilizing the Warm
Springs Ponds against floods and earthquakes and improving
the long-term efficiency of the system are also critical.
These goals could be accomplished in a number of ways:
1. Renovate the existing Warm Springs Ponds system and
stabilize the pond dikes to prevent damage and loss
of contents during floods or earthquakes.
2. Renovate the Mill-Willow Bypass.
3. Improve the treatment efficiency of the ponds and/or
expand the treatment pond capacity.
These alternatives would be expensive, but they would
probably be cost-effective in the long term. The ponds
represent a pivotal point in the Clark Fork Basin, and
improvements in the system are critical to the amelioration
of the heavy metals problem in the Clark Fork.
The Warm Springs Ponds system is currently a top
priority operable unit within the Silver Bow Creek Superfund
site. A feasibility study report that will define alterna-
tives for the system is due out in early 1989. At that time,
5-5
the DHES should move quickly to select the preferred
alternative and get work underway. Funding should be
obtained from the responsible party.
Floodplain Mine Wastes
Large areas of the upper Clark Fork floodplain are
covered by river-borne mine waste deposits or tailings
disposal areas (e.g. Colorado Tailings) , the result of
historic mining practices in which the Clark Fork was viewed
mainly as a convenient means of waste disposal. These mine
waste deposits are sources of contamination to soils,
surface water, ground water, aquatic organisms, and other
media. Once-vital riparian areas have been lost, and the
mine wastes are considered blights on the landscape.
The floodplain of the upper Clark Fork lies within the
boundaries of the Silver Bow Creek Superfund site. It is
anticipated that remedial or corrective actions to deal with
the mine wastes will be implemented as part of the Superfund
process. EPA and DHES have prioritized various areas within
the site. Areas that pose human health hazards take
precedence over those that pose environmental concern, and
because the Superfund process is an arduous one, cleanup
along the floodplain may be many years away.
This section contains recommended actions to address
some aspects of the floodplain mine waste problems in the
upper Clark Fork. Reclamation of key areas along the
floodplain could reduce the frequency of acutely toxic
concentrations of metals in the upper river. Any management
plan for the upper Clark Fork should consider how remedial
actions would affect pH and alkalinity, as these parameters
largely control the distribution of metals in the river. The
actions outlined below should complement and perhaps expedite
the Superfund process.
1. Identify priority streamside mine wastes.
a. Review existing maps of streamside mine wastes in
the upper Clark Fork to determine if these maps are
adequate or if more mapping is needed.
b. Review existing water quality data (particularly
metals loading data) to help identify and priori-
tize streamside mine waste areas best suited for
reclamation.
5-6
c. Conduct a detailed ground survey to identify mine
waste areas that are the most erosion-prone and
that would be good candidates for reclamation
efforts.
2. Define the geochemistry and hydrogeologic setting at
priority streamside mine waste areas.
a. Undertake a detailed geochemical and hydrologic
study of sites selected for initial reclamation
work.
b. Use existing survey data, especially that developed
by the University of Montana Geology Department,
to determine additional study needs.
c. Develop a detailed map of metals distribution in
the priority floodplain mine waste areas.
d. Monitor soil and ground water.
3. Evaluate the fluvial mechanics of the upper Clark Fork.
Conduct a detailed evaluation of the fluvial mechanics
of the river prior to any major reclamation efforts.
Identification, evaluation, and reclamation of stream-
side tailings areas could be wasted efforts if the
river mechanics are poorly understood. The issues of
potential sources of contamination from surface runoff,
bank erosion, etc., must be set within the context of
how the river functions as a physical system.
4. Select candidate sites for reclamation.
Base selection of floodplain mine waste areas for recla-
mation work on the geochemical, hydrogeologic, and
physical setting, access, and landowner cooperation.
Ideally, the sites selected would represent a variety of
environmental conditions so that the knowledge gained
from a few sites could be transferred to other sites in
the floodplain.
5. Conduct reclamation demonstration projects.
Conduct demonstration projects to test reclamation
techniques in limited areas of streamside mine wastes
before full-scale remedial actions take place. Results
of these projects should be made available to land-
owners, government agencies, and others interested in
reclamation.
5-7
6. Support cleanup of large mine waste deposits.
The Colorado Tailings and Ramsay Flats areas have been
studied intensively by a number of groups in the past
several years. Both areas are documented contaminant
sources to Silver Bow Creek and local ground water.
Emphasis should begin to be shifted from study to direct
reclamation and abatement of these known pollution
sources to reduce metals loading to Silver Bow Creek and
the Clark Fork.
Funding for reclamation of streamside mine wastes in the
upper Clark Fork should be sought from the responsible
parties. If there are no PRPs, other possible sources of
funding include the Resource Indemnity Trust Fund, the
General Fund, and the Coal Tax Fund.
Soils and Reclamation
Large acreages in the upper Clark Fork Basin are
contaminated with a variety of substances, primarily arsenic
and heavy metals. Most of the soil contamination is the
result of smelter emissions, use of tailings-laden irrigation
water, or proximity to waste dumps. The contaminated areas
pose a number of human health and environmental hazards.
People who live near waste dumps or contaminated soils may be
exposed to dangerous levels of pollutants. Contamination of
soils has resulted in loss of productive land and reduced
agricultural yields. These soils are potential sources of
surface and ground water contamination.
The areas of greatest concern are in the vicinity of
Butte and Anaconda within the boundaries of the Silver Bow
Creek/Butte Addition and Anaconda Smelter Superfund sites.
Expedited remedial actions have been initiated by the EPA in
the communities of Mill Creek (relocation of residents) and
Walkerville (removal or reclamation of waste dumps; cleanup
of residential yards) . More of this type of work may be done
in residential areas near the Old Works in Anaconda and
Timber Butte south of Butte.
However, once the immediate health hazards are re-
solved, large acreages of contaminated land will still remain
in both residential and agricultural areas. To date, EPA and
the state have not established metals action levels for the
Butte and Anaconda areas. Action levels established for
other areas (e.g., the East Helena Superfund site) are likely
not applicable because of natural variation in background
metals levels due mainly to differences in geology.
Establishment of site-specific hazard level criteria is
5-8
critical to the process of reclamation in the Butte and
Anaconda areas.
In the Deer Lodge Valley, there are areas that are
devoid or nearly devoid of vegetation due to contamination
from either smelter emissions or historic use of tailings-
laden irrigation water. The lack of perennial vegetation in
these areas results in wind erosion, increased surface water
runoff, increased recharge of the shallow ground water
system, and possibly increased metals loading to surface and
ground water. Although some reclamation projects have been
initiated to address these areas, more research is needed to
determine if large acreages can be cost-effectively re-
claimed.
In order to establish hazard level criteria for the
Butte and Anaconda areas, to support funding for reclamation
projects, and to begin to establish vegetation in barren
areas in the Deer Lodge Valley, the following strategies are
recommended:
1. Conduct a background metals levels study in the Butte
area .
Determine natural concentrations of arsenic, cadmium,
copper, lead, and zinc in soils in the vicinity of
Butte. Because Butte is a highly mineralized area,
background metals concentrations in soils may be higher
than "typical" concentrations. The study must be
carefully designed to avoid areas contaminated by
smelter emissions, waste dumps, and other sources of
contamination. The data will be useful in assessing the
risks of heavy metals contamination and in establishing
appropriate cleanup levels.
2. Establish action levels for soils cleanup for the Silver
Bow Creek/Butte Addition and Anaconda Superfund sites.
Establish appropriate action levels for soils based on
health risk and environmental assessments, the new back-
ground soil study for Butte, and the existing background
soil study for Anaconda (Tetra Tech 1986c). The
Superfund regulations require that the EPA and the DHES
first determine action levels that are protective of
human health and the environment without regard to
cost. The next step is to determine cost-effective
remedies for meeting those action levels.
5-9
3. Support funding for reclamation projects.
Make funding of reclamation projects in the Clark Fork
Basin a high priority. There must be sufficient
funding in place to monitor the effectiveness of various
reclamation techniques and to determine if there are
environmental impacts associated with those techniques.
4. Apply reclamation techniques to larger areas.
a. Transfer the knowledge gained from studies on small
demonstration plots to larger land areas to
determine if the techniques are successful,
economically feasible, and environmentally sound.
b. Fund the next phase of the Headwaters RC&D project,
which involves six 10 to 15-acre sites, as a first
step toward reestablishment of forage on lands
contaminated by mine waste. Funding of other
reclamation demonstration projects will be critical
in the future.
Funding for the background soils study should be
provided through the Super fund process. Reclamation project
funding could be derived from a number of sources, including
the RIT program, Superfund, or the responsible party. A
cost-share program should be considered to encourage
landowner participation. Without such a program to under-
write a portion of the reclamation costs, reclamation of
agricultural lands would not likely be cost-effective for
individual farm enterprises.
Surface Water Quality
The recommendations listed above for the upper Clark
Fork primarily address the pervasive metals problems in the
upper river. Reclamation efforts aimed at the variety of
mine wastes could lead to eventual improvement in surface
water quality. However, a number of other factors, such as
nonpoint source pollution, nutrients and eutrophication, DO,
and temperature are also current water quality problems in
the Clark Fork. Recommended actions to address these issues
are outlined below.
5-10
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Nonpoint source pollution is caused by diffuse sources
that are not regulated as point sources and normally is
associated with activities such as agriculture, silviculture,
construction, land disposal, hydromodif ication, and others.
The primary pollutants are sediments, nutrients, toxic
substances, pathogens, pesticides, acidity, and salts.
Nonpoint source pollution is a major problem in the
Clark Fork drainage. The primary pollutants are metals,
derived from floodplain mine wastes and waste disposal areas,
and sediment, derived mainly from agriculture and silvicul-
ture.
In the past, nonpoint problems in Montana have been
addressed in a somewhat fragmented manner. However, baseline
information does exist, and it can be used to compare future
measurements of nonpoint source effects and to gauge the
effectiveness of control programs. In 1985, Montana joined
55 other states, territories, and interstate water quality
agencies in assembling existing information on water quality
impacts caused by nonpoint sources of pollution. The effort
was coordinated and the findings compiled and published by
the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators.
The federal Clean Water Act of 1987 established a new
policy for the control of water pollution, including a
directive to the states to develop and implement programs to
control nonpoint sources of pollution. Section 319 of the
Act provides the legal basis for implementing such programs
and sets forth requirements the states must meet to qualify
for assistance. The State of Montana must strive to meet
those requirements. Some of the funds should address
critical nonpoint source problems in the Clark Fork Basin.
Identifying, prioritizing, and initiating programs to
reduce nonpoint source pollution problems in the Clark Fork
Basin should be important goals for Montanans. Strategies
for achieving these goals are:
1. Support the state nonpoint source management program.
State, federal, and local agencies should aggressively
pursue actions recommended by the DHES-WQB in the state
nonpoint source management program proposed under
Section 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act of 1987.
The report, entitled Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution
in Montana, is available from the DHES-Water Quality
Bureau in Helena.
5-11
2. Develop a specific NPS management plan for the Clark
Fork.
a. The DHES-WQB should develop a comprehensive,
coordinated NPS control program for the entire
Clark Fork Basin as an extension of the 319
program. Separate NPS control programs may be
generated for specific areas of the Clark Fork.
b. Identify and prioritize existing water quality
problems and detail actions needed, including
monitoring.
c. Draw heavily on ongoing assessments of NPS
problems in Montana and on plans prepared by EQC,
the Cumulative Watershed Effects Cooperative, etc.
3. Create a regional water quality managers program.
All agencies involved in NPS programs should support
state and federal funding to develop a network of
regional water quality managers in the DHES-WQB to
tackle the NPS problems in the basin. These NPS water
quality managers would be responsible for:
developing nonpoint assessments and management
plans in their region
reviewing plans for activities (e.g., timber
sale plans, mine plans) that may contribute
nonpoint source pollutants to streams
inspecting sites where land 'disturbance may
occur to determine that BMPs are being employed
conducting baseline monitoring
holding meetings to keep the public apprised of
the program and to receive their suggestions
working with other agencies and organizations
involved in regulation and abatement of nonpoint
source pollution
conducting complaint investigations.
The Clean Water Act of 1987 calls for a 60/40 federal/
state match for funds. The Act earmarked the following
monies for NPS programs, for which the states compete:
5-12
FY 88 $ 70 million
FY 89 100 million
FY 90 100 million
FY 91 130 million
However, Congress appropriated no money for FY 88, and
EPA did not request any of the $100 million authorized for
FY 89. There is currently an effort in Congress to direct
EPA to apply some funds to the program in FY 89 from its
existing budget.
Another potential source of federal funds for nonpoint
source pollution abatement is the so-called Governor's 20%
Discretionary Fund, which is a portion of the state's
allotment of money for construction of municipal wastewater
treatment plants. The Water Quality Act of 1987 amended
Clean Water Act Section 201(g) (1) by adding subsection (B) ,
which establishes a new purpose for which these funds can be
used: "... any purpose for which a grant can be made
under section 310(h) and (i) of this Act (including any
innovative and alternative approaches for the control of
nonpoint sources of pollution)." Any nonpoint source
projects funded with section 201(g)(1)(B) money would
require the same 40% nonfederal match as would those funded
with section 319 money. The state has been told by EPA that
Montana's Coal Severance Tax funds and the interest on the
State Resource Indemnity Trust, which are used to support
conservation programs, may be used as match for Clean Water
Act section 201(g) (1) (B) funds if the identified conserva-
tion programs are part of an EPA-approved NPS management
program.
Nutrients and Eutrophication
Excessive algae growths in the Clark Fork and Lake Pend
Oreille are one of the more difficult water quality problems
of the Clark Fork Basin. Except for controlling heavy metals
pollution in the upper basin, the problem of nutrients and
algae growth is considered the highest-priority issue.
Dense mats of filamentous green algae and diatoms,
besides being aesthetically unattractive, affect water uses
such as recreation and irrigation. Algae produce oxygen
during daylight hours; but at night, in the absence of
photosynthesis, algal respiration can deplete the oxygen
needed by fish and other aquatic organisms. Large quantities
of algae eventually die, creating sludge deposits and oxygen
demands. Rooted aquatic plants (macrophytes) found in lakes
or river backwaters have similar effects when they occur in
excessive quantities. In the Pend Oreille River in Washing-
ton, very dense growths of aquatic vegetation (Eurasian
5-13
milfoil) have choked out most other uses, including boat
traffic.
The cause of excessive algae growths is primarily due to
the high concentrations of basic nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus) found in the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille system.
Despite this general knowledge, however, very little is known
regarding the sources or fate of nutrients in this aquatic
system. Nitrogen and phosphorus enter the water from the
basin's natural geologic strata, irrigation return flows,
animal wastes, domestic and industrial wastewater, and the
atmosphere. The relative contribution of nutrients from each
of these sources is generally unknown.
Controls on nutrients to slow down or reduce eutrophi-
cation can be implemented by a variety of methods, including:
treating wastewater, limiting or banning the use of phos-
phates in certain products (e.g., detergents), reducing soil
erosion, putting voluntary restrictions on the use of lawn 'i-
fertilizers, placing and maintaining septic tanks properly,
treating urban stormwater runoff, and encouraging proper land
use activities. Many of these control efforts require strong
citizen support and voluntary participation; others require
relatively expensive treatment operations.
A special program to investigate the sources and fate
of nutrients in the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin was
initiated in 1988. The investigation is a coordinated
program funded under Section 525 of the Clean Water Act
Amendments of 1987. The states of Montana, Idaho, and
Washington, working in cooperation with the EPA, have
outlined a three-year assessment of nutrient-eutrophication
problems in the basin. The results of this investigation
are expected to provide a measure of the eutrophication
problem and sources of nutrients and to indicate appropriate
control measures. The continued close cooperation of the
three states is essential in meeting the program goals and
sustaining the required funding. The following is an
outline of the three-state program:
1. Montana study objectives.
a. Conduct a critical review of all available criteria
relating periphyton standing crop to beneficial
uses and factors regulating periphyton standing
crop in flowing waters.
b. Determine the existing standing crop and nutrient
status of periphyton in the Clark Fork River
(seasonally) and relate data to existing criteria.
5-14
c. Conduct an on-site study at selected locations to
determine factors (e.g., sediments, nutrients,
temperature, substrate, metals, macroinvertebrates)
limiting periphyton growth and standing crop in
the Clark Fork.
d. Identify primary nutrient sources and establish
appropriate criteria for controlling periphyton
growth in the Clark Fork Basin.
2. Idaho study objectives.
a. Develop a nutrient budget for Lake Pend Oreille,
including point and nonpoint sources.
b. Assess nutrient levels and/or reductions necessary
to protect lake water quality.
c. Provide a final report in the Clean Lakes Phase I
Diagnostic Study format.
3. Washington study objectives.
a. Evaluate the trophic conditions within the Pend
Oreille River system, including identification of
limiting nutrients and characterization of current
trophic status.
b. Develop a seasonal and annual nutrient and water
budget for the reach from Albeni Falls Dam to Box
Canyon Dam (RM 90 to RM 34) .
c. Characterize external loading sources to the Pend
Oreille River, including comparison of local tribu-
taries, nonpoint, and point sources.
d. Evaluate potential internal loading of nutrients
from macrophytes and sediments.
In addition to the Montana objectives listed above, the
following are recommendations for nutrient-related issues in
the Clark Fork.
1. Determine the effects of the Phosphoria Formation and
phosphorus mining on water quality.
Determine the phosphorus load derived from the Phos-
phoria Formation, a geologic strata rich in phosphorus
near Garrison, or from past and present phosphorus
mining in the area. The investigation should begin with
5-15
a thorough review of existing information on the
geochemistry of the Phosphoria Formation, including its
potential for affecting surface and ground water.
Intense surface and ground water sampling should be
conducted to characterize these sources of phosphorus.
Wells should be sampled in the Garrison area during
summer when ground water is most likely to enter the
river and when additional phosphorus would cause the
most problems.
2. Monitor nitrogen loading from the Bitterroot River.
Conduct intense water quality monitoring along the
lower Bitterroot to pinpoint the sources contributing to
elevated levels of nitrogen in the Clark Fork system.
The Clark Fork should be monitored directly above and
below the confluence with the Bitterroot to determine
the nitrogen load attributable to the Bitterroot.
Septic drainfields and irrigation return flows are
suspected sources.
3 . Limit nutrient loading to the Clark Fork and Lake Pend
Oreille.
a. Criteria for controlling eutrophication in the
Clark Fork and Lake Pend Oreille are not known but
common sense indicates we should work to limit
nutrient loading. The Water Quality Bureau should
require that all MPDES permits restrict nutrient
loading in compliance with the nondegradation
rules of the Montana Water Quality Standards.
b. Regulatory agencies, industries, municipalities,
and public interest groups should work to identify
opportunities to reduce all forms of nutrient
loading to the Clark Fork Basin. Some additional
control of point and nonpoint sources may be
necessary.
DO, Temperature, and Mixing Zones
It is important to maintain sufficient dissolved oxygen
concentrations in the Clark Fork to meet the needs of fish
and other aquatic life. Elevated stream temperatures, when
combined with suboptimal dissolved oxygen levels, can have a
synergistic effect on salmonid populations. Although some
work has been conducted to study DO and temperatures in the
Clark Fork, additional monitoring is warranted.
5-16
Monitoring efforts in the Clark Fork would be improved
if the mixing zones created when tributaries enter the river
were delineated. Otherwise, it is difficult to know if the
tributary water or the Clark Fork is actually being moni-
tored.
The following actions are recommended to address these
issues.
1. Monitor DO concentrations at key locations in the Clark
Fork.
Initiate a special WQB monitoring program to measure
late summer, diel DO concentrations at key locations in
the basin. Twenty-four hour measurements could define
the duration as well as the magnitude of DO sags (the
length of the DO depletion might be as critical as the
minimum concentration) . The monitoring program should
provide a systematic evaluation of DO in the river to
determine if concentrations are affecting beneficial
uses.
2. Monitor water temperature regimes in the Clark Fork.
Initiate a program to characterize the water temperature
regimes in critical river reaches, particularly during
late summer. Temperature, like other water quality
parameters, is highly variable, and a long-term data
base is essential to interpret changes and to establish
long-term trends. Available temperature data should be
completed and analyzed to establish a historical data
base.
3 . Document the extent of the mixing zone for Clark Fork
tributaries.
Conduct a rhodamine dye study to determine the extent of
the mixing zone created when a tributary enters the
Clark Fork. Failure to consider the extent of mixing
could lead to erroneous interpretations regarding water
quality and its relationship to other uses.
Monitoring
Water quality monitoring is one of the essential tools
of water quality management. Scientifically valid data
collected over a long period are necessary to assess changes
in water quality. The need for water quality data on the
Clark Fork became most evident in 1983 when Champion Inter-
national, Inc., applied for a modification of its wastewater
5-17
discharge permit. The lack of adequate data to support
permitting decisions resulted in delays and public uncer-
tainty.
Since 1984, the Water Quality Bureau has maintained an
intensive water quality monitoring effort at more than 3 0
stations located from near the headwaters to the Idaho
border. This water quality sampling, supplemented with
biological data, is the most comprehensive water quality
record for the basin. It is essential to continue this
monitoring program for at least another biennium and to
initiate other special monitoring programs to meet short-term
monitoring goals on the Clark Fork.
In addition to the WQB monitoring, several other
agencies and industries have collected valuable data from
surveys and specific projects. All of these programs have
improved our knowledge, but developing a long-term, compre-
hensive environmental monitoring program for the Clark Fork
Basin is paramount.
This long-term monitoring program should provide a
sufficiently detailed record of water quality and biological
data to identify trends and new problems and to measure the
effects of resource development, changing land uses, and
reclamation and pollution control programs.
The strategies for achieving short-term monitoring goals
are:
Continue WQB monitoring in the Clark Fork Basin.
a. As an interim to a future comprehensive program,
the current WQB monitoring program should be
maintained. Continuance of current monitoring can
provide information for trend analysis, refine our
knowledge of certain pollutants such as nutrients,
measure progress in Superfund cleanup in the
headwaters, measure effects of new mining projects,
and define water quality over a broader range of
flow conditions (FY 85-88 were relatively low-flow
years) .
b. This monitoring program should be reviewed to
determine if changes are needed and if the program
could be streamlined.
c. Approve the WQB budget request to continue the
monitoring program for another biennium.
5-18
2. Collect baseline monitoring data in some tributaries of
the Clark Fork Basin.
Collect baseline monitoring data in tributaries,
especially those that may be affected by proposed mines,
forest practices, and other activities that may con-
tribute to nonpoint source pollution problems. Funding
for baseline water quality monitoring of tributaries
should be shared by the industries.
3. Monitor the effects of short-duration, high-intensity
runoff events on Clark Fork water quality.
Most water quality monitoring programs on the Clark
Fork are designed to monitor late spring-early summer
runoff events. However, in the last couple of years,
significant late winter-early spring snowmelt runoff and
thunderstorm events have occurred, and water quality
monitoring programs designed with fixed-interval
sampling often miss these events. Limited water quality
samples that have been collected during these events
have contained very high concentrations of heavy metals,
and a number of fish kills have occurred near the head-
waters.
Although new monitoring programs have recently been
initiated in the headwaters (installation of streamflow
gaging stations by the USGS under contract with EPA, and
short-term [August-November 1988] sampling of continuous
monitors and an automatic sampler by the MBMG under
contract with DHES-SHWB) , additional systematic monitor-
ing is needed to define the frequency, duration, and
extent of these conditions. Daily or every-other-day
monitoring at one or two stations may be required for
short periods. Additional flow-activated automatic
sampling devices and the help of local residents in
collecting water quality samples may be needed as well.
Recommendations to meet long-term monitoring goals are;
1. Create a water quality monitoring cooperative.
Appoint a monitoring cooperative (or committee)
consisting of representatives from agencies or groups
that have a direct interest in water quality management
in the basin, such as DHES, DFWP, DNRC, DSL, USES, USGS,
MBMG, SCS, Conservation Districts, the Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes, local governments, indus-
tries, and others.
5-19
Develop a cooperative monitoring program.
The goals of the monitoring cooperative or committee
will be to:
at Design a comprehensive ambient water quality and
biological monitoring program that provides the
sampling procedures, analytical methods, and
quality control needed to satisfy all partici-
pants' requirements.
b. Reduce overall monitoring costs.
c. Provide baseline data that can be supplemented with
project-specific investigations.
The monitoring program should:
• define goals and objectives
• define how the data will be stored and used by
the participants
• identify the specific monitoring needs of the
Clark Fork and eliminate duplicative or
nonessential monitoring
• identify data needed to meet monitoring
objectives
• describe the following program components:
-sampling station
-sampling frequency
-sampling techniques
-analytical techniques
-quality assurance program
-data analysis and storage
• estimate annual costs associated with the
monitoring needs
• define appropriate mechanisms for funding
• define the appropriate role for each
participant in implementing the program
• recommend a structure and cooperative
agreement to manage the monitoring program,
including a schedule of periodic meetings to
review and interpret data and to make
necessary adjustments in the program
5-20
• identify how citizens should participate in
the program.
Water quality specialists assisting in the preparation
of this report have suggested that a minimum of four
monitoring stations are needed to measure long-term trends in
Clark Fork water quality. As an example, the following
monitoring program has been suggested: Four key monitoring
stations (Deer Lodge, Turah, Alberton, and Whitehorse
Rapids) should be maintained in the Clark Fork. Study
parameters might include pH, EC, TSS, VSS, hardness,
alkalinity, temperature, total recoverable and dissolved
metals (As, Cu, and Zn) , daily sediment (at Turah and
possibly Alberton) , and biota (monitored once per year at
Turah and Deer Lodge) . Water quality should be monitored 12
times per year based on streamflow, and established stream
gaging stations should be maintained at Deer Lodge, Turah,
and Whitehorse Rapids. A new gaging station would be needed
at Alberton. The USGS estimates that such a program would
cost $91,000 the first year and $86,000 per year thereafter.
Ground Water
Ground water is a widely used resource in the Clark Fork
Basin, and a number of investigators have characterized the
quantity and quality of the ground water system. However,
very little ground water work has been done in the lower
river, and specific ground water quality issues remain in the
upper and middle river. The following studies are recom-
mended to address these issues.
1. Conduct ground water studies of the lower Clark Fork.
a. Further water management objectives by making long-
term observations in the lower Clark Fork Basin in
areas where changing land uses, increased consump-
tive water use, and other cultural activities may
influence ground water availability and quality.
Most of the ground water monitoring emphasis in the
Clark Fork Basin has been focused in the upper
basin. However, not all monitoring needs are tied
to the areas of historic mining impact in the
headwaters.
b. Conduct a reconnaissance ground water study of the
lower river (from Huson to Lake Pend Oreille) to
gather basic information about the local aquifers
and their relationship to the Clark Fork. A
number of new monitoring wells may be required.
5-21
2. Study ground water effects on metals loading.
Conduct a comprehensive study of the contribution of
ground water to metals loading problems in the upper
Clark Fork. The study should use existing wells (and
possibly some new wells) and should focus on the
headwaters and Deer Lodge areas. This may be partially
addressed through the Silver Bow Creek RI/FS and the
Clark Fork screening study.
3 . Document the extent of the carbonate zone and ground
water flow patterns in the vicinity of the Anaconda and
Opportunity ponds. Again, this may be addressed when the
geohydrologic and geochemical conditions in the vicinity
of the Anaconda and Opportunity ponds are further inves-
tigated during future RI/FS activities at the Anaconda
Smelter site.
a. Determine the actual thickness of the alluvial
deposits underlying the tailings contained in the
Anaconda and Opportunity ponds. Two distinct
source zones for solutes have been identified in
the tailings — a saturated zone just above the
alluvium and an oxidizing zone in the upper part of
the tailings that will slowly move downward.
Modeling has predicted that many thousands of years
from now, oxidation of sulfides to sulfuric acid
could lower the pH at the bottom of the tailings
and cause the release of metals such as arsenic,
cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc (Tetra Tech
1986b) . If there is sufficient thickness of
carbonate-rich alluvium beneath the tailings, the
acidity may be neutralized and the metals atten-
uated before reaching the ground water. The
unconsolidated alluvial deposits are estimated to
range from more than 100 feet thick in the western
portion of the site to about 20 feet thick east of
the Opportunity Ponds. However, a detailed study
should be conducted in the vicinity of the ponds to
document the actual thickness and percentage of
carbonate in the alluvium to determine if it will
afford adequate ground water protection in the
future. More modeling efforts may be required to
make this determination.
b. It is also important to determine ground water flow
patterns through the carbonate zone of the
alluvium. It may be that only a portion of the
carbonate mass is available to attenuate the
metals. An investigation should be initiated to
address this question.
5-22
Initiate a monitoring network and a public education
program in the Missoula Sole Source Aquifer designated
area.
The Missoula Aquifer was designated as a sole source
aquifer in June 1988. The aquifer supplies nearly 100
percent of the drinking water for the greater Missoula
area. A monitoring network should be established to
help track changes in water quality and assist in making
informed management decisions. In addition, a public
education program should be initiated to encourage
responsible use of the ground surface as a means of
reducing pollution.
Fisheries
The Clark Fork fishery has been seriously damaged by
more than a century of water quality degradation and physical
habitat alterations. Water pollution abatement in the past
two decades has improved the fishery, but game fish are
considerably less abundant in the Clark Fork than in other
rivers of comparable size. The factors affecting the
fishery change as the stream flows from its contaminated
headwaters to its confluence with Lake Pend Oreille. Some of
these factors are readily recognized, while others are less
obvious and require additional investigation.
The upper river fishery continues to be damaged by the
acute and chronic toxicity of heavy metals. Copper concen-
trations frequently exceed criteria for the protection of
aquatic life at all locations in the upper river. Episodes
of acute toxicity, which often occur after thunderstorms, may
kill an entire population, but the survival of early life
stages of trout is probably most affected by chronic metals
pollution. The scarcity of trout in most of the upper river
further suggests that reproduction and recruitment are
limited.
Another obvious factor affecting trout production is the
seasonal dewatering of the Clark Fork and its tributaries.
Dewatering because of irrigation diversions results in
diminished fish habitat and marginal water quality condi-
tions. Segments of some tributaries are dewatered entirely
for short times during some critical water years.
The effects of other factors on the upper river fishery
are less well known. Information is needed on spawning areas
and on factors (other than toxicity) that may limit recruit-
ment of young fish into the population. Physical habitat
degradation has occurred in several areas due to mining waste
deposits, stream channelization, and heavy livestock use in
5-23
riparian zones. Physical degradation could continue to
affect fisheries even if water quality improvements were
achieved.
Less is known about the fishery from Milltown Dam to the
mouth of the Flathead River. DFWP has surveyed fish
populations in this reach and evaluated the importance of
tributaries as spawning areas only in the past few years.
Preliminary data suggest that the abundance of game fish is
considerably below other rivers of comparable size. The lack
of suitable spawning tributaries in this segment is thought
to be a major factor in limiting salmonid populations.
Water quality may also be a factor, as biologically sig-
nificant heavy metals contamination has occurred in the Clark
Fork below the Milltown Dam in high runoff years.
The lower river fishery has been most affected by
physical habitat alterations. The hydropower dams and
reservoirs of the lower river have blocked fish migrations
and created relatively poor fishery habitat. The rapid water
exchange through the reservoir and fluctuating water levels
limit the biological productivity needed to sustain a larger
fish population. Early attempts to manage the reservoirs
exclusively for salmonids have been unsuccessful, but recent
introductions of cool-water species have shown some promise.
The availability of spawning areas for salmonids is limited.
Some tributary streams have subterranean flows in the lower
reaches that block spawning migrations; other streams are
scoured during spring runoff leaving poor spawning sub-
strates.
The goals of a fisheries program for the Clark Fork are
to increase the abundance of game fish throughout the
mainstem and to identify and protect the habitat required to
sustain game fish production. Improving the Clark Fork
fishery requires action, especially on the part of DFWP, in
several separate, but related categories:
1. Eliminate acute and chronic toxicity conditions in the
upper river.
Design and implement a reclamation plan to prevent the
direct entry of precipitation runoff from streamside
tailings into the river. The reclamation plan should
utilize existing data and new information gathered for
this purpose (see "Floodplain Mine Wastes") . Government
agencies, private parties, and landowners should work
together on this plan.
5-24
2. Investigate trout fry and fingerling survival in the
Clark Fork mainstem.
a. Continue DFWP investigations of trout fry survival
at selected locations in the upper river. Live
fish containers developed for this purpose should
be placed to help identify specific locations
where acute and chronic toxicity conditions exist.
These data should be used in the development of a
reclamation plan (see #1) .
b. Continue DFWP evaluations of the survival and
growth of trout stocked at key locations in the
river. The data gained from these test plants
will be useful to assess the relative survival
rates of different trout species and to better
define factors that limit trout abundance.
3. Remove barriers to potential spawning areas.
a. Identify all tributary streams where spawning trout
migrations are blocked by natural or man-made
barriers, and work with landowners and sportsmen's
groups to remove such barriers or provide fish
passage around them. The following tributary
streams have been identified as having barriers or
potential barriers to spawning trout: Sixmile
Creek, Harvey Creek, Tamarack Creek, Siegel Creek,
Elk Creek, and Prospect Creek.
b. Exercise beaver control on streams where beaver
dams are affecting trout access to important
spawning areas.
4. Protect instream flows.
a. Complete measurements of instream flow requirements
for fisheries and analysis of fish populations on
the middle river and tributaries. DFWP study
results should be used to support an application
for water reservations needed to maintain and
enhance the existing fishery.
b. Investigate opportunities for the public or private
purchase or lease of water rights in the key
tributary streams to maintain instream flows. Warm
Springs Creek at the Clark Fork headwaters is an
example.
c. Continue seeking a long-term DFWP lease or purchase
of water rights from Painted Rocks Reservoir to
maintain instream flow in the Bitterroot River.
5-25
d. Provide for a state water commissioner to monitor
and control legal water uses, especially on the
upper Clark Fork and on the Bitterroot River.
5. Survey spawning grounds.
Conduct a systematic survey of tributary streams to
identify important spawning grounds and rearing habitat.
The DFWP should protect critically important areas by
special regulation, riparian zone management, instream
flows, and other management programs as needed.
6. Regulate reservoir water levels.
Evaluate the tradeoffs among various user groups under
different flow scenarios with an integrated model
utilizing data on the water requirements for irrigation,
recreation, and fisheries. The model should be used to
determine reservoir operations that have the least
effect on beneficial uses and the most benefit across
the broadest array of uses.
7. Develop a stream corridor management plan.
Utilize existing information on channel instability due
to natural and man-made events, riparian land uses,
riparian vegetation, sediment transport, and hydrologic
data to prepare a stream corridor management plan for
the Clark Fork Basin. The plan should involve local,
state, and federal agencies, other interested parties,
and landowners and should provide for long-term
management programs to protect agricultural lands,
enhance water quality, and protect and enhance fish and
wildlife habitat. The plan shouid identify funding
requirements and sources, and outline an implementation
schedule.
8. Improve physical habitat for aquatic life.
a. Commission a bottom-contour map of the Noxon Rapids
and Cabinet Gorge reservoirs to aid in fisheries
management of the reservoirs. The map should
include depth contours at least down to the level
of maximum drawdown to assist fisheries and
reservoir managers to minimize effects on fisheries
and optimize biological production.
b. The DFWP should work with sportsmen's groups and
the Washington Water Power Company to develop and
evaluate artificial structures in the reservoir to
create fish habitat and substrates for macro-
invertebrates .
5-26
9. Complete fish population analysis for the upper Clark
Fork.
The DFWP should complete the analysis, interpretation,
and publication of fish population data collected in
1987, as this is the most complete population inventory
ever attempted on the Clark Fork. The data analysis
should be made available to all interested parties.
Recreation
The Clark Fork Basin offers many exceptional recrea-
tional opportunities. The river and its tributaries are a
focal point for many forms of recreation ranging from
waterfront parks in Missoula to Whitewater rafting in
Alberton Gorge.
Many individuals and groups have urged the state to more
actively promote recreation and tourism as a means to
diversify the basin's economy. Many private and public
facilities exist to meet recreational needs, but it is
unknown if appropriate facilities are available for future
needs .
Federal, state, and local government agencies, and
universities should work to evaluate recreation needs and to
formulate plans for improved recreational opportunities. The
following agencies should be involved in this planning
effort: Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Department
of Commerce, U.S. Forest Service; U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, and Bonneville Power Administration. Local,
city, and county planning groups, and representatives of
Washington Water Power and Montana Power Company should be an
integral part of this overall planning effort.
The Montana university system has the potential to
contribute expertise to this planning effort. The private
and public organizations should work with the universities to
develop this plan.
The following strategies are recommended for recreation
issues in the basin.
1. Conduct a comprehensive survey of recreation use.
Conduct a comprehensive analysis of all active and
passive recreational uses in the basin, especially those
closely associated with the river and its tributaries.
The analysis should include a study of aesthetics, a
discussion of outcome domains (why recreationists visit
5-27
the Clark Fork, what they are seeking from their ^
experience, why they do not go to the mainstem, how the
mainstem compares to their other favorite streams,
etc.)/ ^nd a discussion of existing uses and facilities
and future needs. Ideally, this survey would be coor-
dinated with a similar survey on Lake Pend Oreille in
Idaho.
Develop and implement a basinwide recreation plan.
a. Utilize the recreation survey data to plan for the
long-term recreational needs of the basin. The
plan should consider and provide for such activi-
ties and facilities as fishing access areas, RV
parks, camping, parks for the handicapped, nature
trails, bicycle paths, canoe pull-outs, boat ramps,
fishing, and other water-based recreation facili-
ties.
b. Evaluate and encourage opportunities for special
community activities associated with the riverfront
in communities along the Clark Fork. Local govern-
ments, public interest groups, and recreation plan-
ners should convene workshops and public
information sessions to identify and encourage
appropriate recreational and waterfront development
programs.
Program planning and site development will require major
investments. A variety of funding sources should be
considered, including special revenues from gasoline sales,
fishing licenses, bed taxes, state land lease fees, and tax
on recreational equipment, and grants-in-aid from interested
parties or businesses that would benefit from such efforts. ''
Water Management Issues
Water Rights
Effective management of water resources in the Clark
Fork Basin in the coming years depends greatly on the
resolution of a number of water rights issues. Chief among
these is making a determination of the physical and legal
availability of water in the basin. This determination
cannot be made until the status of large hydropower
companies' water rights is decided and an accurate adjudi-
cation is completed. Other issues include the water rights
of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, new water use
permits, and water allocation alternatives. The following
actions are recommended:
5-28
1. Determine the status of large hydropower water rights.
Determine the status of WWP's total water right (claim
for 35,000 cfs and provisional permit for 15,000 cfs) at
Noxon Rapids. If the Water Court decides that WWPs '
claimed rights are accurate, and if WWP chooses to
exercise its right to object to new uses on the basis
of adverse effects, then little or no water may be
available to upstream users for appropriation in most
years (without storage) . This information is essential
for existing and prospective water users to assess the
impacts of new water use permits on the availability of
water.
2. Determine the physical and legal availability of water
in the basin.
Complete the water availability analysis. DNRC and
other cooperators (WWP, BOR, MPC, MSU) are currently
conducting a study to determine whether hydropower
interests have been or would be unreasonably affected by
the granting of additional provisional water use
permits. Once this water availability analysis is
complete, it may be possible to reach a mutually
acceptable decision regarding the physical and legal
availability of water in the basin.
3. Complete an accurate adjudication in the Clark Fork
Basin.
The adjudication will establish the owner and amount of
the water right, the priority date, the point of
diversion, and the place of use. This is important
because present information suggests irrigation claims
made to the Water Court may be inflated. If adjudicated
as claimed, this could have a significant effect on the
legal availability and future use of surface water in
the basin.
4. Encourage settlement of the reserved water right of the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes.
Determine the extent of the aboriginal fishing and
cultural water rights claimed by the Confederated Salish
and Kootenai Tribes in the Flathead Basin. The BIA has
submitted claims, on behalf of the tribes, for water
rights and instream flows on streams in the Flathead
system. These issues could affect water availability
for new uses in the Clark Fork Basin.
5-29
5. Seek legislation for a moratorium on issuing new water
use permits.
Seek legislation for a moratorium on new water use
permits (for purposes other than rural, domestic, and
small quantity industrial uses) until some of the issues
surrounding the physical and legal availability of water
in the Clark Fork Basin are resolved. The legislation
should specify a certain size limit for these uses that
would allow individuals to meet their needs.
6. Formulate water allocation alternatives.
a. Develop a mechanism to deal with water needs should
a decision be made to close the Clark Fork Basin
to new water use permits.
b. Examine alternatives or options such as interbasin
exchanges, free market exchange, and reallocation
of hydropower water rights. WWP has expressed a
willingness to participate in the exploration of
alternative allocations. Institutional barriers to
these options should be addressed.
7. Improve public information on water rights.
Develop a program to increase awareness of water rights
procedures and issues in the Clark Fork Basin.
Instream Flow
Instream flow reservations are needed in the Clark Fork
Basin to maintain fish and other living organisms, to protect
water quality and domestic water supplies, and to enhance
aesthetic qualities. Instream flows are a partial solution
to the dewatering problem. However, because instream flow
rights cannot affect senior diversionary water rights, they
only preserve the status quo of stream depletion. They do
not prevent dewatering, but can reduce future demands on the
streams once the rights are acquired. Rewatering of streams
that have severe flow problems can only be accomplished
through new strategies, such as purchasing and leasing senior
water rights, building new storage projects, and conserving
water to free up additional water for instream uses. Some of
these strategies will require new legislation, but if they
can be implemented, they will help improve the stream
fisheries as well as their recreational and aesthetic values.
5-30
The following actions are recoiimiended :
1. Encourage the city of Missoula to file an instream flow
reservation in the Clark Fork.
Encourage the city of Missoula to file an instream flow
reservation application to protect flows in the Clark
Fork that recharge the Missoula Aquifer. The Clark Fork
provides approximately 46 percent of the annual recharge
to the aquifer, which supplies drinking water for
Missoula residents and water for two municipal systems,
many small community systems, several large industrial
users, and private well owners. It would therefore be
in the best interest of the city to protect instream
flows in the Clark Fork.
2. Encourage others to seek instream flow reservations in
remaining portions of the basin.
Seek instream flow reservations in the middle and lower
Clark Fork and tributaries. Although instream flow
reservation applications have been made by DFWP for the
upper Clark Fork and its tributaries, there have been
no such reservation applications for the remaining
portions of the basin. It is important to the future of
the Clark Fork that agencies such as DFWP, USES, BLM,
DHES, and others file reservation applications.
3. Seek legislation to allow purchase of water rights.
a. Seek legislation to allow agencies to purchase
water rights for instream uses in areas where
instream flow reservations cannot be met because of
current flow regimes. In this case, there has to
be a willing buyer and a willing seller, and the
transfer must satisfy the criteria under Montana
law. The transfer cannot adversely affect any
existing water users.
b. Seek legislation to allow the state to buy or lease
senior water rights to use instream and to transfer
water conserved through increased efficiency to
instream use with compensation to the owner. This
is the only way water can be obtained from senior
right holders. This would be extremely important
for instream flow protection in dewatered streams
that are over-appropriated.
5-31
4. Evaluate the feasibility of new water storage projects in
the upper basin.
A detailed study of the upper basin hydrology should be
conducted to identify potential water storage sites.
Control and storage of high spring flows would be a
useful means to maintain instream flows and alleviate
water shortages. As the cost of water increases with
increased demand, water storage becomes more feasible.
Land and Water Use Inventory
Management decisions regarding water resources in the
Clark Fork Basin are hampered by, among other things, the
lack of an up-to-date land use data base and the lack of
coordination in ground water and surface water permitting
processes. Recommendations to address these issues are:
Update land use data in the Clark Fork Basin.
Facilitate future water management decisions by
maintaining an accurate, up-to-date land use data base
in the Clark Fork Basin. For example, estimates of
irrigated acres in the basin (given in this report)
range from 230,000 to 400,000. No one knows how much
land is actually under irrigation. Ideally, the data
base would be updated yearly in a consistent manner and
the data would be made widely available. This could be
coupled with an analysis of potential future water uses
and needs, so that the trade-offs and implications of
current actions are more fully understood.
Initiate conjunctive management of surface and ground
water.
a. The DNRC should identify those areas in the Clark
Fork Basin where surface water-ground water
relationships need to be defined. The DNRC should
also identify the analytical tools needed to
evaluate ground water use impacts on surface flow.
Areas where future development may occur should be
given a high priority. The priority site list
should be used to establish funding directives for
research in the basin.
5-32
b. The DNRC should consider modifying its administra-
tive structure to allow for a unified surface and
ground water permitting system. Such a modifi-
cation is needed to provide for integrated,
conjunctive management of ground and surface
waters. The Clark Fork Basin is an area that
would benefit from this change.
Natural Resource Damages Claim
In December 1980 President Carter signed into law the
Superfund legislation to provide for liability compensation,
cleanup, and emergency response for hazardous substances
released into the environment and for the cleanup of inactive
waste disposal sites.
Liability under Section 107 of the Act not only provided
for cleanup of hazardous waste sites, but extended to damages
for injury to and destruction of natural resources, including
the costs of assessing such damages. Section 107 provides
that, after deduction of the State's costs, all such damages
recovered from responsible parties are to be deposited into a
trust fund for the restoration or replacement of lost
resource value. The Montana Legislature, in adopting the
Montana "Mini Superfund" law, also included a course of
action under state law for assessing natural resource damage
claims.
In 1983 Montana officials recognized the magnitude and
complexity of the Butte/Anaconda site and the fact that
federal funding was not available to assist in assessing the
damages. Because substantial natural resource losses have
occurred and are continuing to occur, the state filed a claim
against Anaconda Minerals Company/ARCO in December 198 3 in
U.S. District Court. The claim addresses the entire Clark
Fork watershed upstream from the Milltown Dam at Bonner. As
required by the 1986 amendment to Superfund, Montana's
Governor has now appointed certain state officials as
trustees who have the obligation to assess and pursue natural
resource damage claims.
In 1987 the Montana Legislature appropriated funds from
the Resource Indemnity Trust Fund to pursue the natural
resources damage assessment for the Clark Fork sites and any
other potential sites. Their action was taken with the
expectation that the State's claims could begin to be
coordinated with any ongoing Superfund investigations.
5-33
The following actions are recommended:
The State of Montana and the Legislature should continue
to support aggressive pursuit of the natural resource damages
claim to assure appropriate compensation to the state from
responsible parties. It is essential that the State fully
utilize the opportunities provided by Superfund legislation
both to eliminate the hazardous waste sites and recoup the
value of lost or injured resources. Funds recovered under
this authority will be placed in trust and used to restore
the full resource potential of the Clark Fork Basin.
Program Implementation and Continuity
During the past four years, the Clark Fork Basin has
been the focus of many agency activities. The Clark Fork
Basin Project initiated by Governor Schwinden has worked to
coordinate these activities and to formulate an action plan
for the future. The completion of this report concludes the
Clark Fork Basin Project, but it should also signal the
beginning of a new effort to implement the project recommen-
dations. It is essential to maintain the continuity of
agency activities to assure progress in pollution abatement
and water resource management.
Three organizational structures were presented in the
draft report (continue the Clark Fork Basin Project, create <
Clark Fork Basin Commission, and create an interstate basin
organization) . Strong support was voiced for the continua-
tion of the Clark Fork Basin Project in the Governor's
Office. The following program is recommended:
1. Continue the project in the Governor's Office as it has
been structured in the past. A Clark Fork Basin Project
coordinator, whose primary responsibility is the Clark
Fork Project, would serve as chairman of the Interagency
Task Force and the Citizen's Advisory Council. Objec-
tives of the project would be to:
a. Maintain a high level of communication with govern-
ment agencies, public interest groups, and the
general public.
b. Work with legislators and agency administrators to
ensure that actions recommended by this report and
other investigations are implemented.
c. Seek funding to implement the recommended programs.
5-34
d. Initiate and promote an interstate (Montana, Idaho,
and Washington) basin program to encourage basin-
wide coordination of water resource management
issues of regional importance.
e. Maintain coordination and cooperation of divergent
regulatory authorities and other interested parties
with responsibilities for resource protection and
management .
f. Continue to seek new approaches to government
regulation that will reduce conflict and improve
efficiency.
g. Conduct special projects as recommended by the task
force.
5-35
REFERENCES CITED
Andrews, E.D. 1987. Longitudinal dispersion of trace metals
in the Clark Fork River, Montana. Chemical quality of
water and the hydrologic cycle, edited by R.C. Averett
and D.M. McKnight. Chapter 11. Lewis Publishers, Inc.
Chelsea, Michigan.
ASARCO, Inc. 1987. Application for an operating permit for
the Rock Creek Project. Submitted to the Department of
State Lands. Helena, Montana.
Averett, R.C. 1961. Macroinvertebrates of the Clark Fork
River, Montana, a pollution study. Water Pollution
Control Report 61-1. Montana State Board of Health and
Montana Department of Fish and Game. Helena, Montana.
27 pp.
Bahls, L.L. 1987. Periphyton community structure in the
Clark Fork River and its tributaries. Summer 1987.
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences-Water
Quality Bureau. Helena, Montana.
Berg, R.K. 1983. Middle Missouri River planning project.
Job Progress Report, Federal Aid to Fish and Wildlife
Rest. Project No. FW-3-R-11. Job 1-A. Department of
Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Great Falls, Montana. 30 pp.
1984. Trout heaven. Montana Outdoors, Sept. /Oct. :
27-30.
1986a. Middle Clark Fork River fishery monitoring
study: Evaluation of the effects of pulp and paper mill
effluents on the fish population. Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks. Missoula, Montana.
1986b. Lower Clark Fork Basin investigations. Job
Progress Report, Federal Aid to Fish and Wildlife Rest.
Project No. F-37-R-1. 39 pp. Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks. Missoula, Montana.
Beuerman, D. , and R. Gleason. 1978. Water quality of the
Silver Bow Creek drainage; heavy metals and nutrients.
Project 0662. Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences-Water Quality Bureau. Helena, Montana.
R-1
Bionomics. 1978. The effects of a treated copper mining,
milling and smelting effluent on rainbow trout (Sajjno
gairdneri) and the water flea (Daphnia magna) during
partial chronic and chronic exposure. Report BW-78-2-
040. Prepared for the Anaconda Company. Butte,
Montana. 30 pp.
Bionomics. 1979. The effects of continuous exposure to a
treated mining/smelting effluent on selected aquatic
organisms. Report BW-79-8-531. Prepared for the
Anaconda Company. Butte, Montana. 29 pp.
Boettcher, A.J. 1982. Ground-water resources in the central
part of the Flathead Indian Reservation, Northwestern
Montana. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology. Memoir
48. Butte, Montana. 28 pp.
Boettcher, A.J., and A.W. Gosling. 1977. Water resources of
the Clark Fork Basin upstream from St. Regis, Montana.
U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 104. Prepared by U.S.
Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology. Butte, Montana.
Bohn, H.L., B.L. McNeal, and G.A. O'Connor. 1979. Soil
chemistry. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, New
York.
Bonneville Power Administration. 1985. Sales statistics for
western Montana. Unpublished data. Bonneville Power
Administration. Portland, Oregon.
Botz, M.K. 1969. Hydrogeology of the upper Silver Bow Creek
drainage area, Montana. Montana Bureau of Mines and
Geology Bulletin 75. Butte, Montana.
Botz, M.K., and G.L. Knudson. 1970. Hydrogeology of the
Berkeley Pit area. Part I, the alluvium. Report to the
Anaconda Minerals Company Mining Research Department.
Butte , Montana .
Botz, M.K., and R.W. Karp. 1979. Examination of factors
influencing water quality in the upper Clark Fork River
system. Prepared by Westech for the Anaconda Copper
Company . Butte , Montana .
Braico, R.D. 1973. Dissolved oxygen and temperature diurnal
variations in the Clark Fork River between Deer Lodge
and Superior, Montana, for the period August 2-3, 1973.
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences-Water
Quality Bureau. Helena, Montana.
R-2
Brook, E.J., and J.N. Moore. Unpublished manuscript.
Distribution and particle-size control of metals in bed
sediment from the Clark Fork River, Montana, USA.
University of Montana, Missoula.
Brooks, R. 1988. Distribution and concentration of metals
in sediments and water in the Clark Fork River flood-
plain, Montana. M.S. Thesis. University of Montana,
Missoula. 105 pp.
Brosten, T.M. , and M.A. Jacobson. 1985. Historical water
quality data for the Clark Fork (River) and the mouths
of selected tributaries. Western Montana. U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey Open-File Report 85-168. Helena, Montana.
Brown, C.J.D. 1971. Fishes of Montana. Endowment and
Research Foundation, Montana State University. Bozeman,
Montana. 207 pp.
Buck, F.E., H.L. Bille, C.F. Heidel, and A.D. McDermott.
1959. Water resources survey, Powell County, Montana.
State Engineer's Office. Helena, Montana.
Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs. 1985.
Comprehensive review report. Flathead Indian Irriga-
tion Project. Executive summary, Volume 1 of 3.
Prepared at the direction of Secretary of the Interior.
Bureau of Reclamation. 1987. Assessment '87: A new
direction for the Bureau of Reclamation. Report to
Donald Hodel , Secretary of the Interior, from the
Assistant Secretary for Water and Sciences.
1988. Future irrigation alternatives special
hydrology report. Clark Fork River Basin studies.
Boise, Idaho.
Cable Mountain Mine, Inc. 1988. Operating permit applica-
tion for the Cable Mountain Mine. Submitted to the
Department of State Lands. Helena, Montana.
Caciari, M. , and V. Watson. Metal speciation modeling of
the upper Clark Fork River. University of Montana,
Missoula. (In review) .
Calhoun, A.J. 1966. Inland fisheries management. Cali-
fornia Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento,
California. 546 pp.
R-3
Camp, Dresser and McKee. 1987. Preliminary water balance
for the Berkeley Pit and related underground workings.
Draft report to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Helena, Montana.
1988a. Preliminary analysis of aqueous geochemistry
in the Berkeley Pit. Draft report to the Environmental
Protection Agency. Helena, Montana.
1988b. Preliminary evaluation of flooding in the
West Camp area mine workings. Draft report to Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Helena, Montana.
1988c. Engineering evaluation and cost analysis for
West Camp mine flooding project. Silver Bow Creek/Butte
site. Report to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Helena, Montana.
Canton, S.P., and J. W. Chadwick. 1985. The aquatic
invertebrates of the upper Clark Fork River, 1972-1984.
In Proceedings of the Clark Fork River Symposium, edited
by C.E. Carlson and L.L. Bahls. Montana Academy of
Sciences, Montana College of Mineral Science and
Technology. Butte, Montana.
Casne, E.W., M.K. Botz, and M. Pasichnyk. 1975. Water
quality inventory and management plan, upper Clark Fork
Basin, Montana. Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences-Water Quality Bureau. Helena, Montana.
Chadwick, J. W. , S.P. Canton, and R.L. Dent. 1986. Recovery
of benthic invertebrate communities in Silver Bow Creek,
Montana, following improved metal and mine wastewater
treatment. Water, Air and Soil "Pollution 28:427-4 38.
CH2M Hill. 1983. Remedial action master plan. Silver Bow,
Montana. Prepared for the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VIII. Denver, Colorado.
1987a. Assessment of the toxicity of arsenic,
cadmium, lead and zinc in soil, plants and livestock in
the East Helena Valley of Montana. REM IV report of the
East Helena site (ASARCO) . Prepared for the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Helena, Montana.
1987b. Assessment of the toxicity of copper,
mercury, selenium, silver and thallium in soil, plants
and livestock in the East Helena Valley of Montana. REM
IV report of the East Helena site (ASARCO) . Prepared
for the Environmental Protection Agency. Helena,
Montana.
R-4
1987c. Silver Bow Creek RI/FS. Tailings study
operations plan for the streambank tailings and
revegetation study. Prepared by Schafer and Associates
and the Montana State University Reclamation Research
Unit for the Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Helena, Montana.
1987d. Silver Bow Creek RI/FS. Field operations
plan for the Warm Springs Treatment Ponds investiga-
tions. Prepared for the Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences-Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau.
Helena, Montana.
_ 1988a. Silver Bow Creek RI/FS. Unpublished Phase II
RI data for the Warm Springs Ponds (internal report) .
Prepared for the Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences-Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau. Helena,
Montana.
1988b. Silver Bow Creek Flood Modeling Study. Draft
report for the Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences-Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau. Helena,
Montana.
Clark, K.W. 1986. Interactions between the Clark Fork River
and Missoula Aquifer, Missoula County, Montana. M.S.
Thesis. University of Montana, Missoula. 157 pp.
Coffin, D.L., and K.R Wilkie. 1971. Water resources of the
upper Blackfoot River Valley, west-central Montana.
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
Technical Report Series, No. 1. 82 pp.
Deer Lodge Valley Conservation District, Board of Super-
visors. 1982. Deer Lodge Valley Conservation District
long-range program. Deer Lodge, Montana.
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1981. Montana
recommendations for fish and wildlife program. Prepared
by Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Con-
federated Salish and Kootenai Tribes for the Pacific
Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning
Council. 123 pp.
1986. Application for reservations of water in the
upper Clark Fork River Basin. Submitted to the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Conservation by the
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Helena,
Montana.
R-5
1988a. Unpublished data. Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks. Missoula, Montana.
1988b. "On Common Ground" (a leaflet describing
the study of economic values of hunting and fishing in
Montana) . Helena, Montana.
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. 1974.
Environmental impact statement for the proposed
expansion of the Hoerner Waldorf Pulp Mill at Missoula,
Montana. Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences-Air Quality Bureau. Helena, Montana.
1985. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Champion International Frenchtown Mill Discharge Permit
MT-0000035. Helena, Montana.
1986. Montana Water Quality 1986. The 1986 Montana
305 (b) Report. Prepared by the Department of Health
and Environmental Sciences-Water Quality Bureau.
Helena, Montana.
1988a. Administrative Rules of Montana Title 16,
Chapter 20, Water Quality. Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences-Water Quality Bureau. Helena,
Montana.
1988b. Water Quality Bureau Records. Helena,
Montana.
1988c. Nonpoint sources of water pollution in
Montana. Draft Section 319 Nonpoint Source Assessment
Report and Draft Montana Nonpoint Source Pollution
Management Program. May 1988. "Prepared by the
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences-Water
Quality Bureau with assistance from the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation.
1988d. Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau Records.
Helena, Montana.
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 1977.
State water conservation projects. Prepared by
the Engineering Bureau, Water Resources Division.
Helena, Montana.
1985. Water Rights Bureau basin analysis, Columbia
River Basin. Helena, Montana.
1986. Montana Water Use in 1980. Helena, Montana.
R-6
1988a. Upper Clark Fork Basin Water Reservations
Proceedings. Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation.
Helena, Montana.
1988b. Water Rights Records. Water Rights Bureau.
Helena, Montana.
Land Classification System Database (various years) .
Water Resources Division. Helena, Montana.
Department of State Lands. 1988. Hard Rock Bureau
Records. Helena, Montana.
Diebold, F.E. 1974. Influence of industrial, municipal, and
private wastes on water quality of a portion of the
upper Clark Fork River drainage — a reconnaissance study.
Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology in
cooperation with the Department of Health and Environ-
mental Sciences and the Anaconda Company. Butte,
Montana .
Donovan, J.J. 1985. Hydrogeology and geothermal resources
of the Little Bitterroot Valley, northwestern Montana.
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Memoir 58. Butte,
Montana. 60 pp.
Duaime, T.E., and H.R. Moore. 1985. Final report: Baseline
monitoring-Butte-Silver Bow's metro sewer sludge
injection site. Silver Bow, Montana. Prepared by the
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology for the Metro Sewer
Plant. Butte, Montana.
Duaime, T.E., R.N. Bergantino, and H.R. Moore. 1987.
Hydrogeology of the Colorado Tailings, Butte, Montana.
Draft final report prepared by the Montana Bureau of
Mines and Geology for the Department of State Lands.
Helena, Montana.
Duf field, J. 1981. A preliminary estimate of the value of
recreational use on the upper Clark Fork and its
tributaries. Report to the Department of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks. Helena, Montana. 60 pp.
Duf field, J., J. Loomis, and R. Brooks. 1987. The net
economic value of fishing in Montana. Department of
Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Helena, Montana. 59 pp.
Elliott, J.C. 1986. Irrigated land assessment of the upper
Clark Fork drainage. Submitted to the Department of
Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Helena, Montana.
R-7
Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. A water quality
study of the upper Clark Fork River and selected tribu-
taries. Region VIII, Denver, Colorado.
1974. Clark Fork River study, Montana, July-August,
1973. Region VIII. Denver, Colorado.
1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes. EPA 600/4-79-020. Revised March 1983.
1985a. Water Quality Criteria Documents. Federal
Register Vol. 50: 30784. July 29, 1985.
1985b. Final report on the federal/state/local
nonpoint source task force and recommended national
nonpoint source policy. Prepared by the Environmental
Protection Agency for the nonpoint source task force.
1986a. Maximum contaminant levels (Subpart B of
Part 141, National Primary Drinking-Water Regulations):
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Parts 100 to
149, revised July 1, 1987. Washington D.C. pp. 530.
1986b. National Secondary Drinking-Water Regula-
tions: U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40,
Parts 100 to 149, revised July 1, 1987. pp. 592-593.
1986c. Quality criteria for water 1986.
EPA 440/5-86-001.
1987a. Water Quality Criteria Documents. Federal
Register Vol. 52: 6213. March 2, 1987.
1987b. An assessment of the sources and affects of
the pollution of the Clark Fork River and Lake Pend
Oreille. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Research Laboratory. Duluth, Minnesota.
1987c. Nonpoint source guidance. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Water. Washington, D.C.
1988. Environmental Protection Agency and Depart-
ment of Health and Environmental Sciences. Clark Fork
Superfund Master Plan. Helena, Montana.
Environmental Quality Council. 1988. House Joint Resolution
49: Forest practices and watershed effects. Draft
report. November 7, 1988.
R-8
Falter, CM., and J. Kann. 1987. Attached benthic algae
(periphyton) in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho. Department of
Fish and Wildlife Resources. College of Forestry,
University of Idaho, Moscow. 32 pp.
Fenderson, C.N. 1958. Brown trout, Salmo trutta Linnaeus.
Fishes of Maine, 2nd Edition. Edited by W.H. Everhart.
pp. 34-37.
Fitz, D. 1980. Water availability in the Clark Fork River
Basin. Memorandum to Rich Moy and Gary Fritz, Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Conservation, September 2,
1980. Helena, Montana.
Frank, M.D., B.R. Beattie, and C.R. Taylor. 1984. Economics
of water marketing options for Montana. Department of
Agricultural Economics and Economics. Montana State
University. Bozeman, Montana. 21 pp.
Gaffney, J.J. 1956. A survey of the fishery resource in a
section of the Clark Fork River in western Montana.
Progress report Project no. 29-E-l, Montana Fish and
Game Department. Helena, Montana. 12 pp. mimeo.
Geldon, A.L. 1979. Hydrogeology and water resources of the
Missoula Basin, Montana. M.S. Thesis. University of
Montana, Missoula. 114 pp.
Gless, E.E. 1973. Influence of industrial, municipal and
private wastes on water quality of a portion of the
upper Clark Fork River drainage — a reconnaissance study.
Ecological studies of Silver Bow and Blacktail creeks
and upper Clark Fork River: Silver Bow, Powell and Deer
Lodge counties. Prepared by the Montana College of
Mineral Science and Technology for the Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences. Butte, Montana.
34 pp.
Graham, P.J., D.A. Hanzel, and R.E. Schumacher. 1980.
Kokanee management in the Flathead system. Department
of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Kalispell, Montana.
Graham, P. 1986. Pacific Northwest rivers study assessment
guidelines, Montana. Department of Fish, Wildlife and
Parks. Helena, Montana.
Greene, J.C., M. Long, C.L. Bartels, and J.U. Nwosu. 1986.
Results of algal assays performed on waters collected
from Silver Bow Creek, the Warm Springs Ponds and the
upper Clark Fork River: May 10-16, 1985. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Corvallis, Oregon.
R-9
Hagmann, C. 1979. Recreational use of the upper Clark Fork
River and its tributaries. Wilderness Institute,
Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station.
University of Montana. Missoula, Montana. 92 pp.
Hartman, G.F., T.G. Northcote, and C.C. Lindsey. 1962. Com-
parison of inlet and outlet spawning runs of rainbow
trout in Loon Lake, British Columbia. J. Fish. Res. Bd.
Can. 19(2) :173-200.
Haywood, J.K. 1907. Injury to vegetation and animal life by
smelter fumes. Journal of American Chemical Society
29:998-1009.
1910. Injury to vegetation and animal life by
smelter wastes. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau
of Chemistry. Bulletin No. 113 (Revised) . Washington,
D.C.
Hilander, S., ed. 1988. Here's to the rivers! Montana
Outdoors. 19(3): 19-30.
Holnbeck, S. 1988. Investigation of water availability for
Clark Fork Basin above Noxon Rapids Dam. Prepared for
the Water Management Bureau and the Water Rights Bureau.
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Water
Resources Division. Helena, Montana.
Hornig, C.E., and S. Hornig. 1985. Macroinvertebrate
communities of the Clark Fork River, 1984-1985. In
Champion International Frenchtown Mill Discharge Permit,
Vol. II, edited by G.L. Ingman. Department of Health
and Environmental Sciences. MT-0000035.
Horstman, M.C. 1984. Historical events associated with the
upper Clark Fork Drainage. Prepared for the Department
of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Helena, Montana.
Hubbs, C.L., and K.F. Lagler. 1970. Fishes of the Great
Lakes region. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor,
Michigan. 213 pp.
Hydrometrics. 1980. Hydrology investigation of Area 41A.
Report to the Anaconda Minerals Company. Butte,
Montana .
1983a. Summit and Deer Lodge valleys long term
environmental rehabilitation study, Butte-Anaconda,
Montana. Volume 1, Project Summary. Prepared for the
Anaconda Minerals Company. Helena, Montana.
R-10
1983b. Summit and Deer Lodge valleys long term
environmental rehabilitation study, Butte-Anaconda,
Montana. Volume X, Clark Fork River. Prepared for
the Anaconda Minerals Company. Helena, Montana.
1983c. Summit and Deer Lodge valleys long term
environmental rehabilitation study, Butte-Anaconda,
Montana. Volume VII, Warm Springs Ponds. Prepared for
the Anaconda Minerals Company. Helena, Montana.
1987. Summary of drilling, testing, and sampling
three monitoring wells at the Milltown Dam site,
Prepared for the Montana Power Company. Butte, Montana.
lECO. 1981. Geotechnical and hydrologic studies. Warm
Springs Tailings Ponds, Anaconda, Montana. Prepared for
the Anaconda Minerals Company. Butte, Montana.
Ingman, G.L. 1985. Data report — lower Clark Fork River
water quality monitoring 1984-1985. Vol. I: chemical,
physical and biological data. Vol. II: special
studies. Champion International Frenchtown Mill
Discharge Permit, MT-0000035. Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences. Helena, Montana.
Ingman, G.L. 1987. Clark Fork River Basin Water Quality
Monitoring Project RIT-86-8503. Completion Report and
Final Data Summary. Prepared for the RIT program,
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation.
Helena, Montana.
Institute of Paper Chemistry. 1957 through 1984 (annual
reports) . Benthic invertebrate water quality surveys of
the Clark Fork River in the vicinity of Missoula,
Montana. Project 1980. Prepared for the Stone
Container Corporation (and its predecessors) . Missoula,
Montana .
1962. A summary of the biological studies of the
Clark Fork River in the vicinity of Missoula, Montana,
for the years 1956-61. Project 1980. Prepared for
the Waldorf Paper Products Co. 77 pp.
Janik, J.J., and S.M. Melancon. 1982. Site specific water
quality assessment. Silver Bow Creek and Clark Fork,
Montana. EPA 600/X-83-003 . Las Vegas, Nevada.
R-11
Johns, C, and J. N. Moore. 1985. Copper, zinc and arsenic
in bottom sediments of Clark Fork River reservoirs —
preliminary findings. In Proceedings of the Clark Fork
River Symposium, edited by C.E. Carlson and L.L. Bahls.
Montana Academy of Sciences, Montana College of Mineral
Science and Technology. Butte, Montana.
1986. Metals in bottom sediments of lower Clark
Fork River reservoirs. Final report submitted to the
Montana Water Resources Research Center, Bozeman,
Montana .
Johnson, C. 1983. The forest products industry and the
Montana economy. Montana Business Quarterly 21(4):3-12.
Johnson, H.E., and K. Knudson. 1985. Work Plan-Clark Fork
River/Lake Pend Oreille Basin Project. Governor's
Office. Helena, Montana.
Juday, R.E., and E.J. Keller. 1978. Missoula Valley water
study, chemical section. University of Montana.
Missoula, Montana. Unpublished.
Keegan, C. E. Ill, and P.E. Polzin. 1987. Trends in the
wood and paper products industry and the impact on the
economy of the Pacific Northwest. Montana Business
Quarterly 25(4): 2-7.
Kerr, M.A. 1987. Dissolved oxygen in the Clark Fork River
near the Missoula wastewater treatment plant and Stone
Container Corporation, July 8-9 and August 5-6, 1986.
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences-Water
Quality Bureau. Helena, Montana .-
Kicklighter, D.W. 1987. Effects of kraft mill effluent
on riffle community metabolism in a large river. M.S.
Thesis. University of Montana, Missoula.
Knudson, K. 1984. A preliminary assessment of impacts to
the fishery-upper Clark Fork River, Montana. Prepared
for the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Helena,
Montana. 30 pp.
1987. A suggested approach for controlling
nonpoint pollution caused by logging and road building
activities in Montana. Volume I. Rationale for changes
to existing policies and programs. Prepared for the
Clark Fork Coalition by Ecological Resource Consulting,
Helena, Montana.
R-12
1988. Draft proposed best management practices
and regulating program for logging and road building
activities in Montana. Prepared for the Clark Fork
Coalition and the National Wildlife Federation by
Ecological Resource Consulting. Helena, Montana.
Knudson, K. , and K. Hill. 1978. An investigation to define
minimum streamflows necessary to sustain the fish and
wildlife resources of the upper Clark Fork River.
Baseline nutrient, diel dissolved oxygen, and algal
accrual studies during 1976-77 and a review of previous
investigations. Montana Department of Fish and Game.
Helena, Montana. 42 pp.
Konizeski, R.L. , M.G. McMurtrey, and A. Brietkrietz. 1968.
Geology and ground-water resources of the Deer Lodge
Valley, Montana. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply
Paper 1862. 55 pp.
Lambing, J.H. 1987. Water quality data for the Clark Fork
and selected tributaries from Deer Lodge to Milltown,
Montana, March 1985 through June 1986. U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 87-110. 48 pp.
1988. Water quality data (July 1986 through
September 1987) and statistical summaries (March 1985
through September 1987) for the Clark Fork and selected
tributaries from Deer Lodge to Missoula, Montana. U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-308. 55 pp.
Lazorchak, J. 1986. Report on findings of acute and chronic
Ceriodaphnia toxicity tests of the upper Clark Fork
River and Silver Bow Creek Superfund sites. Memorandum
to Lee Shanklin dated February 10, 1986. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region VIII. Denver, Colorado.
Liebelt, J. 1970. Studies on the behavior and life history
of the mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni-
Girard) . Ph.D. Dissertation. Montana State University.
Bozeman, Montana. 45 pp.
Luoma, S.N. 1988. Objectives of project research in Clark
Fork Basin. Memorandum to Howard Johnson, Governor's
Office, State of Montana. September 1988.
Mackay, H.H. 1963. Fishes of Ontario. The Bryant Press
Ltd. Toronto, Ontario. 300 pp.
Malouf, C. 1974. Economy and land use by the Indians of
western Montana. U.S.A. In: Interior Salish and
Eastern Washington Indians II. Garland Publishing. New
York, New York.
R-13
1975. Testimony given in U.S. Fourth District
Court, Montana vs. Lass Stasso. Cause No. 777. January
27, Missoula, Montana.
Malouf, R.T. 1979. Camas and the Flathead Indians of
Montana. Contributions to Anthropology. No. 7.
Department of Anthropology. University of Montana.
Missoula, Montana. 69 pp.
McFarland, R. 1988. Montana fisheries survey results.
Unpublished data. Department of Fish, Wildlife and
Parks . Bozeman , Montana .
McGuire, D.L. 1987. Clark Fork River macroinvertebrate
study, 1986. Prepared for the Governor's Office and
the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences-
Water Quality Bureau. Helena, Montana.
1988. A synopsis of Clark Fork River macroinver-
tebrate studies through 1986 and a proposed long-term
macroinvertebrate monitoring program. Prepared for
the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences-
Water Quality Bureau. Helena, Montana.
McMullin, S.L. , and P.J. Graham. 1981. Impacts of Hungry
Horse Dam on kokanee in the Flathead River. Department
of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Kalispell, Montana.
McMurtrey, R.G., R.L. Konizeski, and A. Brietkrietz. 1965.
Geology and groundwater resources of the Missoula Basin,
Montana. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin
47. Butte, Montana. 35 pp. i
!
McMurtrey, R.G., R.L. Konizeski, M.V". Johnson, and J.H.
Bartells. 1972. Geology and water resources of the
Bitterroot Valley, southwestern Montana. U.S.
Geological Survey Water-supply Paper 1889. 80 pp.
Meinzer, O.E. 1914. The water resources of Butte, Montana.
U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 345-G. pp.
79-125.
Missoula City-County Health Department. 1987. Sole source
aquifer petition for the Missoula Valley aquifer.
Environmental Health Division. Missoula, Montana.
Montana Department of Agriculture. 1987. Montana agricul-
tural statistics for 1985-86. Department of Agricul-
ture. Helena, Montana. Volume XXIV.
R-14
Montana Mining and Timber Company. 1988. Operating permit
application for the Gold Creek project. Prepared for
the Montana Mining and Timber Company by Northern
Engineering and Testing. Submitted to the Department of
State Lands. Helena, Montana.
Montana Power Company. 1987a. Milltown Dam rehabilitation
Phase I evaluation of water quality monitoring data and
Phase II construction dewatering and debris disposal.
Butte, Montana.
1987b. Petition for amendment. MPDES Permit No.
MT-0028541, Milltown Rehabilitation Project- Phase II.
Butte, Montana.
Montana Water Resources Board. 1968. Montana Register of
Dams. Inventory Series Number 3. Helena, Montana.
Moore, J.N. 1985. Source of metal contamination in Milltown
Reservoir, Montana: An interpretation based on Clark
Fork River bank sediment. Report to the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Moore, J.N., E.J. Brook, and C. Johns. Grain size parti-
tioning of metals in contaminated, coarse-grained river
floodplain sediment: Clark Fork River, Montana. Envir.
Geol. and Water Science. In press.
MSE, Inc. 1988. Conceptual mine plan for the Mark V Mine's
Bagdad Gold project. Submitted to the Department of
State Lands and the U.S. Forest Service. Helena,
Montana .
MultiTech and OEA Research. 1986. Silver Bow Creek remedial
investigation draft final report. Appendix E, Part 1:
Macroinvertebrate investigation. Butte, Montana.
MultiTech and Stiller and Associates. 1984. Silver Bow
Creek remedial investigation work plan. Submitted to
the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences-
Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau. Helena, Montana.
MultiTech. 1986. Silver Bow Creek remedial investigation
draft final report. Agriculture investigation. Appendix
D, Part 3. Submitted to the Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences-Solid and Hazardous Waste
Bureau. Helena, Montana.
MultiTech. 1987a. Silver Bow Creek remedial investigation
draft final report. Summary. Submitted to the
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences-Solid
and Hazardous Waste Bureau. Helena, Montana.
R-15
1987b. Silver Bow Creek remedial investigation
draft final report. Warm Springs Ponds Investigation.
Appendix C, Part 1. Submitted to the Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences-Solid and Hazardous
Waste Bureau. Helena, Montana.
1987c. Silver Bow Creek remedial investigation
draft final report. Ground water and tailings
investigation. Appendix B, Part 1. Submitted to the
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences-Solid
and Hazardous Waste Bureau. Helena, Montana.
1987d. Silver Bow Creek remedial investigation
draft final report. Surface water and point-source
investigation. Appendix A, Part 1. Submitted to the
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences-Solid
and Hazardous Waste Bureau. Helena, Montana.
Munshower, F.F. 1977. Cadmium accumulation in plants and
animals of polluted and non-polluted grasslands. J.
Environ. Qual. 6(4): 411-413,
National Academy of Sciences-National Academy of Engineer-
ing. 1973. Water quality criteria, 1972. EPA Ecol.
Res. Series. EPA-R3-73-033. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington D.C.
New Butte Mining, Inc. 1988. Description of the plan of
operation. New Butte Mining Project. Silver Bow
County, Montana. Submitted to the Department of State
Lands. Helena, Montana.
Nimmo, D. 1987. Clark Fork Profile. Data. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region VIII. Denver, Colorado.
Nimmo, D.W., J. Lazorchak, D. Link, S. Potts, and M. Kerr.
1985. Findings of chronic bioassays at Champion Inter-
national Paper Mill, Frenchtown, Montana, May 13-June
12, 1985. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIIT.
Denver, Colorado.
Northwest Power Planning Council. 1986. Northwest conserva-
tion and electric power plan. Volumes 1 and 2.
Portland, Oregon.
1987. Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife
program. Portland, Oregon. 246 pp.
Nunnallee, D. , and M.K. Botz. 1976. Water quality inventory
and management plan, lower Clark Fork River Basin,
Montana. Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences-Water Quality Bureau. Helena, Montana.
R-16
Osborne, T.J., T.E. Duaime, and H.R. Moore. 1986. Metal and
arsenic distribution in soils and soil water of
contaminated agricultural land adjacent to Silver Bow
Creek, Deer Lodge and Silver Bow counties, Montana.
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-File Report No.
166. Butte, Montana.
Parrish, L. , and G. Rodriguez. 1986. A thirty-day flow-
through bioassay test on copper and zinc toxicity in the
Clark Fork River near Deer Lodge, Montana, May 7 -June 6,
1985. Environmental Protection Agency 908/3-86-001.
Denver, Colorado.
Peckham, A.E. 1979. Metals assessment of Silver Bow Creek
between Butte and Gregson, Montana. Environmental
Protection Agency. National Enforcement Investigations
Center. Denver, Colorado.
Pegasus Gold Corporation. 1988. Application for a hard rock
operating permit. Beal Mountain Project. Prepared
with assistance from Hydrometrics, Inc. Submitted to
the Department of State Lands. Helena, Montana.
Phillips, G.R. 1985. Relationships among fish populations,
metals concentrations, and stream discharge in the upper
Clark Fork River. In Proceedings of the Clark Fork
River Symposium, edited by C.E. Carlson and L.L. Bahls.
Montana Academy of Sciences, Montana College of Mineral
Science and Technology. Butte, Montana.
Phillips, G.R. , K. Hill, and A.B. Humphrey. 1987. Statewide
water pollution studies triennial report 1984-86.
Pollution Control Information Series, Technical Report
No. 6. 89 pp.
Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and G.W. Minshall. 1983.
Methods for evaluating stream riparian and biotic condi-
tions. U.S. Forest Service, Forest and Range Experiment
Station General Technical Report INT-138. 70 pp.
Rades, D. L. 1985. An overview of Champion International's
benthological water quality studies of the Clark Fork
River. In Proceedings of the Clark Fork River Sym-
posium, edited by C.E. Carlson and L.L. Bahls. Montana
Academy of Sciences, Montana College of Mineral Science
and Technology. Butte, Montana.
Ray, G.J. 1983. Toxic metal enrichments from mining and
smelting operations in riverside sediments of the upper
Clark Fork. University of Montana. Missoula, Montana.
R-17
Rayner, H. J. 1942. The spawning migration of rainbow trout
at Skaneateles Lake, New York. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
71:180-183.
Rice, P. M. , and G.J. Ray. 1984. Floral and faunal survey
and toxic metal contamination study of the Grant-Kohrs
Ranch National Historic site. Gordon Environmental
Studies Laboratory. Missoula, Montana.
Rice, P.M., and G.J. Ray. 1985. Heavy metals in floodplain
deposits along the upper Clark Fork River. In Proceed-
ings of the Clark Fork River Symposium, edited by C.E.
Carlson and L.L. Bahls. Montana Academy of Sciences,
Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology.
Butte , Montana .
Rouse, J.V. 1977. Geohydrological evaluation of Silver Bow
Creek and its floodplain, Butte, Montana area. Interim
Report. Environmental Protection Agency. National
Enforcement Investigations Center. Denver, Colorado.
Schafer and Associates. 1986. Lime and tillage effects on
soil copper and zinc partitioning and vegetative
response in acid contaminated agricultural soils in
southwestern Montana. Prepared for the Headwaters
Resource Conservation and Development. Butte, Montana.
1988. Clark Fork River tailings and soil investi-
gation: An assessment of the distribution of mine waste
in the floodplain, analysis of contaminant migration
pathways, and discussion of potential remedial measures.
Prepared in association with the Powell County Soil
Conservation Service for the Governor's Office. Helena,
Montana.
Schafer, W.M. 1985. Potential impacts of irrigated land
contamination. Memorandum to Ken Knudson and Mike
Rubich. Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences. Helena, Montana.
Schwiesow, T.E. 1987. Clark Fork River: Recreation
facility survey of Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids
reservoirs. Report of the Washington Water Power
Company. Spokane, Washington. 13 pp.
Schwiesow, T.E., and O. A. Burch. 1987. Clark Fork River
projects: Recreational user survey for Cabinet Gorge
and Noxon Rapids reservoirs. Report of the Washington
Water Power Company. Spokane, Washington.
R-18
Scott, W.B., and E.J. Grossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of
Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Ottawa,
Ontario. 966 pp.
Shinn, L.D. 1970. A qualitative study of riffle community
insects in the upper Clark Fork River, 1969-1970. M.S.
Thesis. Department of Zoology. University of Montana,
Missoula.
Simons, W. D. , and M. I. Rorabaugh. 1971. Hydrology of
Hungry Horse Reservoir, Northwestern Montana. Prepared
in cooperation with the Bonneville Power Administration.
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 682.
Snyder, J.O. 1918. The fishes of the Lohontan system of
Nevada and northeastern California. Bulletin of the
U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. 35:31-86.
Soil Survey Staff. 1975. Soil taxonomy. U.S. Department of
Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service. Agriculture
Handbook 436. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Washington, D.C. 754 pp.
Sonderegger, J. L. , T.E. Duaime, R.A. Noble, and T. Ohguchi.
1987. Butte mine flooding and the Berkeley Pit.
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-File Report
No. 195. Butte, Montana.
Spindler, J.C. 1959. An extensive chemical, physical,
bacteriological and biological survey, Columbia River
drainage in Montana. Montana Pollution Control Report
59-1. Montana State Board of Health. Helena, Montana.
Spindler, J.C. 1976. The clean-up of Silver Bow Creek. The
Anaconda Company. Butte, Montana.
Spindler, J.C, and A. N. Whitney. 1960. Changes in bottom
fauna composition and a fish kill resulting from pulp
mill wastes. Proceedings of the Montana Academy of
Sciences. 19:107-111.
Spoon, R. 1988. Fish population characteristics of the upper
Clark Fork River. Paper presented at the Montana
Chapter, American Fisheries Society meeting. Kalispell,
Montana. February 1988.
Stone Container Corporation. 1988. Color removal plant
begins operations. In Run of the Mill. Volume XI,
Number 2. Missoula, Montana.
R-19
stout, K. 1961. A study of the underground water potential
and the slope stability of the proposed eastward
expansion of the Berkeley Pit. Report to the Anaconda
Minerals Company. Butte, Montana.
Stuart, T.A. 1957. The migration and homing behavior of
brown trout. Freshw. Salm. Fish. Res. Scot. 18:3-27.
Sunshine Mining Company. 1988. Operating permit applica-
tion. Big Blackfoot Project. Compiled by Northern
Engineering and Testing. Submitted to the Department of
State Lands. Helena, Montana.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1986a. Butte remedial investigation work
plan. Prepared for the Anaconda Minerals Company.
Bellevue, Washington.
1986b. Anaconda Smelter RI/FS geochemistry report.
Prepared for the Anaconda Minerals Company. Bellevue,
Washington. Document Control No. TTB-160-F0.
1986c. Mill Creek RI/FS. Background arsenic,
cadmium, and lead concentrations in soil, water, and
air. Technical Memorandum No.l. TTB-162FO. Bellevue,
Washington. 38pp.
1987. Anaconda Smelter Remedial Investigation/Fea-
sibility Study. Master Investigation Draft Remedial
Investigation Report. Prepared for the Anaconda
Minerals Company. Bellevue, Washington.
Thornell, R.J. 1985. Assessment of the Colorado Tailings
Pond contribution to decreasing ground and surface water
quality. Special student project. Montana Bureau of
Mines and Geology, Montana College of Mineral Science
and Technology. Butte, Montana.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1978. Dam safety inspection,
Warm Springs tailings dam and Yankee Doodle tailings dr.m
projects. Prepared for the Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation. Helena, Montana.
U.S. Borax. 1988. Conceptual mine plan for the Montana
Silver Venture. Submitted to the Department of State
Lands. Helena, Montana.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1977. Clark Fork of the
Columbia River Basin cooperative study. Prepared in
cooperation with the Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation. Portland, Oregon.
R-20
1985a. Plan of work for reclamation techniques for
heavy metal contaminated agricultural lands in Deer
Lodge, Powell and Silver Bow counties, Montana.
Prepared by the Soil Conservation Service in cooperation
with the Department of Natural Resources and Conserva-
tion, Cooperative Extension Service and the Montana
Bureau of Mines and Geology.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Northern
Region. 1985b. Proposed Forest Plan, Bitterroot
National Forest. Hamilton, Montana.
1985c. Forest Plan, Flathead National Forest.
Kalispell, Montana.
1986a. Lolo National Forest Plan, Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement. Missoula, Montana.
1986b. Forest Plan, Helena National Forest.
Helena, Montana.
1987a. Forest Plan, Deer Lodge National Forest.
Butte, Montana.
1987b. Kootenai National Forest Plan. Libby,
Montana.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1982. 1982 U.S. Census of
Agriculture. Volume 1, Geographic area series, Part 26,
Montana state and county data. Bureau of the Census.
U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1981. Water and power
resources service project data. Water Resources
Technical Publication. U.S. Government Printing
Office. Denver, Colorado.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1966. Supplementary
follow-up report for Cabinet Gorge, project F.P.C. No.
2058, Clark Fork River, Idaho-Montana. U.S. Department
of Interior. Portland, Oregon. 17 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1982. National Handbook of
Recommended Methods for Water Data Acquistion. Office
of Water Data Coordination. U.S. Geological Survey,
U.S. Department of the Interior. Revised 1982.
Reston, Virginia.
1987. Water resources data, Montana. Water year
1986, Vol. 2, Columbia River Basin. Helena, Montana,
170 pp,
R-21
U.S. Water Resources Council. 1979. Procedures for
evaluation of national economic development (NED)
benefits and costs in water resources planning. Final
rule. Federal Register, 44(242). December 14, 1979.
Washington D.C.
1983. Economic and environmental principles and
guidelines for water and related land resources. March
10, 1983. Washington D.C.
Vanek, A.F. 1972. The Sunday Missoulian. November 19,
1972. Missoula, Montana.
Walker, J.T. 1977. Recreational use of the lower Blackfoot
River. Missoula County Commissioners and the Department
of Fish and Game. Missoula, Montana. 162 pp.
WATER. 1987. Pend Oreille River Eurasian water milfoil
control program 1987. Project completion report
submitted to Pend Oreille County, Washington.
Watson, V. J. 1985. A synthesis of water quality problems
in the Clark Fork River Basin. In Proceedings of the
Clark Fork River Symposium, edited by C.E. Carlson and
L.L. Bahls. Montana Academy of Sciences, Montana
College of Mineral Science and Technology. Butte,
Montana .
1988a. Dissolved oxygen in the upper Clark Fork
River, summer 1987. Unpublished manuscript. University
of Montana. Missoula, Montana.
1988b. Dissolved oxygen in the middle Clark Fork
River, summer 1987. Unpublished manuscript. University
of Montana. Missoula, Montana.
Wilson, W. , J. Sonderegger, C. Hawe, and T. Duaime. 1988.
Reclamation techniques for heavy metal contaminated
agricultural lands in Deer Lodge, Powell, and Silver Bo v
counties. Laboratory and field data summary. Montana
Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 200.
Butte, Montana.
Woessner, W.W., J.N. Moore, C. Johns, M.A. Popoff, L.C.
Sartor, and M.L. Sullivan. 1984. Arsenic source and
water supply remedial action study, Milltown, Montana.
Final report to the Department of Health and Environ-
mental Sciences-Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau.
Helena, Montana.
R-22
Wright Water Engineers and the Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation. 1982. A water protection
strategy for Montana, Missouri River Basin. Helena,
Montana .
Zackheim, H. 1984. Small-scale hydro in Montana. Western
Wildlands 10(2): 28-32. Montana Forest and Conservation
Experiment Station. Missoula, Montana.
R-23
APPENDIX
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
INTRODUCTION
This appendix contains public comments received on the
Clark Fork Basin Project Draft Status Report and Action
Plan. The 30-day public comment period ended October 28,
1988. Meetings were held in Butte (October 18), Missoula
(October 19) , and Plains (October 20) , to hear public
comments and concerns. Those meetings were tape recorded and
the comments received are summarized (paraphrased) below.
Responses are provided in bold where appropriate. Written
comments are provided following those from the public
meetings.
COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC MEETINGS
Butte
The public meeting in Butte was held on the evening of
October 18, 1988, at the War Bonnet Inn.
Ole Ueland, Rancher
• The recommendations of this report should be provided to
the State Water Plan Advisory Council.
Response: This report and its recommendations will be
presented to the State Water Plan Advisory Council.
• There is a real need for upstream, off stream storage.
Storage is highly recommended as a result of the state
water plan meetings. All agencies and groups must work
together to meet multiple use needs - agriculture, fish,
recreation, water guality, hydropower, improved rangeland
and forestry management, etc.
Response: A recommendation to evaluate water storage
projects has been added on page 5-32, Instream Flow
section.
• The sale of irrigation water rights is not a good idea,
although there may be some value in the exchange of water
rights from nonagricultural areas, and perhaps upstream
users.
A-1
• The water rights of the downstream power companies may
significantly affect upstream uses. It will be difficult
to develop upstream and offstream storage if they have
the water rights to all this water.
• There is concern about ground water quality and irrigation
wells and the ability to continue to use this source of
water.
• Low pH and high metals concentrations in Butte and
Anaconda area soils resulting from past fallout from
the smelters is a problem for farmers and ranchers in
developing irrigation systems.
• The covering up of some sites that is being done by EPA is
putting cleaner water into the stream and the polluted
soils are not draining into the river as much.
• Some discussion of the benefits and costs of cleanup in
the headwaters should be included if public support is
to be obtained.
• The idea of using municipal wastewater for irrigation is
good if metals are not excessive. Communities like
Deer Lodge and Drummond should be considering this sort
of operation.
• Data from the numerous studies should be given to the
State Libraries, the State Water Plan, and the
computerized data base. There is a need to build on
studies.
Jerry Gless, Citizen
• The 30-day public comment period for this report is too
short.
Response: The public comment period could not be extended
due to the publication deadline for this report.
• The major problem in the drainage is that 100 years
of rent on the environment just came due. There is a
staggering volume of toxic material that is extremely
complex.
• The Clark Fork Basin Project in the Governor's Office
has been useful and essential as a clearing house for
all the agencies. However, the recommendations may not go
very far without force of law.
A-2
Response: Implementation of these recommendations will
require very strong public support.
Progress made by EPA has been disappointing. The
complexity of the issues certainly warrants a great deal
of study. However, there has not been much evidence of
innovative technologies, as called for in the recent
Clean Water Act Amendments. EPA has simply covered up
the problems in Walkerville, which may or may not work.
Once the feds leave, maintenance will be up to the state.
This maintenance may be substantial in areas where
reclamation and contouring does not work well.
Three years have been spent on an emergency action in
Walkerville, and the result has been to cover up the
contaminated material. This will be followed by an RI/FS,
It is doubtful that new remediation techniques would
be attempted in these areas because so much money has
already been spent on the emergency work.
Local resources have not been used to the full extent
possible (i.e., mining and engineering expertise at
Montana Tech) .
EPA does not always play by its own rules - e.g., they
considered routing mine water to the Butte Metro Sewer,
which would violate the "pass-through" rule.
There are innovative methods for reclamation, such as use
of zeolites, that should be explored.
Bob Tribelhorn, SCS - Deer Lodge
• New water storage projects to address instream flow needs
should be considered. There are possible sites, but
they would be expensive.
Response: A recommendation to evaluate water storage
projects has been added on page 5-32, Instream Flow
section.
• There is no timetable presented in the report for
resolving the Butte Mine Flooding issues. Considering
the effects the Butte Mine water would have on the
rest of the system, maybe something could be done to
help speed up some of the work that is necessary.
Response: The Butte Mine Flooding is a high priority
for both EPA and DHES, and both groups are working on
solutions to this problem.
A-3
Gene Vuckovich, Manager - City of Anaconda
• The utilization of the delivery system from Storm Lake,
Twin Lakes, and the storage in Silver Lake and possibly
Georgetown Lake could be managed more effectively, as the
delivery system is not being used to the maximum. The
Anaconda Minerals Company used to store the water and use
it throughout the year. The delivery system has not been
used effectively during the past few years. The water has
been discharged downstream in early spring and then it is
gone. Renovation of the storage and delivery system
should be considered.
Response: We agree that this water system could be used
more effectively to minimize water shortages and improve
water quality. The renovation of the system should be
explored as part of the recommendation to evaluate new
water storage projects (page 5-32) .
• Anaconda-Deer Lodge County is interested in using
municipal wastewater for irrigation as a means of
wastewater disposal. Proposals have been submitted to
the state to use the water for irrigation in the valley.
Tom Malloy, New Butte Mining Inc.
• Silver Bow Creek now falls under the I stream classifi-
cation. Discharge limits are based on the previous
12-month monitoring period. Because the Metro Storm
Drain has not flowed for quite seme time, the criteria
are essentially being based on flow from Blacktail Creek,
which is good quality water. Discharge criteria for
Silver Bow Creek proper are therefore extremely low,
in fact so low that Butte drinking water does not meet
these discharge limits, especially the arsenic standard.
• The I classification standards will limit industrial and
economic growth on Silver Bow Creek proper.
• The report should include the I classification standards
for comparison with current federal standards.
Response: It was not possible to include a detailed
discussion of the I classification standards in the main
text of the report. However, a table that compares the
various standards is provided on the following page (A-
4a).
A-4
TABLZ A-1
TRAVCNA SHAFT
CCNTAMINANr-SPBCIFIC VtHER QUALTTY BASED ARARS
(micrograms/li ter )
(total recoverable metals)
I Classification I CLasslficatia-
. Gold Book , Aquatic- Effluent- Daily naxinun. Monthly Averagj^
SCWA Bunan Health Life WX'^ Guidelines Concentrations Concentrations '
Arsenic 5Cr
Cadmium 10^
Copper lOOo''
Iron 300*'
Lead sf
Zinc 5000^
.0022
360j
190^^
1.6^
2^d
1000"=
142j
5.6^
170^
154^^
1000^
5C0'
100^
300^
150^
600^
1500^
750^
2.4^
34.3
lbs/day
8.4^
317*^
3.5"
1.6^
50^
5.6^
211"
Not less than 6.0 or greater
than 9.0 standard units
Safe Drinking Water Act; 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart B
Qean Water Act; 40 CFR Part Dl
Clean Water Act; 40 CFR Part 440
I Classification; 150!^ of the larger of either the chronic Gold Bode value or 1/2 of the
mininun monthly mean
I Classification; larger of either the chronic Gold Book value or 1/2 of the mininun monthly
mean
Primary MCLs
Secondary MCLs
1-hour acute; hardness = 155 mg/L
4-day chronic; hardness = 155 ng/L
Daily maxijiun
Monthly average
153X of the Gold Book criteria; 4 day chronic; hardness = 155 ing/1
1/2 minimLm monthly mean
EPA Gold Bode criteria; 4 day chronic; hardness = 155 mg/L
Based on EPA Gold Bode criteria (1000 pg/1
150!? of 1/2 minijiiiTi monthly mean ,
EPA Gold Book Hunan Health Criteria; LxlO excess cancer risk
Source: Camp, Dresser and McKee 1988c.
A-4a
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
Missoula
The public meeting in Missoula was held on the evening
of October 19, 1988, at the Courthouse Annex.
Unknown Citizen
• Persons logging and mining on private land do not seem to
have responsibility for impacts on water downstream. The
legislators in Montana, Idaho, and Washington should be
hearing from the Clark Fork Basin Project concerning
the recommendations of the report and specific laws that
should be passed to protect water quality. Existing laws
are not adequate. The state should do more to protect
water quality.
Response: The recommendations of this report will be
provided to Montana legislators and interested persons
in each of the three states.
Abe Horpestad, DHES-Water Quality Bureau
• The report states that algal growth in the Clark Fork
is excessive; by what standards? Some rational basis
or standard is needed for judging whether it is
excessive. Until there is some means of measuring or
determining "excessive" algal growth, any talk of
limiting nutrients is begging the question. Before alot
of money is spent to try to limit nutrients, we need to
know what we will get for those dollars. The concept of
excessive algae is a societal judgement. It is in the
eye of the beholder. What is excessive here is not
excessive on the other side of the divide. A consensus of
the people is needed to judge what is excessive. There are
some DO violations in the river and the algae is a bother
to some persons using the river.
Response: There is a need for criteria or standards to
determine when algae growths affect other beneficial
uses. This is one purpose of the tri-state research
program funded under the Clean Water Act, Section 525.
Algae growths in the Clark Fork have caused dissolved
oxygen depletions during the past few years. Clearly,
this is an impact on beneficial uses, but we do not have a
correlation between algae density and oxygen depletion.
A-6
• Rooted plants in the Pend Oreille River obtain nutrients
from sediments rather than from the water column. The
growth of these plants is being blamed on nutrient inputs
to the river here.
Response: The discussion on pages 5-13 and 5-14
describes how excessive aquatic macrophyte growths and
algae have similar detrimental effects on water quality -
Additional text on aquatic macrophytes has been added on
page 3-91.
• Lake Pend Oreille is similar to Flathead Lake in that
nutrient problems are generally due to local inputs
such as near-shore developments, rather than lakewide
water quality.
• The recommendation regarding the Phosphoria Formation
calls for additional ground water sampling. Floods and
runoff and the input of particulate matter from the
Phosphoria Formation are probably as important, or more
important, than ground water.
Response: The recommendation addresses both ground and
surface water (see pages 5-15 and 5-16) .
• Data suggest that sporadic (short-duration, high metals
concentrations) events control fisheries in the upper
Clark Fork. The data gathered under Super fund
investigations will not define the applicable cleanup
levels. Sampling will have to be essentially on a daily
basis to measure the magnitude and frequency of those
kinds of events. That has not occurred and there are no
plans for it to occur.
Response: See recommendation #3, page 5-19.
• The ARARs will say that instream values should not exceed
a certain value that was based on a series of monthly or
twice-monthly sampling. Even if the standards are
achieved (and there are no numeric standards for the Clark
Fork after the last revision of the water quality
standards) , it may not mean anything to the fish, they may
be dead anyway.
• There is not necessarily a 1:1 correspondence between high
flow events and high metals values. Some of the high
values are due to sudden thaws or freezes, etc.
Response: See recommendation #3, page 5-19.
A-7
Peter Nielsen, Clark Fork Coalition
• We don't know what level of algae growth is acceptable
in the Clark Fork, but we do know that what is out there
is excessive. There are DO violations, and algal growth
is obnoxious. The growth of algae must not impair
beneficial uses.
• There has been strong support in the community in the
last few years for efforts to limit nutrients in the
Clark Fork (i.e., the pulp mill, WWTP, phosphate ban).
There is a widespread belief that the Clark Fork is
"grungy" .
• There is no detail in the report regarding rooted plants
(Eurasian milfoil) in the Fend Oreille River. The report
should identify the plant, discuss the rapid rate of
growth and spread, and discuss the perceived threat that
it will invade the Clark Fork system.
Response: The text has been modified on page 3-91 and on
pages 5-13 and 5-14.
• The issue of nondegradation standards should be explained
more thoroughly in the report. There is a difference of
opinion as to what constitutes compliance with
nondegradation rules.
Response: The Water Quality Bureau is responsible for
interpreting and enforcing nondegradation rules on a case-
by-case basis subject to concurrence by the Board of
Health. It is not the purpose of this report to interpret
the rules.
• Nutrients should be regarded as deleterious substances
as defined under the rules. Nutrient loading should be
limited to the amount actually discharged in 1982 (when
the rules were adopted) , rather than the design capacity.
If the WQB had allowed increased loading up to the design
capacity of the Missoula WWTP, it would have been almost a
doubling over 1982 actual discharge. Nutrient loading to
the Clark Fork and Lake Pend Oreille cannot be limited if
certain sources are allowed to double.
• The action plan should recommend limiting total nutrient
loading from all sources. It should recognize that some
control of nonpoint sources and some additional control of
MPDES permits may also be necessary.
Response: The recommendation has been modified
(page 5-16) .
A-8
The recommendations regarding nutrient loading are too
short, too brief, and do not go far enough. The action
plan should be far more specific in detailing the avail-
able range of alternatives for controlling and/or limiting
nutrient loading to the river. The plan should spell out
specific alternatives that are possible now, such as
detergent regulations, land use planning, septic tank
rules, wastewater treatment technologies, land use
practices, etc.
Response: Nutrients and eutrophication have been
identified as the highest-priority issue in the lower
Clark Fork Basin. Funding has been actively sought
through the Clean Water Act-Section 525 for better
information on this topic. As you have indicated in your
written comments, "the purpose of these studies is to tell
us what to do to lessen the problem." It is necessary to
complete the studies before recommending control
strategies. See also the response on page A-45 to the
Clark Fork Coalition's written comments regarding this
issue .
The plan recommends more studies to document DO and
temperature phenomena in the river. There is already
evidence of frequent violations of state DO standards,
which is further justification for holding the line on
nutrient loading. In light of these violations, it is a
serious omission that the report does not address a plan
to reduce these violations. Solutions should be
identified.
Response: Work group members suggested additional
dissolved oxygen and temperature data would be helpful
in assessing water quality problems.
The diurnal decline of dissolved oxygen values in some
parts of the river is attributed to algae respiration.
Low streamflows during the past few years have exacerbated
this problem. All efforts to reduce algae growths should
help to reduce the dissolved oxygen problem. See response
to the previous conunent.
The perception in the state water plan meetings was that
water rights would be "taken". The report should clarify
that the suggested ways of dealing with water rights would
be voluntary. There would have to be a willing seller
and a willing buyer.
Response: The final report has been modified to reflect
this policy. See page 4-22 and the recommendations on
page 5-31.
A-9
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
The report should stress the gains that are possible ■*
through increased water use efficiency and conservation.
Studies are needed to determine how much could be
conserved if conservation principles were applied. This
might be the best option of all for instream flows.
Response: Water conservation is addressed in recommen-
dation #3b, page 5-31, Instream Flow section. We agree
that water conservation should be practiced, and that more
more information is needed to encourage conservation by
all water users.
Jim Toole, Clark Fork Coalition
• The model of Lake Pend Oreille shows that the throughputs
of nutrients are largely from the Clark Fork. In Flathead
Lake, there is much lower input, so the near-shore
contribution is proportionally much greater.
Response: It is our understanding that very little is
known about the trophic status of Lake Pend Oreille.
While your statement may be true, the present and pro-
posed studies of nutrients in the Clark Fork and Lake
Pend Oreille under Section 525 of the Clean Water Act are
intended to provide the necessary hard data.
• The aesthetic problems are perceived differently in the
Clark Fork than in other rivers because of low numbers of
trout. A similar algae growth may occur in the Madison
River, but the fishing has never been better there.
• Utah and Colorado have just recently passed water use
laws. An analysis of these laws should be done, as there
may be some valuable information to be gained from that
legislation.
• Fish kills in the upper river have been written off super-
ficially as due to copper toxicity. Data have been
produced by UM geologists on the flux in oxidation and
reduction that takes place in the Milltown sediments. In
the Milltown Reservoir, the metals react in response to
fluctuating redox conditions. The same process is taking
place at much higher levels in Silver Bow sediments.
During runoff, reduced forms of soluble metals produce an
acid-reduced state that is extremely toxic.
A-13
If you conducted an analysis, it would probably show high
levels of soluble metals that are precipitated under
normal oxidation conditions. This occurs at every
sedimentation site in the river. The metal levels in
sediments in the lower reservoirs are at least ten-fold
higher than background, and are over 100 times higher at
Milltown. This occurs at all streamside riparian sites.
Along with the Cladophora that died the previous year, an
organic "fuel" is produced. Following a heavy runoff this
is mixed and trapped in the sediments. The oxidation of
this organic matter reduces the metals and produces a high
level of these soluble metals at the bottom. Any fish
trying to spawn in these areas has got to meet this
increased toxic level. This is a model, and obviously
speculation because we have not done a damn thing about
measuring it. This is where we ought to start.
If we continue to plan to do streamside reclamation
studies without a picture of the fluvial mechanics in that
floodplain, we are likely doomed to failure. An extensive
and intensive study of these tailings should be a number
one priority.
Response: Recommendations for intensive study of the
streamside tailings and fluvial mechanics are found on
pages 5-6 to 5-8.
Dennis Workman, DFWP - Hissoula
• The state can buy all the water it wants for instream use
(such as from Painted Rocks) , but without a right, it has
no control over the water. Once delivered, DFWP cannot
protect it to the mouth, and the water does not neces-
sarily reach the intended stretch of river.
• The measures recommended in the report to enhance
fisheries are good.
• When the Clark Fork is compared with other rivers, there
are alot of similarities - most have been adversely
affected by channel straightening, dewatering, algae,
high sedimentation during runoff, etc. People on the west
side are accustomed to clean rivers - they relate to clear
water, low algal growth, etc.
• If we are serious about improving the Clark Fork fishery,
we need to take care of the toxic metals problems - this
is where the most progress can probably be realized.
A-14
Tailings in the riparian zones are continually
resuspended into the river. We should begin by
eliminating the sources near Butte, and then carry on down
through the Deer Lodge Valley.
Growth of trout in Clark Fork compares favorably with
other rivers - there is no reason other than toxic metals
for the poor fish populations (numbers of tributaries are
similar, etc.) Our fishery studies do not always show the
subtle effects of some metals (e.g., cadmium).
The next most important recommendation for fisheries in
the Clark Fork (after heavy metals) is renovation of the
Warm Springs Ponds. If we had an efficient, operating
settling pond system at Warm Springs that would
effectively stop the downstream migration of toxics from
the Ramsay area and the Colorado Tailings, wouldn't it be
essentially a demonstration that toxics are having an
effect on the river if we started to see improvements
below the pH shacks? I think it would.
Mike McLane, DNRC - Missoula
• There are already some provisions in Montana law to buy,
sell, and exchange water rights. It is not clear if an
exchange can occur from a consumptive to a nonconsumptive
use.
• With an instream flow, when moving from a consumptive to a
^ nonconsumptive right, the point of diversion and the
?iftrf protected reach would have to be specified.
Phil Tarangeau, Clark Fork Coalition
• Super fund is going to eliminate acutely toxic conditions.
At least that is the procedure that has been identified
(institutionalized) to deal with those problems.
• The procedure is supposed to be the identification of the
lfc?»y degree of cleanup required, then the evaluation of the
•jf-,j£^xnost cost-effective means of achieving that degree of
cleanup. In the recent past, EPA has reversed that
process. It has found a cheap means of preventing the
y I migration of a hazard, and then identified that as the
f; I most cost-effective means of achieving the remedy.
A-15
It is incumbent on the agencies, such as DFWP, to express
concern that the degree of cleanup be defined first, then
the mechanism to achieve that degree of cleanup be
determined. Removal or temporary capping should not be
eliminated simply because of the mass of tailings that
confront us in the upper basin. Permanent methods and
treatments that significantly reduce the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of wastes should be considered.
Recognizing that you did not want to get into this
Super fund morass, which no one understands (not even the
people that manage the morass) , we have to face it and
recognize that removal and either off-site or on-site
treatment will have to be considered as well as
reclamation. Superfund needs to follow section 121
cleanup standards.
Response: The EPA and DHES are following Superfund
procedures .
Phil Hertzog, DHES-Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau
• The MBMG has recently put in some automatic samplers in
the upper river that may help define short-duration, high-
intensity events. So far there have not been any
significant runoff events this year to trigger them.
Response: A discussion of this recent monitoring
effort: was added to the text on pages 3-63 and 3-64.
• The report probably needs to emphasize more that
improving water quality in the Clark Fork Basin improves
water for irrigated agriculture. No one has really
assessed the impacts of the current quality of water on
productivity in irrigated fields or damages from past
water quality. It is important not to leave the farmer
out.
Response: Irrigation-affected lands are discussed on
pages 3-40 to 3-42.
Representative of Irrigation District
• The people here seem to want all the water to go down the
river and out of the state. There is no better way to get
water in the ground than through irrigation. I agree with
the Governor-people before fish. Fish can always be
replanted, that is why there are hatcheries.
A-16
All the water rights should be reserved for the people.
I'm for water and irrigation in this state to the full
extent. Every drop we can get is needed. If we don't
use it, we'll lose it. Idaho will sell the water to
California or Washington.
If it weren't for irrigation, the state would be barren.
We need water for the people, for trees, grass, alfalfa
fields, cattle, etc. Let's keep this state green!
Water from irrigation helps to promote rainfall - water
begets water. Every gallon possible should be for Montana
people.
Plains
The public meeting in Plains was held on the evening of
October 20, 1988, at the Plains High School.
Doug Farrell, Cabinet Resource Group
,%' A person living on Noxon Rapids Reservoir reported that
algae growth this year was much heavier than it has ever
been. Is this a condition of warm weather or slower
streamflows, and are there trends along these lines?
Response: The Water Quality Bureau has reported an
increase in algae statewide due to drought conditions.
Some of the worst algae blooms have been recorded in
reservoirs. Factors affecting the algae growth include
reduced water volumes, increased nutrients, and lack of
scouring flows.
•' What is the timeline for being able to set a total
nutrient goal for the Clark Fork? The Cabinet Resource
Group strongly support efforts on nutrient loading.
Response: The tri-state studies are expected to provide
useful information and goals within a three-year period;
approximately 1991.
■i -t
A-17
• In the general area of Trout Creek, the good fishing
is mostly on the tributaries. The Kootenai Forest
Plan, which projects sensitive road building and timber
harvesting, significant decreases in fisheries due to
sedimentation, etc., is of concern. This is the wrong
direction for the state to be moving. The state should
get more involved in preventing this kind of loss. The
Forest Service has limited enforcement and monitoring
capability.
Response: The legislature's study of forest practices
conducted by the Environmental Quality Council is a move
toward improving this situation.
• Montana is the only state in our general region that does
not have legislation covering BMPs for forestry use. This
is a gap that Montana needs to address.
Response: See response to previous comment.
• The Cabinet Resource Group supports the recommendations
for systematic surveys of better tributary spawning
grounds and a bottom contour map of Noxon Rapids
Reservoirs. Both would be helpful.
• How will monitoring be coordinated between the mining
companies and the monitoring agencies? Monitoring in
tributaries with proposed mining is a good idea. There
have been some real problems with water quality monitoring
at the Troy Mine, which are getting better. Baseline data
was done using methods that are very different from the
monitoring program, so pre and post mine conditions cannot
be compared. This is an illogical situation.
Response: Monitoring problems that occurred at the Troy
Mine were corrected. This is not typical of current
monitoring operations.
• The Cabinet Resource Group has asked that ASARCO's
baseline monitoring program be designed right off the bat
so that a direct comparison can be made with monitoring
data. The state should look at the baseline data and
decide what constitutes degradation of state water.
Response: A recommendation for baseline monitoring by the
Water Quality Bureau in tributaries that may be affected
by mining is provided on page 5-19.
A-18
Reading this report brought home the scope of the problem
that has been created by mining activity in the upper
river. It certainly behooves us to take every precaution
to avoid duplicating the mistakes of the past in the
mining ventures planned for the lower river. It should be
realized that we are dealing with a technology that has
the potential for very costly problems.
Although I have some concern about a report that is
sometimes pretty general (especially NPS and nutrient
loading, where recommended implementations sounded
pretty vague and general) , my response to the Clark
Fork Basin Project report and the effort in general is
that, by in large, it smacks of good government and good
management. I would like to express my admiration for the
initiative and follow through it took to try to put
together the mass of somewhat unrelated data. It was a
worthwhile effort and a success, and it should be
continued.
Judy Hutchins, Clark Fork Coalition
• Nutrient loading in the river should definitely be
limited. However, control of point sources is only
the first step. There is also a need to continue
serious work on controlling nonpoint sources of pollution,
Response: The recommendation has been modified
(page 5-16) .
■fe^
There is not much discussion in the report about
consistent DO violations that have been occurring in the
river in the past few years. A comprehensive policy to
address these repeated DO violations is needed.
Response: See responses on pages A-45 and A-46 to the
Clark Fork Coalition's written comments regarding this
issue.
Is the recommendation for exercising beaver control
serious? Why not address killing off all the great blue
herons-they affect the fish. Why not address the cows
stomping through the streams... The ultimate impediments
to spawning are the Cabinet Gorge and Noxon Rapids
reservoirs.
Response: Fisheries biologists assisting in the
preparation of this report have indicated the importance
of tributary streams to sustain fish populations.
A-19
• The first recommendation for fisheries should address
chronic as well as acute toxicity.
Response: The recommendation has been modified to include
chronic toxicity.
• The long-term monitoring program of four stations is not
sufficient and the recommendation should be clarified.
Response: The recommendation has been modified to clarify
the intent of the monitoring program. See also the
response on page A-45 to the Clark Fork Coalition's
written comments regarding this issue.
• The Clark Fork Basin Project should be continued in the
Governor's Office and an interstate basin organization
should be created to deal with the tri-state region.
Local government units and concerned people should be
involved in the interstate organization so that it is not
■ just another level of bureaucracy.
Response: See response on page A-45 to the Clark Fork
Coalition's written comments regarding this issue.
• There may not be alot of public comment on the report
because the comment period was so short.
Fred Roach, Citizen
• Are the recommendations a summary of the study? How many
years did it take to put this project together, and how
much money was spent on it? "This is all you could come
up with? The section on nonpoint source pollution looks
like a ten-minute exercise at a word processor. It
doesn't look like you have much here."
Response: Comment noted.
• Specific enforcement of some of the existing regulations
is needed, i.e., the 310 law and logging. There has been
slash piling in the creek, damming of the creek,
sedimentation, dragging of logs through the creek, etc.
Complaints have been made to the local ASCS, and DHES-WQB,
but no one came to investigate.
• More people are needed to enforce laws. Citizens should
be encouraged to report violations, then action should be
taken on them.
A-20
Champion was allowed to fill out the necessary permits
months after they had done the logging.
The citizenry should be involved to help in monitoring
efforts on the Clark Fork. Monitoring of tributaries,
logging practices, etc., is needed.
Jean Morrison, Citizen
• Do discharge permits have stipulations that take low
streamflows into account? Are the permits reviewed and
made more stringent? A recommendation is needed to
change that bottom 7-day, 10-year low flow. It should be
lifted, because the river has been lower the last 3-4
years. The basis should be adjusted.
Response: Adjustments in the 10-year low-flow values
are made as new data are available. It is a long-term,
ongoing process.
• Didn't Flathead County instigate a regulation whereby
people were not to use detergents in water that would go
into Flathead?
Response: Flathead and Lake counties have implemented a
ban on the sale of phosphate-based detergents.
• Local and county government should participate in
monitoring, e.g., the local sanitarian. Local citizens
should be involved, particularly those who have similar
job duties. There is a need to hire somebody who could
report it when people dump certain kinds of things into
the river that aren't to go to the river. Shouldn't there
be a tax assessment that could be used to support such an
effort? Matching local/state funds might be one way to
obtain support.
Response: Local and county government should have a role
in water quality monitoring. A cooperative monitoring
program to aid in organizing this effort has been
recommended (pages 5-19 to 5-21) .
• The burial of old asphalt and highway debris associated
with the highway project in Plains is a concern. It is to
be buried on the Pack River property with a well and
stream nearby, and none of it is very far from the river.
Is it necessary to obtain a permit from the EPA for such
disposal? Years ago there were alot of problems with
illegal dumping of material in the river from the industry
that was there.
A-21
Response: A permit is generally required to dispose of
solid and/or hazardous wastes. More information can be
obtained from the DHES-Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau
in Helena.
Tim Williamson, Clark Fork Coalition
• For point sources, nondegradation guidelines should be
followed specifically. DSL, WQB, and other state
agencies' recognition of the nondegradation law is in its
infancy. It should remain a strong guideline for the
pemmitting processes. The law should be interpreted to
be the actual 1982 output, rather than some theoretical
value.
• For the first time in Montana, the WQB and DFWP have data
on the river that clearly show that when water quality is
high, fish populations are higher.
• The DSL has no intention of coordinating baseline data
with monitoring for the Rock Creek Mine. The Clark Fork
Coalition does not think this is acceptable, and is
certainly illogical at best. What is the purpose of
baseline data if comparisons cannot be made?
Response: The recommendation on page 5-19 for the WQB to
conduct baseline monitoring in tributaries is intended to
provide the basis for these comparisons.
• The Clark Fork River Watchers did some DO monitoring in
the river after receiving informal certification through a
short training session with WQB. The Coalition would
like to see a group of people certified through training
workshops and supplied with equipment. Any support from
the state in such an effort would be appreciated. Citizen
monitoring does have a place and is working in other parts
of the country. Such a group could respond to crises or
report activities on the river, and the costs of monitor-
ing could be reduced. It may be the only way to go for
long-term monitoring.
Response: Citizen monitoring can be very useful provided
their efforts are closely coordinated with agency
monitoring programs. The role of citizens should be
considered by the monitoring cooperative (see
recommendations on pages 5-19 to 5-21) .
A-22
Where possible, in the upper river, actual cleanup should
occur rather than just stabilization or protection of the
river from these toxic hazardous wastes. SARA does give
strong preference to remedies that reduce the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of hazardous wastes at these cleanup
sites. It is a matter of money and costly technology.
When and if the monies and technology are available, it
should occur at least on a small site basis. Perhaps
there is an intensive contamination site that could be
used as a model for some type of removal or reduction of
those toxic wastes.
Response: See responses on pages A-46 and A-47 to the
Clark Fork Coalition's written comments regarding this
issue .
Use of herbicides and insecticides are not mentioned in
the report. Roadside spraying along the highway, which
parallels the entire length of the river, is a concern.
The value of this spraying is doubtful- it is not an
effective way of dealing with the knapweed problem and the
potential hazards of using the spray are not worth it.
Response: Herbicides and insecticides were not reported
to be a problem in the Clark Fork Basin, although some
problems have occurred in the past. We agree that
pesticide use is a potential hazard to water quality.
Norm Resler, Citizen •'
• It appears that the Clark Fork from Missoula on down seems
to take a back burner in the state. The Clark Fork is not
at its potential - the state should make more of an effort
to improve the fisheries in the lower river. The focus
should be on the lower Clark Fork as a potential blue
ribbon stream to get more state involvement.
• Most of the improvements in fisheries have been the result
of private industries, particularly WWP. The state DFWP
has said it won't plant fisheries in what is considered a
river. Yet the WWP can do it in two reservoirs. Their
efforts in the reservoirs have been quite successful -
the bass fisheries are doing well, etc. Some species
should be suitable.
A-23
There is no place for industry to put toxic wastes in
Montana. The cost to transport them out of the state is
so prohibitive that private industries are forced to flush
it down the sewer. A toxic waste dump site should be
established in Montana so that the waste can be
concentrated, rather than distributed widely.
Bill Holland, Mayor of Plains
• How do you account for all the scum and foam that is seen
in the river this side of Stone Container? You see it
every day when you are following along the river. It must
be contamination of the river.
Response: Foam occurs in the river above and below the
Stone Container mill at Frenchtown. Some increase in foam
does occur immediately below the mill. Foam is believed
to result from natural organic substances derived from
plants. Decomposing algae is believed to contribute to
foam and scum in the river.
Rick Duncan, Clark Fork River Watchers
• The report and recommendations are appreciated. Continued
long-range monitoring on the Clark Fork is a concern.
What will happen to these programs with a change of
administration in Helena and the impending financial
difficulty our state is in?
Response: Continued progress in the Clark Fork Basin will
require strong public support.
WRITTEN COMMENTS
The written comments received during the comment period
are provided below. Each letter received is presented in
its' entirety, and is followed by a separate page with
responses to numbered items in the letter.
A-24
o
;» j«
1. ja
jC
•a
c
u e
CO 0
*^
aj
^ — 1
3
= -J 4) D
o
c
U.
0
a
— a j3 *> r-.
V
0
o
2
4)
CO
X » 'J X
V S
--■
<M
J=
L.
T3 T3 --n -^ -^
.
JS ■-«
*»
t->
^
to
V to- « -H n
e
+J -o
(S
c
0
*i c 3 to ja c
o
s
■
0
C
L.
0] ■-< 3 CO 3 0
U 0
u
-ll
4.'
■<-<
a
c je X a a-w
o *^
o
•w
c
to C 0) T3 «
3
^ tt
Cm
y
01
c
c
— .H C CO 4)
4^
c
(D
■
0
o
OB u -ae 33 u
rH
C 3
4.>
1) -a u
o
CD 0
(f<
i.
4J
4J
■c 0 >, c «»
a.
1— 1
«IH
o
o
a
CD
4) X 4J 0 V
c. c
0
aT3
O
e
(8 X *- .« .-4 go
M
a
o
«
c
3
4)
sa *j 0) ^ 4J u
c
c
•ft
«
Q
«
•a
u
X C to -H 3
--4
0 V
c
u
■
4)
(0
tM 3 TS 0
^ 0 to (TTS O
3
-F^ c
3
3
X
■
m
*> o
0
0
4^
0 eg
U
•«
< C CO c -o
0 T3
s
Q
r-H
u
1
4)
M K -^ t, 41
«
(0
fl
fl
«
lO
4-1
CO O U 4) S
u
«
4-)
«
t.
X
s
Z O O 4J !-• 0
■a >
0
c
X
4)
3
c
^--W *- CO 4-»
<M
C CO
a
1)
w to
a to
-• X
0
m jz
c
^^
>*
c
CO
.^
I- >. C • -D
V
-H
4^
-•-<
a
■D
(0
4) r- 0 c oa 4)
«
4-> 19
m
«
B
X
C
41
<M I. B — C 4-.
a
u -*
a
X
3
0
c
(0
■3
-*- CO OB
a
0 0
o
o
3 4> < «B -H .F4
v
a L.
0)
o
P-4
Ji:
U
a C 4) OB 4J
a
V a
1
0
Tf
u
4)
< «— .«
u o
o
s
>.<M
O <M
M ■ c y c
a
a
4-J
u
X
B 01 45 CO 41 -4
OB -a
te
■»*
0)
4}
4-1
3
u -^ u j= -a
OB
3 S
c
4J
o jc -O
«
C
u — U O 4)
eg
«J (S
■<-i
c
-^-t
H
c
<
3 cm <S 4-' X
m
4J
V
a
3
o a -x c
9
**
*i 3
c
0
Cm
2
to
4)
W 3 CO y « T3
U
2
« 0
V
«
3
0
c
U
01 -■ « a ^
a
i.
>
to
u
o
01
u
% 3 U 41 3 (M
1
■^
't''
0)
a
n
c
o
u
3
'- < O 4J to 0
u
1
0
(^
L.
m
0
0
0
O y] 01 9 X
3
'
U
0 •
a
IB
c
«
« » 91 a. c «a
«
/\
a.
L. *J
C
z
^
0
-^
Z — « iO
/
c
o
•a O
•c
0
u
c
4)
(s z 4) a a -0
//
c
u
CM
1)
c
--«
4)
«
4^
0
^ 4) X a
C
/
00 --<
S (O
t) — 1
X
X
01
a
■
0
3 X U "0 u
3
s
03 c a
v<
O O)
X O
a
.^
c
41
W
O t- U 0 4) to
O
^ -H
0) 0 CO
<H
m
w u
■SCO
W
41
01 4-* .^ B 0
u
*< *»
^ (B m O
w
c
c
c
tM
a
01 03 U U
to
t.
c
a
•n
•^
D
0
V
i.
CD
•-4 . 4) "0 O Q,
— > o
1"
X ^
VI
4.*
6-
u
o s
-H
B
JZ
4)
3
Z X U « <M
4>
.
^ 0 u
-
w
Z
«
4) ■-
^
■
Cm
*^
4J
^4
0
X tex s c
X
>s
-» o
u
X
U lA
s
O
s
01
a o) a - 0
*J
u b.
0
^H
*
0
3Q
V
<J •
S
M
X
c
01
X ^ 4) -
4}
3t
« -o
s
0
a
X
1) a
ca
0) «
X
«
t3
«- X « to w
(M
U
/-<i.
JO U JX
u
•tJ
c
>
0)
L. U
4)
4)
C
z
- *- X C 0
o
o
\ >.
0 a k.
4)
•■t
V
u
d3 ^
X
3
X
to
3
U B — U
u
e
*- 3 at
>
a
EO
X ^
4) 4-1
to
0
4)
c ^ -> je 3
4)
c
•-^ s
O 0 —
0
«
V
1)
0
Ch
s: 3
c
3
fc.
X
3 0 M ffl -C
m
r^
o = o
«
y
X
a
H- C
0
H («
o
01
u
^
4-)
-^ <M 4; a 11
3
w
h S
A-25
0),
^
4J
0
•p
-o
QJ
•d
-d
(0
4J
C
c
o
^
u
IT)
w .
>-a
(fl n
•iiS
1
M
C in
ox:
0
u -u
•H (U
H
4J Di
>im
m (ti
C 0
Tl cu
C X
c
(0
0) ^
Q Oi
e c
V
E 0
S G
0 -H
0 3
O -P
U 0
0) u
tw tj
J-i Q)
1
w
M >i
x)
0) -P
<U M
4J-H
-P (U
JJ U
tn -(->
0
0) (0
rH OJ
en ^
H
ty
0 d
d "O
4J 0
w C
(Q
d
Q) U
<U 0
W -H
x: u
C£
Eh 01
a
u
a>
-^
oi
rH
A-26
0 «l
*^5
o
>.
« c
o>*J
J-H
c c
tl u
K-S e
> 0,
O C tl
n 3
*J o
4J a
o n
« u c
tl D<
IM
o tl a
M 4J
KT3
tl U
« e tl
o 3 M
+J*J
tl
4-1 U
4J l4
3
tlH
10 «
■0 t) «j
^ >
> J< D>
0 tJ
§52
y-OS
O O
S C
■Hr^
■H
"■ ^***4"
k Pu O
tl
3 t) M
>i ""C
k- ■•^
5-3
0 0 O
rH
»» .ffl
>.C<M
« «^
1-1
c
Id
►< >;
> u
V 0 ■
O.C tl
♦J^ a
" ^
Ji o
^■H C
" ,^
C-H
♦J-H
tl Id
•s 1
Id c
■a <a «
•O Xi
» H t)
^ c <a
va
« ^*
fc, U)
3 m
tj.-i t)
CO
ggs
»5t5
<JJ3
•-I 0
2"5
'H rH U*
u a
4J-H
§gi5
tl « >
U.C O
<dy ki
OHM
CJ W.H
0.
tl u
HP
c
>,M
C OT3
o
^ tl
0 3 C
U CO
S^-5
HTJ Id
5S
P 0
-H a
« M.X
OrH
> OIM
-1 an
>-)
•o 0 o
3 O
< t-t
P <d (u
n 'o
+J
Id
U<N
M +J C
U OiJ<
a
- C tl
CPC w
» M
B tl e
OH Id
o « (s
tl U tl
o o^^
XXI
N tl C
0 3 0
O tl
■H M «
T3
• -fj tJl
p ac
H O tl
u u a
H tl (d
g^5
£00.
u i< e
«
rH O
ft 8
OS
«
♦J
o
o
M
O
4J
Id
B
•H
T3
U *J
o o
o «
Oi-i
o
• u
a Pu
o tl o
ado (M
fi H H B >o
£ u IH o o«
O 4 iM-H in
>-> ffl o -u
10
T} JX U 4-IH
>4 V4- V) E
O O V4
» U. 0>H >
O B O Id
a >: Ei4J B
V4 t> H «
• Id > a-H
M^ Q Id tl
£ U UUtC
+J CM
T3
■o
§
10 4-1 1
B
tl+J
B
tl ^ B CM
o
t)4J
4-1 10
Id
Ri
oy o e tl
■;3i
U B
-H tl B
p
Q 111
5g .H«<
tl
4-1 >H D<
01 >lUl'0 Id
10 Q
B 0
5§
B
HH-H
3 M
tl
mo tl Id
X) tl tl a
■H E 01 =
iIjSb
tJ-O 4J
U tl
5
■H IM 0 -o •
•H
4J U U
> tl Id
O +J
kl 01
BP
O B tl B
•^"'g
•0 Id
tl 4-1 T3 0 rH 4-1
0 O
B O l-l>H o
4J+J O
»
B
kl B B lb Id V4
<
■H O
BrH >14J
x: o
4J
■H
3 4) 10 o O
n
O 4-1 E -D
•0 3 5 4J tl
OrHrH M
- 0"M
0 tl
4J U J< H >U
iiTS
O-HrH tl
VO'H B
E O
u
0 tl tl 01 gvi
3 M 0 <0 £ tl
kl ft V4 H 0
g§
rH O B 4J
MH +J 3 M
£ IdX)
OOXJH
10
O
01 BrH
(^
tl W^
4J •
i i-i
tl-OrH 0 O
rH t) O <
rHT3 01
> u
U 4-1
4-1 O tl t7>
> „-4 B 0.
-H e -H 10 tl
10 £h
4-143 III 01
tlH
10 3 =
Id B
01 01 lb >|P B
0 u
&§g..
a m •
"H tl
4J 0 H
o o
o: 0 £ M
tl 10 10
01 B &
mI
rH H J< B >« 14
a
u a
B » U
Id 10 <!•
Id 01 tl O tl
n t)
M 3 S<
0 o n
3 0 CM
EH tl
0 tl
B B 10 » £i
0 H H 10 » 3
3b:
>,rH 0 10
> tl VI
U ■ 1
o x:
■o U
0
O UXI u
X)^ BU)
t)T4 5
H 01 ca
Id
H ^ tl «
_"
U.4-> H
lOXI+J
*J GH
E M
>
liti&ss;''
0>3
H -IH •
tl H U
lb 0 0 tl
a o'n
tl
4-1
BP
J< l« 1(1 H 01
x: j« IS
lb 4J CX
0>H
■0 >
•H
N tl B B tl Id
■H 10
M tj iH d +J
Id B tl B>B
u-o
T3 r4 10
•H +J n
•H
3
■H o tl ii U *>
*J 4J
4J 0 E*J
Blu S 01
SXrH ft
Id MH
4-1 H t)
VI M
B
B O Di IS
U in
rH tl > H t)
01 -0 >
-H
■H
10 ki « t; 4-l'0
•H
oia-H 01 >
Id 10
Id £ B
tl B'H
tl
4-1
crib iH x: ki
B*J
IH tl
O J< - t)
■^^ 0
> O Vl
Sl-H
B
U tl H tl tl
glM
t) M a
•H V4 MrH
CO o B
B O
+JT3
0
O B 4J ftU
■HE >< 3
S2
£ M 4J I7>
y O O O.B
<H 10 K4
(^ o+J
■H tl
■HT3
O
•Hrt I0 4J
rH M M B
tl rH
rH-H
•0 01 i-i • tl <P
i!«
u. o idH
&"?!."'
tl<H tl
>ta'0
Id fi
T>
tl a rH 3
B M MX)
H J< M 4J Id
Er&Bg
IS ?S+1
4J U-V
&«
§
V4 a tl H V4 iH
♦J
H tl B
Ol£<M 8
+J<H tl
•H tlH
ki x; 0 0
41 M y BHh ki
<H h 3 0
tl u
M tl O
rH > E
.45
U tl
01 Id 4-1 QrH
3 tl Id
«■□
B
Id 1-1
>< 0 M
"O +J 01
K^
tl
0
tl o>ki 0 a<H
o
tl OH ♦J
rH B E4J
*J<H
■H
k4 lb 0 o«
«l U
rH (UjC B
rH-H 3 10
Id 0
+J
a tl «
» a<
XI 41 t7>tl
10 H B
01 C 5.C
Art o+J
U tl
»
IS
J< B >itl u
OX tl 3 B
Ij HXJ OH
0. V c-a
OT) 5
tl^4J
4J y 0
-5
4-1
tl ki O ki B B
B
k4 c
•H tlXJ 5
B
x; 10 H 0 «
♦J rH p « tirj
o
tlH
tj>M OiTJ
•0
a o tl
>irH
tl
w
4-1 (0
tl tl
0 kl'H
>h4J t7>5
> ■«
U Id
E
O « H£ H
« tl C* &
5
4J Id
>1 ■ T3 01
rH 3JC"0
M>H
a 41
tl
tl 03
■H 3 § o>xj
O O _»l
rH B B-H
4J O 10
MX!
i-t
0
fH
•H 0 Ol-O
4^ tl-H »
B
4J
O
55fi*S«
>-)
J<
rH Q l4 tJi
X) O B C
B >"0
tl oy
BrH
B
U U
Id 4-1 Id H
• H «
tl tl a u
OHx:
o «
»-»
n V
•d,°
g-gg-^^
• U M 4J
O O 4J
tl K 0>
O O
je tl tl - rH H
i
5"-
• Id 3 K
tl ftrH O
0! OH
■H
§
B 3^ B ■ >
H B 4J tl 0 O
OI<H *J »
: x:t) t)
U 3 -H
- 4-1 B
tl 01
-■?<
h 4J J< O B
XrHrH
^S,
M
x; H N H ki
4J4Jx:h+j ft
B »l P'H
h
5S
tl rH O BH
4J Id «<H
0
Id
ti--i n u
B tl P B
0
0
2
SG
10 H rH 01 3
» £ n H 'O
o n tl O
)CX) B U
OH
HX>
ki
l><
« o H H M q
X o > O OP
A-27
CM
<U W
4J
;c: --
U
4-) 0) C rH
0)
O Q) to
M
IW -H N d
X4
0 **-! -rH 0
O
U-l 4-) -H
O
C O -H JJ
0 U fO
0
•rH OJ N
rt
4-»
4J - (C -H
c
(0 J-l C T)
•«
-d
3 0 TS ifl C
V
<u
d c C cn («
G
•H
• rH U (0 M
0
*W
-U Q) 0 C
s
•H
TJ
d > Q) 0
0 0 o -d -H
^
0
O O i-i Q) -U
4J
E
0 J^ '0
4J
0) Q) fti S-l 4J
0
C
x: x: (u c
J4
0)
JJ 4J ;iii U-l Q)
0
QJ
W QJ E
•H
ja
W C <C S^ OJ
P4
W
-0 -H H GirH
d a
AJ
m
(U -U >< (1) E
d
jC
E U O £ -H
<0
E 0) C -P
M
T
0 -r-i (1) S
b
CM
1
0 0 Di W ifl
QJ i-i (0 (fl ^
a
in
S-l CU >-t 0>
3
(U V 0
M
0)
4J d -P iH V4
tM
M •-< d -H a
0 W M o
^
tx
a
am d M
0)
c
0) cQ d d 0
4J
(d
C
•
s-i n) o u-j •
4J
04
0
i-4
>; u >i
0)
o
rH l4 Di <U -P
H
Q
4J
u
(0 0 d >^ t-i -H
u
X
u
C fc -H ^j 3 3
0
<u
d)
•H T? 0 -P C
4J
M
4-1
iw AJ 3 M O -H
0)
w
M rH -H 3 -P
«
i
0)
-H
QJ (t O > M d
W
jcx:
x: rH d TJ -p o
gOi
H-P
Eh U -H < 1/3 0
M
0)
«-^
^i*^
Oi
r-4
(N
A-28
4< *> «*
t.
i.iti u :* 0 -H
^-1 O >
u
w: CI t: 0
t>. 4^
(•.
-.4 i.: Tj 0 V ■•-* «
t. - »*J
1*.
>; 0 r-« Uri Oil
o «> n
r>
(ft 0 :3 w :i 1. ^
CI t. tit
tfi
y 0 *i 0 a. 4i
!•■ Ji
fj.T3 ;* 0
l-l
>»
i-H M c t:
v: 111
t.
c. H xt i: s< -wi
■. 1 a;
•i
u* 0 v: - 0 i/i
• • (;; 4I
9»
01 :< nj (U ■• t i\I *>
>« .0
n
Ai t. -»J Hi (0
44 t . 41
v
4:; - 0 lO V
^ /J
0
(0 0 t: «i-< 11 Q> u
3 .i
tu
>.•.* 0 0) ■•« ^: a>
c t. -o
l:
(U ^; 4-1 L. l: 4-* 4->
•H 0 .-1
:f u ut (u III t:
*ii.. ;>
«u
r 1 C AZ CJ <• • -H
c 0 ^
lO -^tf. (.. 0
0 .V :«
♦i
C /- 0 4J
U w
4) 0 V) n <u
(«i in
<:i
> -.4 lO • C 4J x;
^ »-i -. 1
t:
(U 4-' U 4-> (0 U 4->
C(J ^
•H
a: iO r: 0
<e *i
^
14 ■»> 0) JJ <-• r3
ai
•r*
n -H k; ti 0 <« 0
c ^. a>
a
c ni «> :.) <u >.
0 .J >
o-
- (U > «
■H ai
0
tj U) -r< <V Q)
*J 0- -rl
(0
t: u ly 0 iu x: t.
<a :J rH
0 0 t. > > *J P
«J l: oj
0
•H <ti U 0^ tf)
C -1 ^-'
i.'.
4J c: 4J -rt -r) £ n
« «J
01
t»i -rt t; .-( 4-> (U
B k:M
rt w 0 0 (U -.i
« 0
u
I, lO : : -r* /» » c •
^ 0
•d
0) jj cH 0) 0
a
r^
> * ^j t.1 c 0 x:
B 0 <u
u.
i; ci 0 3 c 0 iiJ
W 4J <i
0 4-> J.: U <\I -.H M -o
•H
C
0 lO CO ■«-> M
a -^<
0
4» -O I, " 0
* «- V.
»^
4J bj n Ofi ;3 • c
t. ^ 0 ♦J
{.It, *,-.;.•<» <l> -H
U)
0
(0 HI u t; 0
0 i: (0
(0
u. 4-» 0 t: c 0 -.H -u
u 0 -
t; t- w) 0 0 V-. d;
ft. -.1 1,
0)
t, ^ *.-. -H -.( «.< >
*> 0 4:
ri t: ♦J r: 0 -rt
- ij u
*J
0 c (0 td ivj ••-* 0
JT 0 t.
en <u x: x) no
(*> t: n>
tij
t-; > 0 c: >»- 0)
- 0) >
c:
0 ^> -H Q) <U tH L. ^
ro L. u
■.^
t, 0 *J u I- 0) 0
ro t: vi
■*j
<.-* Ui C > Cr-i
0
c •
c: 4-> 0) 0 -H t, .-«
- 0 <u
OJ t.
Ti 0 c t J 0 4J a> <u
eg <u c
i: i:
0'H(wo>i)c;>3
mp; (0
a> -H
c *J i/j w (^ 01 0
1 >J
<-( 0
.-v lU lil <•- C3 0)
m*^ c
n. t;
lU t. a> 4-> <^ jj
t, 0
i; :3
:i u ti-o t, (u «D
« 0 ; :
-ri *..
ij 0 <u -H 0 i: -o
0) li.
>, U > 11. >.4>rH
m > i. Of
t. TJ
0) 0 tx (-. -J
10 :i x:
0 c
(/>x:(>~«t. uoico
Ou VI ^
^-. .0
-i;*iO i-^«>>H3
u
o
:>> 4) "o
> ti t.
o "I x: ni
+J 4^ 4^ ui
nt «>
■O tfi o
n) -ri v, x:
t: u ••>
(U ti •»-*
o -<
-H C C *>
** OJ tl t,
ni vi <i> o
■O -H ir* C».
c <-> ^> u
ti i« *J
ti IJ. X c
O I fl> -H
cj -H c to
4> XI (0
n) i. -M 4) (n
•^ x: c
<•-• t* u-p m
o (1> c *^
4J •. ( c c
4J l: L. o o
I. -H J ij
o 'O x:
o. c u) c
tl. OJ CO :3 -H
3 CO
I/) 4^ a) 1. n
111 4.> £ (U
E 4J o n
M - CtI
tti c r -H
U( O ••'I u U)
u-ri or.
a. ♦J 'O r-i -H
X -H ID *H -O
ll> ^1 -C O C
m « 1-. 3
o O rl tl
4-> U rH <-i
JJ O T)
^ 1. 4^ v ni
•H o « rt
«H U- 0) O fl>
a. >
O Ji 0) t. -H
l^i t- Xj 3 +J
rH 10 0.111
(d ^ O rH
0 0) O tfl
■O 4J "H -H
rH 0) 4> Vi U)
3 x: -H -^4 01
o 4-» tj a ^
i Dm
>t o o. o
M XJ O W 4J
01 ^
1; O O
e *>
o -o
0 U 41
M Ji -rl
i-t
-4J
C lU X!
•^1 x: »H
01 :< 3
IJ o
m
•o
.. «i
4> c
o c f:
x: o a> fli
O X> I. r-i
.^ 3 11.
x: xi u
:> (1 o ui
li V c
4J -H
41 41 4>
(H • UJl
X O «l
(X.fl li tf)
t: --1 I -
nl xi cj 4^
li. 3 O lO
D.fox:
3
O fl-»-l «
■D C 1-H
n) x>
xJ 3
-- X3
XI C
00-
41 TJ x>
-T t.
OHO
I. O.
Q. 41
• U
41 x>
> .r^ f-1
nH 01
« O C
W XI -rH
nl C w.
t Tl
41
ra 4ix:
C x>
c o
41 UI U
41 O
XI « «.-»
Ill
n x: "u
m c
Xl XI ■H
nl u
10 x:
•w x> c
x: -rf
xl X
L. 41
x> O >
01 3 ra
x: x:
xl 41
£ 3
41 xl O
N >.
»-( O XI
0} V4 111
41 B
I. 3 I.
O O
x> U Tl O
I 41 ra
3 C 41 UI
41 41 ^ C
■H UI .rH
> T3 x:
U 41 C xl
41 x: ra 41
> xl u
O CO
t. U 1/1
too
41V4 -o 3
r-i O
*H C X> C
ra o -H ji;
(0 xl o
ra o xl
ra t xl
u 41
x: o xJ .X'
w ^ c -H
.^ C lO •-t
3 -o "u x:
fx ra r-l UJ
O 3 -H
•-I in
ra 41 3 .^
ti O rH
3 o c o •
O 10 .*^ (-1 t.
>. 41
41 M >> >
Xl Xl C .W
ra vH 41 111 s.
x: > --i tj
x> O o. u
U O -•rt
xl a. 41 U 41
n o. 41 x:
41 Tl > X>
tiOi-H >. 41
LJ 3 C 3 C
3 O M O O
(/I o fc: x: ^
o
c
41
x:
3 ra
*j c
•r^ ui
x: c
xl .ri
41
t. 41
o n
ti
o
3x1
o
>.'o
I.
.i: ra
c 3
ra u
sz o
H t.
ji:
o
o
t»>r
«iU.J
n
t:
0
Vii
N-* t .
C)
(• •
4)
u)
lU
X
■-
0
x:
J.:
4J
t »
u
r.
ri.
*■ 1
(i. a>
Ut
t: o
- * CD r rt)
c ui Ok:
o nl « -H nl
V) ui ^: ♦J ♦-> ••
c «J nl c X)
.*: ;*: *» o t.
o i. <»4 t/j :
"3 0 0
ti. rH «
■t) 01 o <g
t. .■*: o *■» i;
^ nl «« »ji.>-H
o M ^* 11} 01
:i
» 41
S c .-i
C 4)xi x> t.
41 x:n 0
Is 4^ 41 to U.
«
a t 3
3
0 -a • 3 .^
x>
0 ,c XI n V. t.
ra
i «) C 0 ra
x>
U 41 E rH
M
c - li ra 410
vl X) 3 10
xl
3 "O 0 H 0 41
w*
0 »H 0 x: x:
10
r-t t: TJ -O 4-» 4J
t.
•-< Si c
u
0 0 to ra t- 0
4-. 1/1 -H 0 xl
n
x; -V4
•i
4) 41 x> C UJ
x>
xl >-l 0 rH C
u
XJ 0 I. -rt O'rt
41
t. 41 x> 0 C
■^1
41 ra x; ra xl -H
0
X u xl c ra
t.
ra 41 •H iH X)
O.
U - Ul-O 3 t.
3 0 t. 14-* 4)
c
0 0 4^ 0 41 U
.r4
4J X 0 to
U
UIO 3 afl
ra
41 -O C 41
(u
X C -H TJ >. 3
»1 41 xl C L, 10
j:
rH E xl ra 41 to
u
L 3 > -1
0
•0 0 CI.X1
u.
^-^ 0 I. ra C
3 I. 0 0
.^
0 0 0 ^ 41
t.
:c x> ^ c* XI UI
M
41 C
f-*
•0 41 to 0 -H
0
C .^ 0. to xJ .X
ra T( 3 3 «,
41
•H 0 0 41 0
£
U-o > 3 •
4>
C -U U] C 0 41
ra rH 41 L, c w
n
.-1 J X B 0.•r^r^
41
0. 0 I. 41 W -H
3
3 0 t. rt ra 41
41
r. 3 xl rH Xl t.
nH
0 M -HO
>
.H 4) ^ 3 41
41
xl "x: 0 x: Ti
t.
CI •-< XI 0 x> xl C
< <H xl t. 41
«>
ra ^ 0 xl 11.
>
V 0 >«a. 3
la
C ^ r-l 41 0 »
£
n u to « t. £ Jif
t. 3 Ki ra
M
*J x> 41 0>-l 3^
L. «1 XI -H 111 0
0 t. L > C t* "U
a 'ri 41X) >) £ C
41 U. U 0 V. XI 0)
a
to
ra
ra
3 Ji; t. >. ra 10
L, XI V. XI 41 3
41 ra to -H • L, 01 L.
^ r-i 13 *j • o to o
t. o -o c • t. x:
UI c 41 o a.
ra41'H'O41I0xlt0
x: v^ x: xl o -
>,4> - xl to 4ix:
rH to o Q .s< o.
Ul O 41 xl O U -ri
U; x> vH 4-1 O r-4 rH
o o .•«: V. o
u UJ c t. U) o t.
X1C41OC41I0X1
to "H U) .3 .H iH fH C
Ti ra -o XI ra O
M ra "o rt -ri o
o >>»H o 10 -o
••Mt-Di-HtOiHO
B 00 O 3 XI
o 4-> xl x: xl a. o
*4 c ra to c 3 10
xl 41 r-t 41 t4 X)
(d tH 3 to vi 41 i-i o
0t.u1u.uv4 x:
•ri xl 41 3 4J V4 4>
x: 3 t. o 3 o -41
act t. c xl G
0 l<l 41 (.
b 4.1 XI Vi L. o (.
x'.riraxioovio
3 Q x: to a.44 V4
U •H XI 41 to 41 41
r^ t, U t, to •
•O TJ 41 t. TJ C C
COCx>Oiri4l0-ri
(Oxiracv4raxi<rito
•H c ra XI fli
Be- iH.riCHlX5
** O 41 0<HV4.ri'0
B-'ii^'Hra 'OC41
4>XlHr-l 4lt.41X:
•rira.riX141x:Otixl
t4'U4130xlOa
41C1.0.3 OOC
3 41 O T3*J O-ri
X U T} 41 ra nl 41
B -o c t.x: 1. c
-o c ra xJ x: o
^- O 41 O O o-ri
^ 41 fU -xJ xl 3 "ri XI
1 L, to to to V4 3
in 41 41 (0 41 .ri f--t
tO.^*H 41 UlUIOiri
-- raxl-ril4C410
\04J.-l-ri4J 3«H AU
*- U r-l .ri to XI W
I o x) ra c c c
u>o.cn.3'ativ^4i
«ia-rix>rHliOlia
n pr. O U 3 41 O
tl .^.riOOirixlt.
t04lt.B(x3n,t0xi
i0x:O3a. u-r^t "r^
a. 4>U4 U OM ^iri B
I
to
10 >.
XI OrH O
L. c to ra c
O «)•-< O 41
0. i< ra u) UI
41 u> ra
tc 01-1 U) t.
L, C 01
41 O. .ri *J
x: t. c
xl M . O --I
C E x>
X: -ri 3 -ri 01
xl »-( -ri C >
•H D. C O .ri
3 a C ti 4->
ra 41 III
41 to -ri Cj L.
41 XI b 41
b >> 41 IX
U>4J t, xl O
ra ^ 41 I o
irix: x» o
>.ra XI I.
rri 3 O O ra
WCT ex:
c ra 10*4
01. O
t. 41 x> UI
xl x> to C C
«] ra ra -ri o
3 41 > -ri
M (ri 41 xl
OQ ri 10
••Oxi x:
toa: ra r>
B
x: x> o
xl 41 41 xl
XI L,
t. 41 tl
o "o *-i ra
*^4 .ri V4 t,
3 O U)
R O O
ra 3 41 L,
U C th
UI (X o
03 til
L. O 41 C
ix t. x: -ri
Ulxi (.
UI o
c .V e 4J
•ri t* ra -ri
t. ox: c
O 3 XI o
4-> ti
•ri I, I.
C 41 41 41
o xl x: 11
C 10 xl -ri
3 ra 3
a c c
L. 41 ...i
41 O to to
XI ra 41 ra
I %-. > XI
lil I. -ri
C 3 XI 41
• o w 10 x:
D-iri C xl
- - 3 41 t,
ra o o 41 x: 41 .11:
^-iwL. ^4^. L.4IXJO
t4x:ot. UI3 irira
OXJV4O41 xixiraui
*i s->Mx :3 a
<H41>> 4lt.«4X:i.«
B3ratO O X14141
0C3414-1341 A-.r~t
X->-ib<rib x:4i4-ira
4J41t'IO"OxlCi.OO
-e'041Q.C O to
•- o C4J Lxraxixix:
nto3m3 J xix:
btOBO'O.riO
O O >«xi ra XI H 3 •ri
<Mx>r-IIO>.L.ra3 xi
- xl .ri U) O Q.3
0»CC41»riO'a33
*-041Xira&441 xlKl
-.ri bxl^rl LXCM 41 U e
eoxit. o I. tioo
•-ra3e4iUi4i'oo ri.»i
■ •DOxltxCUCOOlxl
lAc rin-ricra L.ra
41«34IUO O x>
n U •ri 00 -xl 41 iO
V □ 41 M XI e s:
t^O XI41 •riE4*ri41x>U
Acirai.'ocramfri 3
ci«ai£UiL:o Mxieo
i i4XArarai4MxitiJ-«-<V4
C 01 .ri
O X)
o c
41 ra
o
ii.X -o
41 b 41
i>; (0 vi
f-i ra
41 tj 41
x; u
xl U O
41 C
XI 3 -I
t. o
O rH 4*
ii
u. 41^
3 x: o
to 4> xl
U Vt >u
01 41 C
XX .ri
<9\J 4>
» 3 3
44 10
•9 til to
B •ri
3 t.
0 01 to
I4 x> ri
O ra.i:
3 4>
-\1
<M C c
N 3 O
1 o
U\ 1. M
lO
tx
ni o .1:
I 3
ItiV
li 41
a o
V II 44
M m
)« u j:
Oaxi 41
a ti
» 41
■ri I.I
c ra
41 1:
X3 10
B li
.ri
U* 10
41
-^^
VO (.
CM 41
in^ri
CM v..
- 3
m*.
<M
I L.
in u
s.
n
V c
Mnl
l<>
I
> II.
B -<
O -O 41
•ri-41 O
*» xl X
M O 41
V 3
!> 13 C
O C i»
V o
t. o to
w >,
O 41 e
> u
>« b ..I
« 3 4X
> VI ra
I. 41
3 ra u
B v: o
ra 41
».4-l t.
> r.
■ri o n
B :.. -
B 41
« ^ .^
£ ra
» -ri
w—
av 41
B 4ix:
O VI XI
O 41
41 44 "U
tl C O 41.
JB 3
l-t ^1 >. 10
r-l 41 I,
•• 41 > 3
B XI I. tl.
o ra 3
^ b to 41
xl 41 44
to tx O
41 10 x;xi
&4 41 lO 10
0 CI -u 3
<1 M li
K to
-I C 4-1
10 Id
CO e x:
CO •« x;xi
1 (0 44
u\ ra ••I 41
ji X e
o
h- 41 4*
<M x: «.\i
I 44 41 C
lA CI ul
c c
B -.1 O -
41 o ra
U) 41 41
• ill e tl
a* ;i irl-ri
O*:.
A-29
II)
-p }-J
Q)
0
(d
O QJ
cd fo
;c: P
d
P P
o c:
rH
-p
O x:
0 fd
•-< (B OJ
Id
CT\
■H P
P w
>-l -p
o
M-l
<H
■P ^ H
p p
■p -p (fl
0
0
1
(d )^ 5
OOP
(U lU C T)
(U rH
rH O
d
in
4J Id
T) P 0
M
jC C -H
X) 0
V
QJ (U
d rH QJ
-^ (d (d a
u
-P 0 (U
M
•d
OJ ^-1
w
QJ U U
d E P QJ
P
Cji 04 W X) -P
d-d
XJ d
QJ
E H
do P P
b
c: c 0) rH c
(0 (U
■p
en
QJ QJ ip
(d p o w
■H -H ox:
3 0 •
-p
(1) u
(d
rH X H-l
tT> W -H (/)
M
>ix: -p
0 o w
>i d
> ::J
a
a-p o
QJ d rH d -H
U
-d M-i p
x: T)
J-i QJ •
(d i^
E
p H <d -H x;
Id
<u -H c:
(/) u <u
t) E '=>'
X -p
QJ
•H l)-l W
ox: E p
H
C -P Di 0)
•-H OJ
-P <U ^^
w
QJ
o -
E M w tJ
U
•H c C X
(fl iw c
C rH 1
CP
w
E M
0 (d -H (d d
r-l (0 -H 5
(U -H
d am
d -d
^
(d QJ 0
p :? -H
^
■p :3 >,
•'-too
rH E
•H d
p o d
a d >i
10
3 tru-i
U (U -H
O -H <1)
>-i (d
QJ
01 d J-i
-d 0 o Tt
a
0 -H .
C CU^
> CP
0
>
OidQj-ddHdQj
■H
CPU)
0) W -H
d) (d
-P w
■H
p :3 >
d (d p Q) -d
M
m 0 c -P
D> U
n-i XJ a
■H rH
-P
a d 0
•d (d 0> d
tl 2
C (DC
<TJ (U <u
0
d (d
(d
•H o
v-d (d Q)
5-5
0 X) XJ <u
-p a
P c
0 0
!^
p p
QJ 0 d i
*i2
•H <U -H -H
>i to m
M x: 0
E Cn OJ
O d QJ
p x: Q) x) E
-^
4J W S-l
i-l -H
0 CJi
a
^ o x:
Id It i d 0
^ H
m 3 -d -p
0 -P 0
X2 -H W
>-l QJ
0
O P
-H -d E Id o
•P
Di o c d
P -H -P
E E P
0 Xi
0
d
P n 0 QJ
5 "
•H O (C c
tJ c
3 d
ip -p
o
Q) QJ d
•H o W P
f*^ ^
4J M-l
rH -H tJ)
C -P D,
W jC -H
d ' QJ p
c
W C iM
d c:
(d C
w >i d>
0 P
•H fO M o w
g 'H
0) (1) -H 0
ty O -H
(d 4::-H
d ip
d
x: P
d P d
^^
> M w
<U P T)
4J
O-H
■H
u w o
0 Id r< Id o
c fd itJ w
^ u
W JJ
-H J-I
S-l
•H QJ
P P rH -H
tw -0
•H X» OJ
n o
■P w c
4J rd
0
QJ -n
d w P
C
c u
Q) QJ O
W 4-» ID
(d rH
-p
> >i 0
do • -H o
M (d
O O <D U
,C >-i O
-H M -H
■d u
•H
•H -P P
0 S E Cn Id
(U M
-p -rH ^ d
-p (d (C
rH O >-t
d
d
P -H fl4
■H -^ (d QJ
4J
<« -P -P 0
a
M-l -P
QJ 0
0
(d d
JJ U '-1 XJ v
JJ *
4-> tJ (fl
^ (U m
-P M-l d
E -P
E
C C C
Id QJ Di Id QJ
^ S
W T) O
<u ^ e
}-i (1) c
E
U -H -H
73 p 0 x: x: p
H q
1 C -P -P
r-H a w
0
or}n
QJ -P W
d Id P P P d
•H
•H Q) C XI -H
arH rH
O Q)
QJ
-P d (TJ
Q) P a-H Q)
9-H
M E W -H
in u c
(U 0 0
QJ H
w .
rH 0 CQ
E W 3 QJ E
4J •H
■P e -P O
rH (U (d
S~4 S-l ^
J-J IP
0 -
(d o
E P d P QJ
H
O 3 Gi H -P ,C
p -p
•H
a,<-t
^
0 QJ -H a; d rH
Q) Id
d) o OtC
m -p o
0) c c
QJ -d
0 (^
Q) TJ P
O P w p w a
10 0
£ <u c o
> Q) (U
X 0 0
x: 0
i-< 1
^ d 0
QJ d Id o d E
I""
H M-rH C
(0 ,Q e
H U O
EH E
P4L0
H (d Uj
P -H X) 5 QJ -H
(0
_
PS
r^
rM
ro
A-30
MCO
r»
•O r-
u rsl
n) O
» n 3
0 4) H
1 ja
o o
H O IB
£ O (^
< e pu an
J 4)
•g Id 6
u a 0)
SB e o>
m o (d
I c
iH 4J l« U
3 O P O 3
Q, E w (U 01
O O « iH J3
03 O 10 OitJ
C
<V!
JW.
«.,:
o
01
u
c •■-> o
o o c
M M VI
A >
o c o
1-5 .H O
ID
. ,« u
w la £
X) >:
moo
J u.
O CI
?• J< u
• <a
in
C 10
o c
•H Id
tJ p
Id C
tJ o
WE
o «
w c
ftr-t
X <J o o s
h
E
. U 4-> ^ U
^ -H IH M M
; O iH 10 O 3
>i C C 0< V 4J A
■1 O Id C ^ w *J
' -■ H *J O H
e 3
I M-l I
10 -H
a
Oi >
U C V «J o
x: tJ H M Id i<
u iM *J O E fX
« u o. &
c M u ti o n
I 01 3 " 3
u « .J O « C S. -^
atJa)>MOOjJ
kl M C H H r^
3 .H H tJ M >i 3
acid3a>3r-(g
■H »J U *J ^ W
MECVidUMV
hfidUUn-HMiJ
OS » 3 u
CM
«n
A-3)
(0
H
«
(U
•
CO 0)
-d -p N
m
E *M
1 x:
-p
CM -H rH
d c
u
•H-H
(0 -P c
•H
0 0 C ft
0 0
§
OJ
-d • -H
M
04 Q. 4-J en c
•H -H
*k
c c 4J x:
0
0) 3 0 -H
4-) .'^J W
•d
C ^
(1) d) -H M 4J
•H
m M XJ 0 4-1
It M W
ae
•H 0)
i M ^ O rH -H
M
en Q)
4J It • -H
>
E 0) -P &rH 5
Q,
d 0) - M d)
d rH (U E
fl
T) <U
0 5 -H Q) -H
■H ;G M x:
Q) rj 0 E
•c
Q) ^
o ^ M 3 m
Q,
M H C <U 4J
E HO
£
MOM
0) (U c
0
ft 0 :?
(U 0) 4-1 0
m tc 0
M 12 C rH Q) 0
■P
W -H <U
rH ^ 4-1
Q
Qi n-t
0 (d 5 -H
. 4J 4-J
ft4J 0 d
(ri
<u
(1) -H C -P
<D
E 4J 0 • ft
S •r^
c
M • t3
;C • 4J -H V (0
M
M M ft W 4-J
-H 4-1 (/) W
1^
Q<4J 0)
4J rH (d iW T) "0
ft
to x) 0
0 - It
u u
3 N (DC
U ftrH Q) -H
E M XJ
^
<U 0 fO
4-1 i»-i -H <u M o;
-P
(U ft 0) T)
It a) 0
m
^ a a
0 CX-P ^ ft E
ft
(U M -H C
M 0 d 0)
S
<i) d)
rH -H 4-J a E
^
x: -d rH
01 d M x:
Jg
iJ M 5-t
C CD >-i OJ 0
4J
4-) rH (1) C rH
0 It (U 4J
•H
0 a •
o x: o M-i M o
It E O-H
M 3 >
H
C rH Q)
•H -H o a (U
Q)
M C (U -H S
ft d 0 M
H
(d <u -p
V Q) u u
W
0 -H M 4-»
■H 0 0
•H
TJ C JQ «0
(t XI Dj c w
0
4-14-4 It W
M 4J 4-4
»
rH -H -d
N O -H 0) 4::
OEM
0 d (u
3 ^W r-l
•H 4J m -H 4:; 4-J
W <U H M <U
4^ 0 .c d
H
0 rH M
-p x: -P ><4->
c x: 4-4 0 0
0 4-> 5
H
O <U -H (1)
-H CP^ ft M
4->
0 4-1 -H 4-4 0
d 0
•H
x: ^ V
i-l H U 0 <t en W
•H U C M
(U 0 d x:
0)
><4J t
0 £ 3 -H E C
•H
4-> C Q) H O4
w x: H m
M >irH
•H W rH E -rH
rH
It -H D4
0 p
g
UJ M-l M
Mm XJ 3 N
T) W W TJ
,C 4J W
0
»d
1 O <fl (t
a 0) 3 w -H
M
C T) (U d
0 w 0 It
MTJ
M T) D4 -P
0
<U Q) (U -H 3
•H 0) 5
M-l
c
3 C i -U
(t (U -H (U -H
E 4J 0) 4-1 4-1
d) n
0
0) 0 3 fO
4J > M > M
V
E (1) 0 -H M
> >i 0 4J
M
0
•H W
p a 0 0 -H 0
4-1
0 rH a4-J <U
• H 4-J M M
(U
(d
(U -P c
m (t M iM -p -H
C
0 (u 0 c a
4J -H CU 0 •
+J
^
> (0 It 0
x: .c (X 3 M
Q)
Q) T5 M (U 3
It 3 ft 0
4J
•H O H
-P f J (1) 0 a E
M (X,T) V)
*
C C C Oa>
Q)
JJ -M ^ -p
0 E <U
3
d -H
(0
M H -H 3 -H
-H
^
3 rH 0) 3
(U C P ft X M
0
0 (U 4-1 Q)
c
OJ 4J W W 4J
tH
O X) rH XI
(1) H J-l QJ <U
0
•H Q) 0 -d x:
0
4J d It m
0
C3
(1) 3 XJ-H
M <u 4-1 -o "d
4-4 XJ d (t 4->
•H
rH 0 PQ (U d
■p
(fl
X a-H M
en M rH C -H
H 0)
4J
to rH M
a
0) W 4->
ft c: XI Q) ft w
-P
0 (U W 4J 4-J
3
^•^ 4J <U
(U
M U) CO
0 It E C
ft
<U > <U W It
rH
(U -d i-4 4J P
u
o
C O 0-H
<U -H C -H 4-1 0
r\
ft ft 0 d x:
0
x: d 0 H rH
8.
< u-( a'd
15 4-1 3 -P M 0
1j
(/) x: -d -H 4J
w
Eh t [i. ^J t
M4
(0
0)
_
_
^^^^
_.- ^
oi
tH
r>j
n
"T
A-32
w 1-1 a>
•^ t- CO
O IJ oi
iK < •-<
' 11.
w A -
iH z z i<
'0 (Jl .o
z in if, «
w O 1^
iii^tu p.
fc« w »
o oHuo
:«: o 4)
< < 10
►1 e- Q
u ui
n
«
V o
.< »i
t> V
•C .>
^^
V. >
a o
«i ■»-* fri
«> o
« M V
u U f>
via
^ 6 u
•o 3
•a « u
« H o
a
V >.
o ^ «i
c o i<
<i u) o
p 11 a
<U (0 4>
in j:; 'H
n) P 3
■ ^ O
c s
HI V
,C .C *i
10 o
.-1 tJ
•J
u m
U V
>
O
X n)
« --4
E O
a)
^ V o
.0 Qi P V
o ^
o n u 0
p o f- p
10
^ <H iid c
3 C H
tiO tlO-H
0) (4 P C
In H -H O
g H
« "- P
3 r- O
3
O vH-O
tJ 3 m o
<H a 0
•1 ♦>
4J HI « H
n -,1 x: o
• B ^ X
■OOP
W 4> O
n U)
O P
m .H
6 P
mac
p o a B
o .-( o t>
<l V H V
iH > <H 45
ti
B
v
1 &
.H O
O « V
e >
«i 1)
WQ
B P
bO O
•H c
U
O
p, . . H
O. P «
3 3 «1 J
m O (0 O
^ 45 B
HI p
■O an
■H B P ■'^
0. J 3
O >> >
p 0, g) 1
X O in 4: v<
V IH 4)
p X) O - >
>.+> n H
ti a: B >H
43 P O
P M U -rt H
C 41 P «)
4; -r ii 10 7
B P 14.-I O
-^ « O 3 -H
■H -.^ O 0.
4> X C O B
XIW|■'^ Oi-H
o O
4) 4) (K i^
45
B
O iH
X O
O >,
B I.
41 V
004:
^ in
a) H
B x) in
T> O B m
B -H 10 (0
OP 45
10 -
4) ^ 4: 4:
M 3 O p
H p. ti 3
O O 4) O
U P< Oi E
CM
Oi
O A
«) -rt
04: »<
5 P o
p p
- -H
- >. M
P ^ O
«) P
(I B «
6 lOX
P P
P U
mop
ana
e 643
n P
p
•H ■ 10
e-o «
C 41 P
4) -H 10
Oi«H P
H ID
4) p
n B X
3 4) -H
>. n
B
IM O
O
T) p
o
P 4) ti
10 M >K
S 10 O
O
lOX
O P
M ■r< X
04: 4)
41 » P
P «
a u
.C -rt
P'H
Pi
X. P<
U M
3
« 41
43
>.P
r-l
p a
B V
4> 43
•O p
B
41 P
Pi 4> '
41 e -o
T) 41
B P H
•HOB
B 41
41 TJ
p tfl
10 H 4)
li 43
41 4)
Pi B O
OOP
•o
4>
P
« P
•O 4< ><
PiP 41
3 l«.0
U O
« « »;
U p,
e 41 H4
3 M O
m u> p
4) en -H
l4 n >
3 a)
•O T3 "O
4) 4) --I
O > !«
O '-I In
M o a
Pi >
B 4)
•O H 4:
1) p
O TJ
B B ^
4> 4! 4>
U P.
4) n
<H 41 «
4) E 4)
>4 H W
P B
41 10
4;inX
H CT) o
P 3
C OTJ
-.< 41 V
rH O
10 HI 0
10 4) ^
ai ^ Pi
ti
•0 4>
43 .-l£
O 3 p
K O
•) 4: O
13 « P
(M P HI
.1 Vl
X 4)
Ul- P
P3 ^
o ■
O 00
00
B
000
P X O
110 n
B 41
-H HI in
^ 3 H
vi 043
< o p
Oi
Pi
0
t-
« 4:
•o -o p
•H t;
» « i«
I B
4) 4) ••
P p-o
10 10 B
P iH
n 3
o
4) U
4: «
p
3
o
3
«
B
•H 10 «t
O P
« C
B H 4)
O >
•rt B 4)
n O
n -1 «M
3 p O
u o
« <J >•
T3 T) 10 flj
3 6 3
41 -o e 10
XX) 3 M
t-* 41 10 -^
o
c
n
M
4>
X>
O
P
O
o
o
p
s
•r4
TJ
Vl P
O O
O 4> Vi
O T O
O B
- U ki
B0< 41
O > O
« C OCM
E Hiao)
3 « o>
O 4 41 m
•-> U) 45
P
X) .« l-
M H <M x:
10 o o
o « a
:n4« o B
M-H 4»
■ Id «« *H
M .H IH 41
i:tjO!i:
p
: c
B 41
^1
Pi U
O
BX)
O
V
« 4) ■
p p 41 4>
U B M «
41 41 <M •rf
** i i!
■H 6 fH 0
X) O 4)
1 O 4) -O
1 4) tl "M ^
3 4> 4) 3
.. „ in p 43 4) O
P 43 n P t-i «143
O p -H 4> fl «
< 43 4)
-■H • ^ n
XI XI O X) 4) P< fi
C 4» ^ O O
4) N tin 3 ^ -H
^ B O 3 • P
p rW -H X O XJ rt
^ Id T) m n 4) 4)
O a B 4143 3
p,.H «> >. ti O o"
4J •« p ,-1 4]
(j; « p ti P *M
a ^ a 4> p -H
in 4) 4) 4) P 10
3 43 XI 3 O •«
P 5 B O" J 4) VI
a 3 4) W 10
P in P 10 P
ui • X) B a m
a 4) o lO >>
P o > o P a >.
iH ^ o 11 10 a
■0 p M X) O Pi
M « P. B Pi B<H
Q 6 B «« 6 O O
C rt HO
- O M 43
P 41 a 4) n M P
o a 10 > H 4) ti
4) ^ H 43 3 O
■0 O « P O »
O IM P Pi XJ
MO M-n O
p, >, Vi O M O
B.-I O 4)»
C O P Ui P P
■H -H lO B 4 M
« P 4)44 4)X 4)
« « M M a <«
(11^ ta 4) 4) a o
H rH bt o P*.
JiS Pi 4>U «l P
M 6 p a <a ■
O O 3 4) « B M
IM U 45 43 e -H S
■HP X
M V U 41 n p
M rH iJ ta M 4) u
•145 B a 33c 41
w « O H p p
O 3 O P 3 4) a
: .H U "M X O
« rH 41 P U
4) > rH IM 4)
X -H -H X<H O
H « s a P o p
flj V --■» «» **
«
,1 >, e t^ >■• V ■ -^
J M
«) -n «1 l< O H P O 3 O M ti
2 S
.,1 V 'i V m tj i4 «) o « c » ^^
e X
,J ,J (J tl O 3 O P4^ tJ 0 tl
CAjUllO^O >iO«« 'OprH-G
•d iH 13
tl ..< H u o i; 4) «1 O H «1 0 « H +> « >.
e 0 1)
Si. ^ oui.c x-<£aB.fl «)^7
1 p
n (ii- «> M .' .> - i< p « PHI P 0 ^ p ij
w c w
S o X »] 0 « H >, P .' 5
0 0 4>
U -*»0rt4»CPt>0— .mOI^ •Mft
■a p H M
«1 IX >. ,j «J 4> nj (0 Vt -H « O H 4) N - O 0
V P M
." (i ?Hi .< » 3 TJ P .A > t' >. «
tf) « 10 3
«) « (J p li O -' «1 3 ti U O « H «) - ■'I
D) 10 kl m
O3v.>>4)j;0.3Xi|I OrH OH one
DUO
P. a P. e
^•^.HPMPKTJ+J OPtl'n^BOH
A.J ^f^ H X 0 1> 0 TJ 0 > H C
X C X 0
'ao --IP «»<p4)(i)CHP«n3^e
4) -H V -H
OCHKIOIOO >X3P«)CC3/3
r-l P
^pHiir-1- p«> CHptHnsomt-i
'^'^ Ji s
•OCMHHJP X«10«> ^SO. «'-i
rH .H X O
3««liiirtH hdhX«)«im in«>n-<
10 :» p 0
•^ p 2 C P 3 ■• -. P u > H P 11 S 3 H
3 <-<
•OXOCOX OOfflHintlOt.liH J
O 10 C '-I
«IU4)0.4)OP ■ U V )hH4)3 P-0^
-H P -H 10
Clop -HC l4«'0 ^ObO CC
> -H
a)«)p»>oa)'-io«ii<H "1 octHioo
4) 4) 4>
P X I, (X X H ..< c o 4> in 10 HO -H
U '-^ *^ >
tope p^PHoemo) ►^-o -P
p« m 10 -H
SV^TJ< -HniP 4)30in«)qj)>.ffl
S Pi P
3B ScnOOPt^ROHpHliOO
o^S&P o-Or-in) 4.P.X3: mii-a
10 ll -H lO
g H o c
X "H H M
iBmOHViinP.3'«^CC 0 p»133
»M p 4)
^^im■Jvm■■->cu'!Of>■■^vuv(J■^->
eooinOH»)-o0ii).-i.-iXXX«i;0'O
Oi 10 li P
» 4) « --1
<oU«)U^nnioiP.«3PSP'na'0«i
^ V4 Pi (0
00
E
O
P
e
V
+>
in
ii
4) r.
■n 4'
. 1 U I
o i- :
X 3
/I ;
4)
X «>
P B
O
m to
41 >
■H 1-1
r-l .0
p. 41
fi ^1
10 4)
4) .Cl
li
10 4J
4)-.1
>. P
P liO
u u
Q 41
O p
C lO
-.1 u
C X
O
•hX
P o
ni 3
O 10
■H
.-I <•>
p. 10
PiX
« p
o -o
p c
41
X P
P w
3
- e
p
O p
o
e -H
P.
P.
4) X
»l-l H
« X
1 . o
p 4) O li '-I lO
X IH
t- o
4> 4;
•o P
I x> a
I o »
o m
P o
4)
tf) ll
I-l 41
4) +1
> H
■O >H
10 O
p .O ll 10
O 10 41 li
q p p 4)
10 H > O 4)
o 41 vi "O q 10
a o .0 « i>
>J »M -hx
p H 4J 4) -H lO P
H i^XX B
e p P p 4) H •
ii B q ti 4) o
4) O 4> " 4J +* ffl
p. tl O >> > Bl 10 Z
1-1 C r-l 0) ll H iJ
1> .rt p '-I 4) C
10 10 10 q 4) p -H X
3 q 41 ii '0 e P
o --a iH ux) H
ii H h q H 10 u
4J 11 T)
> p4 10 4) O X
4) tI p p .-I
O 10 4)
q P H c h
H O ti O -H
10 p4rl p
41 p. o p q
p e M 10 41
,0 H p, U)
h Pi H 10
U Qi 4) 4) >> lOrH 4)
4)4)*tPiqq-^-H
H^^30l030r^
4) p
p o
10 4) O
:* o 1)
.o u
.0 0 0
4> 4>
4) 3 ll
4> X
>.
>4
•|i 4) >.
•a
0 q >.
4) q p T)
D
0 c
.H rl 3
p
13 -H lO
Pi 4) P Vi
10
V p 10 TI TI
g 4) X « 4)
M M 10 iH .0 4> 4)
0 -O t- 3
>, 4)
4) 3 M O X 0 P
O 3 4) O X X
S O H C 10
.H • X 0.
p -o
O O Vl : TI 41 P.
>. 0 P P
T3
q
P. 0 ii 10 q vi -H
rH q q 0
11 -
lO
0 H in .0 4) o
„ . . 4> in ii p P
« E4)TIOOqT).Hpqp4IP
4)03P>>4>lOO>.De«Ol4li
CPOiOX'm'mHXJ< 4)rH
Op iH P
in4)TII0Vll0qO
■rl rH 4) M 4)
fi Oi >.X >. M
>> 10 m ^4 p ^
TI .-I U, bo 4) X
3 H (J q X 10
p 10 o 3 q
10 > 1) li O
») X 3 4) 10
TI +-> q 10
4J 4) p -H 4)
u X 1*4 il-i E
q o 10 ii
4) TI li 4)
Vl rH .H TI p
4> 3 10 4) 4)
VI o q n TI X
1> X -H -H
in
Tl 4)
OOX
4' 4) q U
■H X « X 41
6 p X O Tl
u o H q
41 in X
P. 4) Hi 3
l4 X 4> Pi
-H 4) 10 in X
m q -H 4^ in
4» "H O 10
> -H 10 TI ip X
■ Tl 10 4) ~
4) P PL.
ii q P*
4) M»
6 «
>4
q
3 r-l in q
10 4) 4) O
q 10 TJ H
o in 3 p
lO P
41
3 X
3 PiX
U U
3 ■
u in
o o « 4) q
III0 44XOTIP HtiTI
pp^.H XC 4)r-l
DTJl) 3TIrH*lOq3
xqxcmoTjqiOQio
P«)P-H-rtJlOOBM010-HCIO
Tl X
e 3
O 41
X ■
k4 4->
lO O >4 >.
q 10 4) T]
4) Pi > 3
OB'
X 4)
p 10
O li 3
p 4) l4
4^ 4) vi q
,H 10 T3 4) -H
10 3 q p 10
•H 3 '0 10
4) 3 X
. > Tl
4) -H 41 bd 41
n P bo q X
10 O -H H-l p
4) 4) .-I 3
P.X n HH
to 10 o n O
■H O -H
l4 10 .-^
q p, H 4) .H
O 10 10
•H T) X 10
Pn P q o 0) 1-1
X 10 m H u o
% 6 X
ii bO 3 M p
p o q OH
O *M -H O 10
q q p « p 0.
■H m z --1
u H a 6 q
bo X
e 4) •
4) p
X q
p
X
o
M -H
4) p e
X r-l t4
p 3 O
4) 10 «H
X 4) q
5 l4 -H
10
O p
P H
li s
4) 3 >4
in 10 41
3^ Pi
V
10 X
>, in • 4J
Tl 41 n :
3 >4 4'
4' TI O -O »i
10 TJ 4) 10 41
10 *44 4) X
TI HH H 4^
4) 43 10 4)
Tl X
>.'-l 3
3
0 41
X q
01 -H
o e
P l4
X 4)
10 41 P
10 p 4)
4J .. 41 Tl
10 q 41
. p 4) X O
41 (J r-4 p 4^
> 4) X
O 144 .0 - •
X ■« q 4) •
ifl 10 O 4-> •
10 .0
Tl m to ii m
41 41 41 3 H
4i in Vi t>
o in ; o >*
q 41 lOTi
in 41 3
to in X 41 P
< 10 p X «
bo
TI q
.H -.4
3 P
o q
3 10
o o
q q
41
M in
41 41
HH O '
41 TI
X
>4 bO
U
4)
qix
41 4J
41
X >.
X
41
> Tl
10 4>
XlP
o
10 41
p «44
UJ *4|
41 10
10 u1
3 q .-1
O I
V4 Tl V
4) 4-'
P 10 41
10 O Ul
3 H .0
•44 P.
.-H H
10 H P
q lO 10
O r-l
■H o 41
in 'o
ri 41 .0
> e B
o 10
1-. bl 41
41
>.
p.
X
p
/-I
41
q
X
r-4
X
0
-.4
.0
10 t--
p
c
q
u
0
0
in
41
10
-.4
■n
3
10
P
41
0
4)
H
Ol
41
P. Vi TI
P
q
0
qTi
■r4
tl
3
a
H
p
Tl
V4
X
>,
41 >44
4)
4)
X
X
0
a
4'
ITI
«o
Pi
ft
O
H
s
I
at
CM
>1
0)
XI
>1
<u
10
C
-d TJ
VO
tM
w
c
CJi Sh
w x:
3
(U
0) (U
0
4J
•H
•H W
M P (1)
0) x:
M
XJ
P -H
U) IIH
o
t^
(U
■P
(1) W
X( iH H
Q)
0 •H
•H
CM
M-l
X
XI d)
•
rH -H
P
W
DiTJ
P
1
IM
(U
TJ u
w
0
rfl
(fl
ty 0
fd
CN
U
p
<U Q) <U
(U
x: CO •
3
iH x:
3 E
TJ
1
Cn i-< C
CJi
<U Q)
o
U)
c
0)
d)
C 0)
d
4-1 W W
3
i4->
4->
(0
0)
0»
Tl
x:
m 5 '71
fO
x: 3 3
(1)
X
W to
(0
(0
•
p
x: -H
x;
d>
C
QJ
o
<0 3
g
Q«
(U
z
O >i
o
•H >H 3
rH
p
o
Vj
XJ
E
<i) p
U Q) Q)
U
XJ
-d vo
o
c
C
o
0) x: "H
u
4J C
0
t
(U •
(U tH
0)
o
0
<U
5-1
M -U
o
>-i (C
M-l
.H
x: vD
•H 1
p
^
P
£
iw
0) ,v;
(U 3 0)
-H
H ^
UH «*
•H
XJ
a
^ 03 c
U)
4J x:
P
t
•H
0
^ 5!
Q)
-o
o
-d
(C tH
<u
(0 3 P
•H
>
T
-d 0)
p
"S S
+J
Q) rH
(U
w x:
p
3 (U
E
fO
■
0 o>
(/] rd
o
Cj> q;
p
0) P P
(0
C >< M
P <u
E <TJ
■d
0 ;»<
0)
c
>
o
.H >H
-d
4J X)
a)
4J
i4 d>
a,
0)
'U
M
(0
(U
l-l
3 3 P
a
(0 0
a
O
o <o
c
T3
M
x: Q
(U
MOO
3
x: p -d
•
c
a a
(U c:
-d
m in
0
u
TJ
rj d
4.) Q)
(tJ tH
0)
0) o
m
O
u
0)
>M
P 4J
rH
m
n c
X3
^ M
c
0)
C
X! M 0
o
woo
d> 1
m
o
4-)
c
C
0)
5
(0
p 0) tj
<!)■ O (U
C rH
3
rH
w X
(U
U 0)
(U
9i
0
<u
p
M
-H ■t-^^u
•H
fo -d
(0 0)
.
0)
b ^
<U
X)
a
XJ
P (fl 0)
<u
-H XJ IW
C (1)
>i c d)
x: p
Q)
XI
0
X>
o
(0 :? 15 X5
ft O <tJ
•H di
-d
•H 4J
>
E (X
w
u
(A
x:
g
E
(d <tj
3 H-i 0)
c <u
O
to
0
w
•
fO T)
(fl
•
P QJ
3
•H o >ip a
p
(U
o x: XI
<d
Ui >^
<TJ
-P
jC
>1
x: P
x: •
C
P -H XI
w
<u w
•H E-i
(d
x:
4-1 0)
s:
U
0
CP
tc
4-)
O
W 4-1 u
0) «
OJ
>i
(U
o c
x: d>
•d p 3
P
fd
VO
JJ
r-t 4J
w
o
4->
M Its
o
a
C
tn
c
a
p >i2;
D.x:
^4
u
0)
w
•d •
M^
c
a) ^
o
0)
-H
C
OJ
0)
fO X) Q
T!
e d
<U
O T)
o
c
C CT^
(U
jj
c
S-l
-d
•rH
E
M
p
•H —1
> IW Q)
c
•H W
O oj
E
E
4J C
Q)
(0
P
<D
W >i >i <u
m M
T)
X3
(U
IT)
E 1
<U
Q) •
0) 0
■U
t-i
0)
W
P rH
'H Xl -o
(0
0) -H
y*
c
c m
4J
P o
H 4J
C
fO
x:
•rH
(d
<TJ
-p -p
d
4J <u
M Sh
o
O T3
O
•H
(d n
« 2*
Q)
c
XJ
X
P
C
X c-d
r-t
xx: (1)
d O
M-l
•rH Q)
O 0)
P 1
0 c
W
-M
d w
w
•rH
0) (U (U
O
<D P XI X5 0)
Q)
W -H
<u o» P
to in
■P -H
M-)
m
14-1
p :3-H
C
4J
(U (U
i-i
:3 HH
p (d
(U
jC
0)
E
w
tJ^rH
-H
(1) r-H
o -d
rH •H
D.
0^
to <U
0 to
■H
0)
ttJ
0
•H
Q)
0) 0) a
0) > rH
o
O
o -d
O
•H 01
M IQ
x: x:
£
>-t
x: x:
x: M Q, o
x: m •H
M m
x:
C O
x; c
(A
x; Id
r
H -P
H n-t
H
p
H «4-l TJ
P
H x: 3
Q<-r4
F-t
•H e
H O
<d
H ft
(0
5J
^_^
*-**
_
_
p::
.H
f\j
ro
>*
in
vc
r»
00
A-35
s
■a M s
o w
J2 9> O. »
ms
5-Sc
£ m C 2 Q «■-- c
■Ort^, 03W0
o A ■ri ■t' «>'^ n
T) d p. <i> <4 nj
-P n Vt to ^ en
..... ..._..„- -C
dO^-' O _ +^ ttJ -Q ® *^
-p (0 TJ OrH , « ,
J3 O C . ^+^ P
C « > P,-P +-* «H +J o
O -HO t* -»->+> o
nx:uu-H ^©i4
Bw *i r-l "O nJ +> ;J
HPCOp,c-t-»«o
■d
(B H O W
O rj O -iS -H -l^
■•^ S * g :^ <#
4h o -p 5 3 c
O .H ^ « p. 5
* xf iH C ttJ «
3 S f- * ^ H
© -P O -rH -d
Q) 'O m w
J.-: mh :< <" a> S
e<fi <ii El P.
o p, © n o
10
^ ^ IS P.-P I
■n O f-< © ©
- -PCO
W "• •»
-POO
mm.
u
0*0 0
«
t •«
•P ^ -HO
CT. v< ens
g£°H .
0.
,0
t4 O » U p.
J4 W • "O H ^ T<
0) © © © p -fJ M
■p J3 H " w O "
- '^ O M « C
5 ^^i
(O^ ^ +^ ©
o c .H c > c jd
I-. P H o Cm
3 .H -P .H -P O ©
O +^ W -P W T3
Ul CO ^ CO .H U O
H P O
V ©
1^,3
■g 43 Vj T3
r^J4^«©*M G) ©
a © cJrsnl^ug
" SS'S-gB:^ rt o©
M PQ >» ;j e M+> o p ^
©
0) ».4 V » :v -
u) P (0 xj ^ Q
■r- C> P w
==-, Ea.S
p r; > o
(Q Q to M U) in
poo©© 3
^ K „ K S .'
d "O H +^ -t^ .
. 5 O M « c fc.
C^ O O -P bD V A3
^ O OJ +^ -^ -
^ n .c ■« o. >
o I « f< o j: , "a ^
4S n p > © a) •
n C ^ 0 n Vh
g © 3 cdfn d rH
S 4^ K . (0 (id
g +i +j .
•P © -P -H •
+> (-. P ^ „
V) © vt (0 '
» ©
1^
g
.. ;3 -P c d
o e^ o >a -H
C w C H
C -H C -d -r) P- S
p p. O j:^ V} ©
M^ o ^ -p g p -H
trl rH « ^00
^ © •rl "P -H C
V J; > 5 _y ^ ^
(3 'U M Vh +J >■ «
A-36
S'
o
& a
• -P o §
'3 i! « ^
u 4> ^ n
C-rJ ■»J +i P
+» TJ .H ^
> n « ^ -P a -P p
n u] U JS -rl J3
•>■.^ H « -o ^* 3
•a T'£»t:a«c^^
1 ij e s ■
!t!
0 0^0+3
•d5g
! -S +■ J3
c _
■►> o o -g
I E f. « s - "^ -
o 'rt «i -H 'P •? ■." .
: " 4i « fr. <3
' o ^« o
I-
■m o -P £k»
** *-P +> w o -5 ^'5
< £ «> ») C H
i^sM
-6
*E2
•« o 'oj -P
^ ,.,.-._ ft) o
■P.rirt«>C T<-dV'
o £1 U
U .H C O
A-37
u
•0
c
Id
H
O
H
o
■P
■P
0)
0
U
c
8,
(U
X)
>1
l^
rH
0
rH
w
-H
•H
5
>
T3
W <
a
0
C
■H
(d
4J rH
(0
f^
-d
c
U
Q)
0)
g
4J
P
(0
0 s
u
(1)
Q)
i-4
-P
(0
-p
03
<U
T) ^
C -P
(«
O
)H
O X)
a 0) •
<U P rH
^ C H
(U o
M W C
■H 0) d
C ro
I
»W IT)
o
■p
a
•H C
XI o
■H
<d (u
4H t3
(0
<u
j:: c
-p (1)
<U X5
-p
«d w
rH ^
(0
> w
<u -P
u
O d)
-P -r-.
o
o a
-H
-P (U
TJ (0
o
f-p
M
o
o u
(0
fM
A-38
f S 5 U
> > q 3
I
o
& s
• 4* o g
_ _ 'd J! « ^
+j « " *^ "^ 5 flj
• if o
> a rH
■O -f ^
g a> to n
(-1 0) (4 t:
3 ■
s -^
- ^ ri •3 § a 0. B
•lHO»>0_0<-'cj(U
:d g o P.+* * o o v^ •©
■JO* ■op3'aCQw
o d w xi P -^
•D S. 3 "-I » * C Q.B-P
» » o. . " _ -H -hIo -h
O « ft' 0) 4> -#5 , -P
« c
' CO +> „ -_ . _ - -
088"°
•rj "
Q 4)
3 jH i ■«
«< ♦J
^^ <D
ls|-?
3 > p
~' o ■« a
O (4
no *^
O « etf (8
o «» c
Ut n U <i
. -^ o
^ to T3
K o ♦^ -1
a"
3«
o
X.
.3
s5
0) r^ -H W -H
I'm t^^"
+J O C « -P c
^ 'f o n a
p. o v> tip o
O 3 "' C (J O
ta « th :r1 °
»4 o rt o tt
;> 4' O V
SSSR
t^ M 0 Q
* 14 '. o r
x: « CI 4 o
A-37
u
0)
Xi
0
C!
«
-0
a
H
0)
H
O
u
>^
0)
■p
■p
0
■p
u
c
&
•H
5
O
W
•H
>
w
c
o
•H
13
It
o
o
>^
W
P
•H
TJ
C
■p
(U
4J
OJ
-P
w
-p
o
p
p
O X)
Of (D
(1) P
0
Q)
W
0)
P
■•-{
Eh
O
c
o
5 •
(D «N
C n
O
P
•H
en
a
c
o
(U T)
M-l X)
<0
P OJ
<u
P
m w
(0
>
o
p
c
o
■H
p
M
-U
O
Q)
•n
O
P
a
p
o
E P
E w
o
o P
<U (U
p p
<N
A-38
I J5 M «0 4>
o 41 4j n V
O M -*
I CO C
0»4J -4
M n o o o -^
M V *M C M
o w 4) j< n o
h. ca *» -^
4» W -« kl I
jz m u u o
C M M
V 9 M
« n c
s.-
. *j « •o
3 c n
M C -«
« ^ c
O O 9 CP
-^ M O >*
« -4 £ O
c «a o -M
c -4 n ^
o n c M
I c o
b 41 'M
( ,-t -4 10 U
M -^ 41
O > >
C M M
M V 9 •O
4* VI O 41
C C
O 4)
o m
u c
41 O •
<0 O
4» •O M
M C
•1 >•
•o n n
4) 10 «
4) 0< O •>
C M
« 9
-« O
Ck.
■ C
o -^
U 10
-4 n f-i n £ ■ c
4J -^ Ck 41 -M ■ «
4) 4-*
I > MC *}
: n 4) u M
' 9 *-t 10
o ti •-* 4-»
•o M c
> 10 4» C
N 4> £ m
I « j= 4-1 a
«j ^ o
^ ^ I- c
(0 o ^
*M lO Q>
I o c
> 40 M
■
4»
^-«
Ck
!-• M 9 41 >
4J U U O
c n o ■
• O -^ M 4>
• V 4) « n IS
) C JC > 4J 4>
: (0 4J u 4J
t fn 4f 10
4) iM «C> >M «
I •-» o cn tM M •
t n r-4 4* O
• 10
I 9 4> «M Tl
« *-< n o c n
I >0 M <0 <0
» > 9 >i JS »
) O M M
10 O M 41 4J '
4) U U
) 4> > M 1>
. <0 ^ O 9 T^
( V 4-* U O O
t ^ 4-> M M ■
1-4 C Ot
) > k4 O «l
I O 4> U J=
) M > 4^ C
& O •-I -^
t •-) M n •
I « 10 -^ o m
) <o c ■ n
, jz m •>
4-» a »4 Jtf
( C •-< 4> M
1 ^ O 9 > O
1 O X Ck-^ Pm •
4 41 M
> -O c c
O »4 > 4J Jtf
) M 4> O £ M
: flu 4-» 4J -M fO I
• n XZ r-4
C 4f U 4-> O .
-^ > C 9
M 4t O 4>
n **^ n jQ jz
m o b. 10 i-<
•^ c o c
MO M (O
s *« >i 41
4-* 4-> 4J U
•O 4 *< 10 -^
I-) •O 9 > «4 i. I
9 C C -4 «0 <
O 4» -^ U I
. JZ ■ 4J V 4)
I M ■ c c o, n <
o o 10 m c J
: 4-> u u o 4
> M 4> -H
I O M V 4J 10 4J -^
I 0> £ C (0 I
4) 4J 4-> 41 TS J
I M u M n c ^
I 4) C 41 —« 4)
I •(-« .^ ^ M
A M O 10 « fl
I »4 M 4>* A 41 O
i:: Ot c 10 M u -
I 4J -4 U 4> '
41 fl C
. O 4J O -4 «
O 41 4J
4J 4J U
q 4>
« -M k4
9 M -4 •
c a.<a
-4 O
4J M V •
C Oi^ .
O Oi 9
U (0 O
•o 4J m
4) <o n 4-*
o c
O 10
4J 9 4J
C C •-• «
O 41 •-<•-• U
-4 ■ 10 O -4
4> -* ft-O
41 •-< «> C
-t O. C -4
O. fl «> C
« ^ n -4
4-1 O
o -*
4> « «4
•r> > «
O 4J
M n c
O, 9 4)
js m
H 4>
41 ^
V n > c n
I 'D C
t C -4
I n M
• o
I D«4->
c -^
: -4 c
I N O
I -4 >,
I JQ 4-'
I JO -^
I 4J ^
I M nt
9
E (0 O*
I
I •D M
• V V
•O 4-»
; -4 fo
I > >
U 4J
4> n M u
i= 4J •'^ en 4>
4J M O •»-»
o u ja
n -4 o 4>
) 4J n 10
U "O
10 4) C
» 4-1 41
10 i
I M C ■
- -4 O
4J •a o
: M M 4*
O O M
Oi o
41 u e
u m
o a
4» 4->
^ c
4-> 41 O
o -^
-4 4J
B •M U
O >M 10
o
10 4* B 41
JZ M «
4J > 9 J=
4) 4-1 « H
C 10 «
<^ £ 10
CM 10 4->
m o
I iM *J m
4> n 4->
Cr> M 41 c
4) C tT**^ 4)
cr-4 <o 4-1 ■
&C -^41
c > o»
-4 O -4 «
0« « 4J C
o •^ o
M «i kl
£ u a
O >i o
r-( U H4
owe
h o o
JZ c
4» tTi
> 9
> o o
O O u
r-l SZ
O V C O JZ
41 C 4)
« -M I
o •a a
I O -H r^
I 4J O
4) *M
u
ceo
O 4f 4J
-4 «k
U Oi O O i3 10
• C «l
vH — * 4J
10
*w *>
« 4» n
> H M
-4 9 41
4J 4-» 4J
u u c
4> 9 •^
•r> u
A 4-* C
o n 10
« C 4)
4-* A 4) C
M O
JS CJ 4J
n « o*
-4 10 C
i~* JZ • -^
■ -M n
O -^ <. 10
u c »
U M O
n c
O 41 « «
*> o -«
-4 a o
n tM ■ j=
4> «M O <0
> O 0*0
4J m c
10 - -^ *M
c u n o
^ O 10
41 c « m
4-> M 41
•-H 4( J< 4-*
10 > M n
O O 4J
O b. «
4) 4» Ji< 4)
k4 J= M J=
£ 4-» (0 4-1
n 4J >
•M U V
•-H 41 4-t C
f-t (0 o
O 4» -«
4J M W 4-1
M dU 10
O N
a 41 • -•
4) JS rM c
M 4-1 10
- o»
41 4( 4-> M
J3 9 « O
t4 C 10
-4 O. C
** — t
c 4» n
O f «
O -^ OQ
M n fl
O. « fl
9 O
n u u
4J « 10
10 > u
-4 r-l U
ja 10
fl C V
cox:
U -^ 4J
ac 4-* n
owe
O CO
u M n
4> V 4) (0
M C 4-> 4)
•M •> 4> C
4.» 4-» « -^
*« M O >
^ o a> o
10 a Oi'-i
O 41 O ^
U M O
n o «
41 -^
4> « £
4> C 4J
C 41
•-4 N <M
o -* o
0.4J
a-^ 4)
-4 C C
^ 4> «
o ■
Cb 4> W
> -•
>,^
A o c
> o
"O C -4
4> •^ «
4-> M
C •O fl
-4 4) a
fl 4J O
o -^ u
•o fl
-4 C
4» _ «
o.
a4> I
CN
c
o
o
o
o
o
41 -* O
« c
C 4J «
-4 •-• kl
*i >
M
o u
a ■
o •
o c
o u
M O 41
o a<-t
c « ia ^
h M 10 I
V 9
> « ^
O "^ 10
u x: >
^ 41 >t
C M •-*
"iS
« 41 O
•H a c
fl 41
-M O ■
« 4^ 41
u
M C -M
* " 5
n 41 i3
ki 9 4)
*J >
n 10 •^
9 4J M
•O fl
c <o «
«?'
C « 4J
I 4J 9 41 n
as
a
fl
«>«
M
e n
o «
n M u
c 4» -« e o
£ > *M O C4
O «-• IM -4 «0
*^ at o ** v\
fl m
V M fl 4J .
*4 M - CQ («
fl o M ac
> b. O r^
O COM
X M u ** d
M 41 *« 41
. « > a,^
£ u o u s
9 Ofi
C 9
O 4-*
•4 (0
u «
C 4» >
fl > M
i3 fl 4>
** jc m
O 9
*•§.=!
tt -4
Jt »
O 4>
^4 *M O
9 fl a
41 «M V
N O
-4 V
4-> n M
•^ -U 9
U C 4J
9 9
O <M
^ ■
N fl «
V -o
«4 4) *4
U 9* 9
C M O*
41 fl
o>-* o
n 41 41 4J
htmmn
4( -4 41
J> 4J C
■
4> • •O «
m n c jz
4J « 4J
> c
4) 4( 41 C
fl O •-« 4^
O « -4
i= « >
crt M 4>
9 O •O
O «
JS H 4i
4J » 9 B
•-( « O w
«->,Jj
« 41 O O
4.* M 4-* U
e
fl M 41 r4
i *4 9 «
9 fl 'D B
5 4-» >«-4
•O fl 4J
fl iQ 5 (Q
U fl ^ «
•^ *J fl
4J fl
C •-< 9
fl a> o •
■ >*i
« o o
x: u o M
*J 4J
4J 4J
•O fl "i
« >i n fl
> ^2
W C 0
a4-> o 4J n
•M 4> 9
*J '^ *J Ot
M 2 4J 4-t A
*« fl 4-* C
Ob i3 « ^ C
■M M ■ V «
fl 9 -t U
U W U <~l
O r-« O 9 44
A-39
«$"a
-> >
c ■ »
0 4 0
A« 4J r^ g
-I o a
— ■
u > « *•
v £ e
f "
9 -4 AJ •
«U 0 O «
o « u S
o o •o
«M fl
M 4-)
4J 4t U
C ^ fl
fl 1 M
SB M
B O
o u
U fl iQ
C > fl
V fl -^
u JZ ***
V V fl
M e <-■
« u
*-i 4i 2
ja M
fl fl <o
9 4J ^
r-« O
fl o
> fl iB
JZ fl
fl 4J
JS
u
Si:-
kl > ■kt
fl fl e
« M -4
-.^
«-« i^ M
-4 <-t O
> 9 C
<*4 «4
4J fl ■
B M
I fl X
> kl
O *M «
> JZ
x: -4 >
-4 M JC
> O «i
« « e
M fl O
er» fl -4
10 '-' 4J
CL fl
>. ■§
V C 4J
iS -• c
4J n «
kl AM
O • o
■M 41 « Ch
M ji m
CO *J -^
O Oi
-4 a CM
O -4-4
r«t fl tM ^
«j c 9 w I
as
u
u 'a
o c
*• 9
-4 -4
c
o o
■ w
4 Oi
9
" i
C ^
-4 fl
>iO
41 4.t -4
M -4 M
fl 9 H
B 4J O
O O JS
-4 « 4J
as
•8«
"3
« 4 >| M C
i u >-< o -•
3 «) h. '^
u w >
o > -^
^ 4 **
£ 4
ta >• c
as
'" 9
MUM
M e o
o -< o
■l '^
9 «
o ^
Jtf -4
H a a
• C 4J
>4 e «
o -• «
^as
o
u w
« e
-- t-( O M **
^a
8<
o
■M c
o
it
C M
as
C 4J
O
-< M
«> B
« o
«D -4
C 4^
o »
fl
• > 4-»
ss
«> 9 o n •-)
>1 M
c c
o -^
C 1> CI
O £ i=
-4 *J *J
10 •O «M
> c o
U 19
n -4 •o 4-* «i
4> Oi 9 ■!-> J
o o ^ u >
CMC
O « 41
I U V ■
>« «i
(7» >
C ^ <-t
I •^ U O
•O «0 >
1 9 41 C
I t— ) •'^
U 4)
•M C « TJ C
o n M o a
4) o l« w
c j= Oi cr-4J
O 4J M «> «l O*
•^ 9 M W C
4-* Oi
CTt C
n n M
0.(0 0
9 4> ^
U 4> 4-* fO •> C
4) ^ u j: n w _ _
T> 4) 4-* M O O <-l
O Q -i~> O Qt U b^
M'-tjatOC 0>t7t4-> 4)
Oi9OWMr0 i«a>
O 9 4) fO O
X: 41 to > > 4» 4->
10 nj::inooj=4i
f-. — t C7«r-« n V 'O
>, ^ -H « C
X) C M 4) (0 r-t «
O ' V JZ XXTt
^ n 4-* 4-* « •-• "O
•O 4J U 10 04-l94>
M O N
4J U -4
— « -^ W ^ -O
o, M crH4 ■ >
o
c -^
T3 O •-«
C -^ JQ
« «1 9
« O.
id M-l 4) C
O 4) O
M -^
4-1 J3 n r
O 4> 4-> n :
CO. 9 •
>».-< O I
•O 4-> r-* tfl
»H (0 -^ I
: H4 c
» O 4>
a
• c o
41 W ""^
X) a, m fl >i
0.9
o u
o o
c ■
-^ w
I o -^
> o* c
I Qt (0
i u
4> 41
C O UH-I M «0
9 4) >
O £
U (-• 4)
J3
n • ^
4f m 9
-^ c o
4J O £
•^ -^ W
10 m
w N o» •
10 -^ c u
C -* -H
£ (0 4J '-t
U a« 41 J3
9 U 4> 9
« O fl Qt
fl C O iC
M v^ v4 ^ n "^
O M «H -H 0»
•M 9 -4 > N 41
•O O -^ i
V U 4-> J: B
J= 0> M 4->
4J 10 n O
C Q,*i <M
« «o 4) 4> ro O
4-t 4-1 JS M J3
n C 4J -M
« o e 4>
OtaC M -H rl >
on o « 4) 'H
9 «M (0 4) 4J «
to C CQ «M U •
-r-< « 41 m
C 4» ^ 0) x-t C
O fl M ^ JQ O
•^ 4J M O O •r^
4-* 4> O Ik. 4-t
*4 4-1 <M m
^ 4J AC fO 10 lO
10 -^ M C 4t C
o ■ 4) a m 4-> 41
U fl ja rH 4.) 10 ■
O U C 4-1 fl
4t 9 M c n u
* > O O -H -
C w > C C *J
O 4-1 M n (O u
•^10 4) 41 •-« 4)
4J rH 4> > 9 0.i-«
R) n 4> o tn o
•D 'H 4-> U « C M
C CP4-' -^ O Q.
U W .^ 41 — t
a^ m -c o»4-» 4>
fl 4J C U £
O O •-•10 4J
U C U C "O
4> n O C 4J 4J
M n 9 J= c
wH n £ M-i 4J 4)
•-4 4-1 — < cr fl
fO M JC 9 "O £ t
C Q H O C 4-1 -H
--to. U 10 --• Qi
•Ml x: > m
-H 4J 41
i3 > **
to • o»-< c o
•k fl C 4J 4> -M
n ■ 9 •^ 10 4-1
.< --< -^ > r-( W 4-»
M C O (O -^ M
4> c >-« •^ n o
^ 4) r-t Ot C *M
C -^ O 41 O «M
•^ J3 *U t-i U «
S i
C 4> «f
O .-» >
■ U3 -4
A W
>«9 C
■W •-< 4»
-4 5 J3
rH > 4)
10 M
9 >« Oi
CF^ fl
m o
M 9 U
4t O
4^ (Q 10
« C
> « C
fl ■ -
4-* 41
4> *M
M 4> *M
4> A 41
W Jtf f-l fl
: 4J M U «
* I O M
cnh. 41 cn
I c J= o
I O ^ M
l >-i M Q.
M 4->
10 iO «
U *J JS
u
9
o» « •D n
C .C 4>
*4 4J 4J T}
Qi C C
O -M 4»
.-H M O fl
41 O O. fl
> «M O. O
41 no
•o n 41
• fl -^ M
• « "O
• M "D
« CP 4) C
O M 10
M 10
n «
i J= JJ 10
4 4-1 tP 9 ^
C XI
•^ M
M ^-^
« o o x:
41 4J n 4-»
4J -H *-4
I 10 C 10 .c
I 4-* O M
: n fl n -^
C fH «i fl
•M £ o c c c
44 C 4-f ** -^
-H on
>1
•^ 10 o
4-* O,*^
O 4.> ID !-• >
— • -H O -^ -4 » O
M 4->
4) C
> 4>
: 4-» -o o
> c o •^
; 9 M 4-1
I o o. u
•^ 9 a. >
4-* H M M 4)
5n 9 o 10 (
-H >M U OiA
u la ** **
A rH « «
9 OtJB
53 O "O >
i-l J5 9
9 « xa iM
o o
£ fl n
n fl -4 «)
M JS M
fl 0*4^ JO
fl O >
M M U (0
D> Ot M
O 4i 4»
M 4> £ M
CLJZ > 10
<j* n
C 4> >i M
-4 9 »H O
M e -M 4->
O •M U fl
4-1 4J fl f-l
«4 c M n
B O 4) -4
O U D*
fl -M 4)
O M »-»
at *> o
O OiT}
» -k* 41 C
C 9 r-( U
41 O* 10 -4
M 4) C fM
M M »4 J3
9 *M 9
O 4-> Q«
4f 4>
4> a*JZ 41
J3 •D 4J £
4-> 9 4->
A C
4-* -4 4J
n CD fl
jz a >tx:
4> » tM 4-)
fl 4J 01 •D
U ^ 01 n O
•O > -^ •M
4> 0> O
Ch c Oi n o
*-t O. 41 O
4-> <0 9 <-•
c cr
O 4> 41 O
U J3 M 4-*
J 4) >t'p 41 n
3 J3 Xl O M M
4J O O 41
) Q o* fl n *
4 c 4> n
1 *4 4-» 4> 41 «
> M > "O
: 4> O fl 9 O
J c 0.x: ^ 4-1
4> Or
) 4) *M n 41 4)
) > o fo x: c
: fo £ 4-> --«
I J= 4> •-*
i > C •D 41
« V -^ O C M
k. > 4J »4 ro '
•O "O O 4f 4) -^
4J •^ ro fl
U 4-1 iS
« fl 9 O C
c n n -•
-4 fl 4J C >
x: -M
4-> — t
n fl 4>
4) 9 4-)
> O" u
M «) X> O -^
~ ^ 10 U 4J
C 41 4-(
O o. «
-• H -O
fO *M O
o o
u
sh
4 r-t 4> 4J 4) —
9 4» X) M V) O^
i > V fl O
9 4> M 4) M
3 (O •O *t I-* O)
4 ^ -tJ CU
4 ^ 9 C O*
J Q O -4 C
w x: I -4
41 n 144 • M
4 C r-( "O O
3 «4 4-> 41 4) 4->
4 fl M n o,-^
o o c
9 >0 *M C t-l O
J «) U4 > 41 fl
D n V o >
3 O 4) 4)
O. M "O C
y* O tT'-H -4
: M c 4) n ^
4 Ol*4 J= *4 w
4 M 4J n
> O 4J fl
J tM 4-) C U JQ
■4 O -^ •^ 4t
: c T-»
9 o n o «M
I 4> fl -4 M O
u a
i) 4> n n n
: tM -4 -M 10 4»
4 «M J= £ >
4 « 4-1 4-> M -^
il 4) 4->
1 4J 4-> U
5 41 44 fl *M 4)
i= « JS 10 -r-t
4J J= 4^ J3
J 4-» •O O
9 "DC
: n 4> c ro
J W 41 fl 41
41 M 41 x:
LI m tP M 4J
L> n fl *• o
4 fl n «M o
p 41 41 4-t
9 41 -^ ia
O > c
> 4-* 10 fl m
q ^ Ot4-* (0
4 cam
9 T) •< 0*0 n
41 O ^ O
I) 4J >•— « »
E u • cr4J *M •
41 C C -^ «-(
•-4nCflO)4)«io
33^
«0 fl -O
M M 10
V D* M
O. O ro
O M Oi
O. fl
O* O
n T^ r-4 4->
-• ja 10 u 41
> O O -4 >
M U M -^
4> •D 4-> 4J
£ 41 4) M U
4J 4-» J= — » 4»
O fl H O •M
4-) tM
M M fl
• 4)
C • O*
O 4> •O C C
X 4) 10 fl
4-> > OS
V
M 4J -w 10 e
V fl JS ^ o*
Otx: u 9 -M
O 4-* fl O M
M 4)
c 41 n •o
^ o *t -^
C XI X
fl o
« X: T) 41 41
•^ U rH U
9 — «
4) 4> O > M
C -I > M "D
•^4-1 41 C
fl 4-* VI 10
-^ « ►i
^ >i4J
41 <D n
X: ID •-< 41 w
4-> -^ 41 M 4-)
•O O fl
M 4* h* 44
4) M •O W
4-» 41 C •
«M J= 10 (Q
10 4-* • •**
3 O
•O n
n C 41 41
« fO -^ i=
C C >141
fl M 4-*
O U
«M 4-* 4f
O -H M
O fl -H 9 O.
u Ja fl o> V)
X fl £
44 A n
^ * c c
•^ C -^ £ fl
> O (O 44 fl
— t 44 -^ 44
4i O M > M
U 9> 4) fl
10 U tP Ot
O C C fl
0«44 9 -4 O
C M
-« JC CJt M
M U C O fl
O 9 -^ > C
44 ■ U fl
■^ 9 C 44
C 44 Tl 4) C
•~t ^ •a *M • fl
u >«
M
41 M O tfl 41 44
e ^
<a fl
fl fl
fl
,
c ot
H4
fl
B
>t
fl^O
rH
• "2 *r
fl M C O to
-t o
41
JS 41 O
JZ o
o n
c x:
JZ c
M
•^ c
O
x:
10
4J fl
fl
-H C tM
9 O fl C >M
>-t c
>
44 44 44
. "^ "^
■f4 44
fl |H 44 (0 -D
4J
10 -t
44
fl
B 44
u
M fl <a
•D U. C 4) O
XI 41
O
fl
44 to
44
C
9
fl >
C
■y
V «
o
^'o^
•^ CON
9 at Ot
4) > 41
a» M rH
Ot-4
fl
C B
fl
to
GQ O
O
o
O
n
fl V
rH
> M O -4 -^ C
O. fl
> M
C O rH
fl X
fl •
^ o
to
44
c
c
9 M
" •€ -
^ M-i44 44 O
»M
O
-^ 44 10
IT C
U 41
>1
44
— t M
44 M
X
Oi
44
M O
44
fl •
O
U 41
O 44
41
fl «
H4^-4
n •M
J? n >
M
C -t n n u 44
«-. O Oi O 10
•^ o
41 m
U 41
s.?
o
9 B
B
M
O tM
c c
C
B
n
•O B
9
o »-•
JS
n > c
44 U W
<-4
atb.
O »H
41
41
Cu
41
rH
n
-^ O. 41 4)
44 C
c
41 41 O
« M »
•o
10
c
M
fl
44
fl
•a n
Oi
n
u
M
o
fl
« V (J S £ M
O
O
— t W »H
So
fl!c
3
o
at
c
10
^ x:
M fl
o
«
«i
K *ti
c
B *44
4> £ -^ O 44 U
«o Ot n
b.
JZ u
CP
M M
•o
M
>
M 44
O J3
n Tj
JZ o
«
O fl fl
M H 44 U
O 44
n
o n
fl
44 44
> M
- fl
fl
fl
O
•o
44
44
-4 C 44
X: M 4i
44 10
c
xa -4
x: ^ •
fli
M
fl
« -a
>
x:
U fl
C
^
O
o
c
44 fl «
44 fl 4) *M x:
c
41
x:SS
44 « >4 U >
■1
« l-t
C fl
o
44
CJ £
x:
fl
M
41
4J
44
41
fl 44
. Q.JC O 44
41 -^
44
10 f-t
44
J5 U
W 41
at
44
fl 44
O JZ
" 3
H
41 C fl
m 44
9 "O
X
o o
O F> M
ft fl
fl
44
N C
>
fl -H
JZ ^
h. 44
O Oi
•o
44
M O fl
>i a. 9>j=
•O M
41
9 U
•o fl ua
>
fl
fl
- >
44 C
•o
c
41
M
U X H
ft 9 U C 44
O
n «
44 41
9
m £
44 «
44
M
41
M
n -H
"2
S.
x:
C O *4 >,-4 -4
O
>«
44 jC
C UrH
0.44
at
-4 44
fl
,^
O
o
n
M
>1
c
c
i! **
O M r-* ^ >-l >
<> u
C
41 n u
fl 41 U
10
c
u
44
to
c ^
44 «
fl A
fl «
10
V
JZ tM
cnxi Q
to
fl
m -H 9
u ■«-»
fl x:
n
44
W
41
M <-l
44
44
fM
•:i-^ *
a-o
44 O V
9 ■O C 4>
41 "O
9 X n
O
x: 44
44
-H C
41 fl
•o
fl
•O M
M
U
Oi44 ^O
X
JZ
^ C O. 41 fl '-4
-* 4)
Q 41
44 M 44
44
u
x: o
ts
c
>
« O
«
■O
fl
4)
x:
44
CO u x: XI
44 9
-« C
4)
U «M
fl O. C
*
fl
44
■^
44
Q
o m
44 MH
>
fl
4)
JZ
c JZ n
¥
44
(-» 41 ot
fl -^^ jz c re
m
41 O ■■- •n
41 ■
44
c ««
44 44 V 44
o
XI c
44 4tf O
> 41
o
44 O
o
n
xz
■ 41
fl
44
O
O 44 ^
X)
fl
«» 44 C
10 -^ 'D 4> M
-^ 44
o.
o n
M a.-H x:
M
10 -4
fl •
w
44
fl fl
4>
41
fl o
to > > -^ i= O
XI c
o.
« -^ 4)
41 O
a»44
Oi
x3 n
M
9
x: >
rH Ot
ii
B
tM
4* > X)
•o
JZ
41 44 ■
4) M > 44 ««-•
^ o
O
41 44 >
m Pu n
44 to
41
to
10
44 -H
c
M4
O 3
> « fl
> 4» 4> a
in u
■O fl -H
O »4
•a
c
-H
"S **
n
41
4J
41 -1
fl
fl T) Oi
9
•o
44 B
•^ M in •O O
4-t C fl C U
c
44
•^ N 44 x: x:
r-l M
sa
B fl
tM fl
ja M
"O
Jlf
o
B
o
9
-H 10
44 ^ 44
9 O
fl 44
U
o c
o
•o
»-*
Oi M
x:
fl
2 S *^
n o 41 »■ fl
O. 41
Xi
C 44
M
O *M
fl
> o
M
6
M
■O 44
r^
41
fl
* O -r^
n
B J= -H
4-1 U *-4 to 41
C X> M X3
to x:
C fl c
o at fl
44 10
O rH 10
>
r-^
fl u
?c
M
41
C 4)
9 C
9 JZ
M
fl
44 41 44
41
n
44
M 44 44
V fl
41 44
*M
o
M
O* w ♦*
41 V O fl <>
M
^
•^ u m
c u «
44 O
M
rH fl
O -4
O
fl
•^ rH
o o
>
M > C
u
U
44 U
10 4> M 4) 44
c
« O 41
44
5
« 44
M to
<M
44 10
> m
fl
O 41 «
M
rH Ot-H
4) 44 Oi >l M 44
•O 44
VI M
^ «
fl
XI fl
t!5
41
fl
44 X3
O
a-o ■
O
M
fl C C
M C O O
C M
to
-H O.'O « M
44 41
>
41
M
x:
9
u -o
U
JZ
fl 9
t«H
44
•^ 9
O. 41 C M O. C
(0 O
5
■ a> 41
Bom
o ^o
41 X: 44
M
n
M
44
C «
4) C
fl
•O
>
M U
n
41 O O
4> n > 9 4f
M 41 O O M
O.
« O.
£ 44 M
U C
o S
44
c
o >
«
fl 41
fl
•^ W
-H 10
44
o
rH
9
25
n
•D
M <M •O
M 9
41
u Jd
44 O
fl
•^ 4)
M U
C
B M
"H JZ
M
O
«
n
fl
to > U
Q. n n rH
41 n
x:
U fl
fl tM fl
« c
44 C
n x:
o
O O
> u
OiX
B
9 •D 44
44
B
H B
>, «) 44 -H 9
>
44
44 X3
> O 41
n 41
n
fl 44
■
O W
•rt M
n
fl
44 rH tM
o
o -H tg
u M -4 44 x: o
o
« fl 44
•o
•rt M
M
^ 10 JZ
M
n
c
4-1 10
V
N
fl 9 «
41
•g B
c m 44 >
a 41
JZ >
41
is
41
10
*-*
O
41 41
U 41
jC
44 O M
x:
44
B fl
4) >»'0 fl
0*'~> n Q.<D
»
c
44
X3 41 C
rH
O tM
f^
MH
c x:
fl to
44
m
44
n > T?
44
fl
*• s ^
•D
44
M O
o
O O
X n
o
44
41
at
>
* ° 5
« rH J= «J 41
41
fl 9
O 9 -<
o a*
fl
•o
>t
B
M
tM
c
U
fl
M
o — o
fO 41 M »
•o
x:
fl 0)
44 44 to
c
41 C
fl M
44
44
>1 O
VI
O
>t
U 44
c
41
n 44 -^
44 — • O 4= fl
C U n 4J O.
C
u
n 44
u n
to -4
V
x: o
tl 41
fl
X) •^
- -o
44
fl U 41
o
«
rH to 44
&•
M
o «
•O 9 -H
41
M
44 «H
M >
M
B
44
44 B
n
41
4>
41
J= fl M
B
« N fl
it ^ *-t 4>
fl
Oix:
41 M ■
fl 44 fl
tMX9
fl
44
rH O
O
-H
•o -^
U «
at 41 x;
41
44 •?-» O
a, o
-H C
fl >M fO M
X 41
4)
a44
o
44
.s
fl u
•D
41 rH
«
c
■ 44
M
W O *«
U
C -H
C <*4 CT Oi •
41 ^
m
o
C «1 O
«
M
M
•a fl
-r-» H
tM
9 M 41
x:
B « ^
M O « C i-t
ja
fl
44
§8
O
B
C M
B 41
Oi O
^ o
O «
44
44
tM Oiia
to
V)
o at M
V Q -^ 44 -H
x: o
M
c
44
c
fl
o o
-4 >
O
> u
M 41
41
« 44
«>
M
«
-HMO
> o x: M fl u
44 U
-4 41
fl 41
o at u
•^ M4
n
o
O
Oi-*
41
O
«
M
41 M
41
44 O O
O C 9 J? C
«H Oi
•§
s.
44 ^
o Oixa
j= x: c
44 44 •^
-4 c
44 — «
>«
44
fl 41
2'S
tM
o
M
M
Oi 41
44
41 -^
■
fl JZ
44
O
■
>ix: 44
C 4J C
43
fl
x:
o
•<H U
O* 44 -O 44 9
>
rH
•O u o
fl
« 41 O
n
<0 XI
41
1 -C
«
O
JZ
JZ >
*-H
^ ^ 41
41
9
10 C
tn c 01 44 to u
«44
44
rH O M
41 fl
st^
x:
1 44
fl
*M
i!^«
fr* -^
rH
•o
41
>fO
Z
n
O -H .
•H (0 f-t C 41
C C
n
m
44
JiC ^
n
44
<fl
B
O 44
Xi -^
U 10 c
O 4) U
O 41
41 x:
41
O 10
U M
n M
M C
e
■
c
U
fl
m
S.
«
«
41 A 44
m n M fl M >«
•^ m
44
Oi
JZ •a
41
44
o
O o
41
10
B • O
10
•O 41
«
44 C a. 4) O M
m 41
44
fl >«-M «
41 >
fl
B H4
«M -ri
IA
fl 44 •^
^
• 41 M
41
x: ot
-« 41 > MH O
M >
■O
» U 44
41 41
n 41
JZ
*-*
44
B
U U 44
rH >«
r4
U
fl
u
CO O
^
K> C
N CrH n
x: -^ -^ o 4c -4
II
>
C
c u x:
M
44
•J
M -4
«
41 -H
u
c
9 B
U
C
is
O
rH rH
41 C 44
O 44
u
M rH
fl ■•A
n Y^ ^
c
•— 1
41
44
^ -H
44 44 tn > to >
44
O
>4
41
ia fl
44 to fl
15
c
fl
58
n
U
fl
-4 OB
JS M O
s.
^
r-l
fl
M
o n
g,5
01
re M
-^ -. fl c to "O
9 9
*M rH rH
44 re
> O «Q-^ 44 <
U -H
m
X)
o. o* o a»b.
41 44
10
OiU u
■
|H O. U
fO
O.X
re
n »
A-40
« >
.-( o
a, u
*4 9
4-1 O
'5
4-* «f «l M vH
-<• O iS M O
M •*> O M
« 9 k 4J
>t O «M C
^ n o jtf o
^ M u
U -C « r-^ 4J
-< «J «) U C
•^ M Oi « U
u <« « x: ^
OiV >**
O 9
4J 4.* « 4J 1^
M C M « •-*
O « « W
0>Q « M >
4J M
O «)
m >
41 Qtt
4J «l
10 c
t -« rH «0
10 <-• C rH «
c n n w
. ~^ u -* V
t) «M -^ 4^ n
J tM « c M
i «> -« ■ 4> 9 •
J JZ U V *J *J c
1 4-* u •-* o n o
a.x) a** 4J
: c M o •o cp
3 -^ H «> C
J 4) Oi£ U -«
7« a J3 F> A J=
3 t» «M «
4 .-t <-4 o •o «a
: ja-< -^ »
« o o • 9
p u *M u « o •>
R o.^ o. 4> j: >•
•-4 o m « 4-'
4 « X u « c
s »4 n 9 t> 9
js c u •-* o
4-> 10 «* m •-« cj
-^ £ -^ -4
4J n 4-* 'D ti «i
9 4 M r-l
O M O <-<
« Qd C 2 9 «;
10 CM
4-) O « O
CM « n o.
O i= fl^ <o
*4 4-» W lO «l c
4^ •-« JiC W
3 4J jQ «0 CU
C O lO (-3
M <a M <-« c
O 4-* Oi 9 « -<
*M M O C
CO JS 10 VI
-4 Oi «f m 4>i
■ £ MM
W -M «J V 4> O
M «» > «M
O «) *M V -^ (M
■ •» o > a: ft>
4J O 9
M «
t> Ck.10
4.* -4 C
JZ o
o. u
n o
4) M W
4-> 4J 4J
« 9 «
4-» *t — t
I C i3 J5 • ** •O
•^ 4J •-• «)
4J > > O
, ^ tj .4 O «J
I fl U • « rl
I --4 c jc m pH tj
I ,-<« -4 n 4) « «i
n«^ u 4>
•M •-« X 4^ c
O Cb 4> O
« ■ B C
•-4 (O O «f
(0 4> u n V >
O 4-* U <0 •-<
CT> O <0 9 4J
9 M O 10
W "O O W JS £
iS C 4J > M >
4J O -4
u n M « M
C M > 9
O 41 10
-H M 4) 4> 4J *-l
4.» « >«J= 10 -4
C A> ^ U
I 4» C
■ ■ n
-G -^ ^
o. > c
10 o <0
M M
m u V x: >—
c n 9
O 4) O
9 41
4-* £
m 4-t
I m c
4 O -^ 4> 4->
1,4J V 4» J= '-1
^ 9 j< 4J A n
) 4) 4-1 Q > O — •
U n 4-* O M
J (0 M a M
i ^ 41 >1 O* 4*
I ow£ ra m -^
t 4-1 M 4) "O
4 41 fO « 9
1 4J M 0> > -W
: (0 4> 41 r-t fO m
4 -4 ^ M <D £
M •^ 9 «
> Oi£ n « 41 u=
> O > 10 4) > 4-(
M 4) *4
O. M ■ «M > iM
Cb 41 *4 O O
R) > f-l 4-» C
-4 O C AC 4i
c M M 4> n
10 4-) V « O
41 C -4 > Oi
JZ O M •
M 4J U ><4J 9 ■
-4 i-i « Ch 4)
O 4-> i= <-*
m 4-( 9 U 4J 4} JQ
•^ C 4> JC O
£ O* « M !-• M
4J C MM Of
•^ n o 4>
•O C U 4J • 41
go <0 41 J=
-4 c u n 4-(
4-> (0 — « M
•^ n •"* ■o o c
4-» O* Oi c > «
4J C -^ -- «
M 41 4J C 4> M
41 -4 n O J3 ■ 41
0» M 4* -4 O O »-<
0«4J > 4J -4 U
9 9 C U £ 41 O
M C -^ n > iS 4J
41 iJ
O
o
s
e
4»
it
*
« ■ « 4J
e 4J «M 41 4J e «
i= O
4J
4->
o
M
M
1
o « x:
M O* t7>
Cr-4 -4 J3 C 10 9
■«> e
O
-4
-4 ■ 4-t V M
>1
M
S!
4J
■
M
M tM M -^
n M 41 -4 *> o
o o
tr
M
10
«
4J
10 n m
41 41 «-( C M « £
•D OiXl Q 4-t J3 Oi
9 £ 3 4.* n
** 'O
4)
o
« ^
U
a»j2
4J
>
)-l
m
4>
>4
W
C U 4J
o»
«
«-«
M
C
a
T^
T3 -4 « ■
«) •O -4 j2
4J 4J o 4-1 e o
C 4J
M
«
o>
J3
-4 c w ox:
«4 9
4J
TJ
4)
m
O ^ (0 ^ 4J
10 H 4J •» Oi
T> ua
n
»-«
4J
•o
4J
M O ^
<-« >« 4) -4
10
9
5
4-1
c
O. 10
<« ^ >t*>
o a^ u= « 4> at
o «
«
o
O
c
X JZ
«
O* W c
4t Ai >-l 9
4J M ^ -^ -4 C
rH C
41
4->
W « fO ^ -4
o
>«
«k
^
M « (0 O
91 41 M 0» > •
4J *4
tM
41
41
^
4J
x: 9 ■
Ck m a o c o 41
C 4J
-4
MiS
«
4-> 4-1 10
9 > ^4-t *4 rH >
41 n
-Li
41
-4
■u
4)
41 U
4t O 4t 4.» »H -4
*4 IQ
C
4>
>
9
^
*H
M V « «
10 C JZ
M .M C -4 << 4J
M C
4J
O
CP -4 n fl u
4-t 4>
•o
4)
JZ
9
C
m 4-t
c 10 n ^ -H -4 41
9 ■
**
M
4J
O
4-1
-4 ^ 4t 4t r-4 T->
e S
m
JZ
<0
c
n ■• c 4J
4-t 40 9 10
o> 9 tr> n 4t • X3
o
>i
JZ •a
*>
n
4-1
o
M0Mn>M4*0
fl « 10 2 -^ c «
Je m x: 4-t 10 M n
^ u
**
M
C V O £
10 41
4*
9
4t
4J
4» '-4 ■ 4-*
JZ M
**
O
4)
V
U
(0
-4 9 10
O -4 u o « O -4
4-*
3
n
£
U
9
C
4-1
M M
nxn4)4ta>x:
4)
n
c
m
9
•f
4-1 4) M
-4 -4 £ ^ 4-t
n n
cr
4J
<0
«
M
9 V JZ V "O *^ "O -tJ JH
•D •*
41
«
OQ
4>
Q) C f 4-t f
C O n 41 4-t
C JZ
•o
u
o
■^
M
*i u
4> « £ -4 ■ 41
V 4-«
10
»
a>
«
4t
<a
4tU9«4IX:Oil
a^
•o
■
4)
C
4-t
4J M O M
M4IM-4X:4.tua
c
41
O
i=
c
10 4) 4-t
41 M O <-H 4J 4>
O 4J
ft
j:
u
4-t
■
£ 'P
> J3 XI 4J X3 >4
O ^4
■M
+J C -D TJ
Ol « •M 10 «
4) »
m
9 4> 4)
W n 4J t-< £ 4J >
M
41
41
c
*J
4>
M
4-t 4J
>ij:: on 4-t o
«
4-'
m
4J
9
4)
•aK-^0<-i>4-*JS4) C>i
C V
c
10
i3
>
« 41 ■ O
w Oi • C
10 M
V
£
O
O
♦J O -4 <0
r-l P4 4» 10
»-t o> >
«
4-t
o»
4.t
O C -1 «
-4 >4«D o oo ■ n
a, m
O
c
*
C 10
UJ34)4-tOt94)C
c
x:
e
c
■ii 41
(0 > »-« n o -^
41 41
2
O "O "O
4-»
«
O
n J3 41
^ CO 41 <0
JZ »
a
c
«
r-4
4> .a ^
^ 9 <0 41
•a •-< 41 C M 4-t
4->
fO
O
>
Oi
c
4t i-H n -^ Oi ■ o
o
« rt >
4» 4-1 10 9 4) C
^ •
JH
u
Qi
9
x: 10 ^ 41 ^
m -o
«
**
4»
c
o *o on
4-t M 4t 4> > J3 n
41
•a
4J
o> c
4t
o
^ n £ 4>
4-1 > n cr o 41
■ 4-)
c
10
c
4)
M
9 9 « <-i
«M n «0 « M M o
4) -^
<0
JZ
ty**i «M
O O 9
■'4 C J3 > 10 •- Oi'O
•^ fl
4-»
•o
M
n
u
O
jz-^ m u
o x: u
r-t
fO
4-t
«
m M M
•afl'0>tU4J<04l
iO
(0
n
O
9
41 4t
4l4l<-i4.tin>4)<-t
O
«)
C
4)
4J
4J O* V
CT'O 9 -^ -4 -4 -4 J3
yo 4>
«
cn
4J
> x:
m
4J 41 M x:
M O U •O M *M 9
rH A
m
fO
4J
4.1
4)
-4 1-4 IB 4->
41 £
10 > <e -« o
1
V
m
4->
4J
U
u
x: « Cb >« 41 AJ ^
in 41
4->
n
c
«
c
•D U C
u •< n m -* JZ c
M
j=
4>
M
O
41
n 41
n o u '-4 4-t 41 o
V 10
4->
4.1
j=
M
>^ >1-4 jC
•^ » 10 T) 4-t
o».-t
10
M
U
t-
•1
•-I ^ « > "O 9 -4
<0
4J
£
4J
4)
>^
tM
(-4 (-4
41 C 4J O «
O.TI
10
M
■
9
M
<M
« <D "O
e . js o» u 4J •.41
C J=
t>
c
JZ
U -4 4> <>
4) >,4-t -4 <0 D> 0»
C 10
4-*
rH
4-*
n
OV-D
-4 4-i 4-t fH
41 4-1 n cr* c M
o
a.
4-t
9
«M C 4J CO
jO^ ^W4-IC*^M
M
4)
fl
4J
n
O
•M W -4 <n
O 4» -O C -4 4J jC
41
4>
O
■
4)
M
■
U 4-* ■ ^
4) « 9 9 -O M U
>Q)n4ion)-4n
>
M
u
■
M
i-t
O
O
4> O M
o« U
4)
9 J=
M
O. O. 4> C
ioianx:aox-4
M
ffi
10
O. M
4-1
•M
OI ■ Q.-4
X:u<-^4>«'-<4l<D
O IM «
4J o e
o> n
c c «
-4 O 9
^ > a
o n
•-4 M o
10 ax=
4J a.
M <n
O «
U «»
U
41 "J^ O
JZ X3
4-t 9 C
n o
C 4.1 4J ^D
10 *4 c c •
4J ■ 9 « C
M M O O
O 41 U M *4
Oi Oi U 41 4-1
■ « > 9
-^ xn -4 ,
n Q
-ft
n M •-«
4) O
^ 41 a
9 JZ
M 4-* IM
O
o
a **
O •-« 4J C U
--4 « -4 M
4-t TJ ^ T3 9
-4 C to )0 o
•o 10 M o n
4-> 4-t C C
m
n 4J n 41
4J M 41 J3
u o >
10 *M -^ N
a«M 4J 41
■ 4t U >
-^ 4) -^
n T-»4J
4) •^ i3 U
^=£0 4^
4-1 4J -^
>4X3
n M *J o
« 9 -«
41 U ^ 41
in M 10 n
« -< 9 t*
10 -o o*J=
4-t
O 9 fO
4.) O 4J 4-t
>i 10 m
* lox:
^4-1 4J
41 «e 41
41 x: x:
M 4.1 -U *>
u n
4-1 to 41
^ n c cy>
U 4) « D^
O 9*4-1 9
as CP M M
9 M
Q n 41 41
r-l ** JZ
i= 4-1 M O. C
4J -^ 41 9 -^
> 9 O >4
n 9 M *M
Q 4J 41 cr-H
C C M 4-t
41 4t n c
a a w -4 41
4) > J= t3
O > 4J -*
41 O M «M «M
o c a 41
X: 9 C 4-t 4J
n cp n « 9 c
>4 41
•M JZ
-4 ^
n cp
-4 la
> M
41 >0
M a
-4 « CO
» 'O bu
JZ w
M cm
•M d
a
V 41
4t M
n
O »H
a 10
o c
-4 a ^ o
o >i
*J u
-^ a
li 41 CP Dt
; Z c -4
I -4 U
c x: -4
U 4-t rH flj
„ c ^ a
C 41 i= <« o c
O CP U O U 41
a 10 « u u N
M 4J (0 --4
£ M -4 M C
4-t 4J C
^ -4 no
po>nc4in'04)co •«>«n
IC*^*^ M*'44)X:04-t4>4lS
4-4J3 iOX;4-t4J-4 r-<UNI
4M4J'a 4.»« 4-l£*tMrH
> O 4> 9 4J a-^ U 4J 9 4t
>^4I'00 «nOr-<IO*^OV
4-4U9>iio <-i50^n__
:CC<-< <-494lOM V
30-'4U 90>uaocc
iacnC4iO>i4i Qi<D o «
-4 « n ^3 j< m -^
c jsn'D w <o4.tn
-4 Ot>«4(aOOCi-«941
n -C X4»4-»Ik,09^-44
lOM.r4 4J *40r-in-
^CM>iCn'0 4-t>OM
00'-t*^C4)J«ie Oi4>'
4)«.44-t4J |-40>M4-* >
XSO-t-^UDt M«n£*HO
4Jiociac lO'-i UOM
4JOX-4 .XlUMfO 4J
i4-tna4i4-t4-iu 9onc
2 41 M O M 4J O
Ma 4I04>4I^0«UU
4-l9MnaOii3.C Oi41
0«t.r4 4) ^•D<a*M
Q*M^ UM>a 41 *M4I
41 I — ( «-* n c 41 x:
4J*MC7tni-«4)9 OlO 4>
nOC-^i3£0 Oi 41^
41 0£94J> -O^^O
911-4 r-14-lCb m U JZ *i **
O* 4) iM 41 -^ Ch U
9> 4IOUiS 9M
n V u x> JZ u *» «a4fe
^OiO-MCO 4) >M
tM i= o iM j: o 9
n n *J *i -* >!*> • ^ **
-44>C lOJJJ'tM C>t4t
CO (on-4H4-44JM
O-^M^'D'OMOnC
^J34-tnB4tC4-t« 5-^«
-4 10414.141 rH^J3«
MCU-UiC U4>MM
«,i04i no-4 «x:4i9
C J3 a U M «f 9 4J u «
o an94»ono'^co
«.4tQOaOM4-tl04lC9
*J U41>4 -4«^-4 "O
U04)41 4»CrHa^4t«^
4(4JMrt«i500< >*^ 9
n •^^ ■ ^ii g 8
>4t<o>i *.a»>i •**
-*JCCMaC«*»-4
4J <o «4 10 M a
n M 4J 4> O M
^ 9 CT^ M M4 4)
lOOV •00-«4r-t«MCh
-4OCMa<04l^
m 4J .-4 Oi M >%
A> 4( 41 4) C U
lO'Q'C-*J4)Oi><OC
JZ m 19 Ji » £1
■4> ^ JZ *i ** JZ JZ tJ*
^ a4J i-H u «
^ C *M 9 9
*4 nioavounnM
a 4-) > *4 4) o
M n 4i4>*i*M-4 m
V 4»>W-4n«MMM^
Oi Ot4l-'4rHO<^4JO>4
ot-4 > u u *o n *M «
>-4 9 > V A 9 Oi
«. n cp n
a 4) c c
(0 -4 »4 o
M O. > -4
CP O 4> 4-1
O U — • Oi
M > O
a 41 4t
> M 41
fH 10 .C
9 J= C 4J
M-l -4
n 41
M 41 «
cp n w
o o 9
M o.
O. O £
M «
9 £
O *J
C U
9 O -*
Ob. M
M 41 M c n
o x: 41 4( n
«J 4.1 iC M 9
-4 44 4t (J
c M j= n
O *M 9 C -4
a o *M -4 ^
a* n
«
J« -o
•M
c
c
M
o
to
m
(0
n
«M
41
o
u
M
«1
^
4J
41
c
9
?
o
n
41
3
C
n
x:
O
9
n
4J
4-t
>
4J
a
n
4J
n
M
o
M
10
Oi
o
■C
JC
JZ
Q,
IM
4.1
4.1
*^
O
4) -4
OV4J
ii
"UUi-t •.«>»'4J.-4-4
-4 -4 M Z O ^
•4 X) I**
4>'au «4fi^o*o*»
4»4tC> «OOM
a (Q '
Ii <e o 'O
41 o M n
C«n<-4X4>4l0.4>*J4.tfti«
•-4U Oi^«J n<o >
n >i e c 41 41 > «*4 «
r-4 4I-^X:9 CPM4J
4icc>4.i 4JCrcrc «
«M 41
O M
9 «
XlOOOtC ^C-44!
, . ^C-44)4M>i-4X:£
Ca 4J-4 £Or-IMf>4J
tO<a4lUM*J4J o«o>«
: -4 w z: - • *
» 4> 0»4J
U O W
4 41 M n x: M «
> n cx-4 4J « v*
*4MiSlOMO 4IC4JCtr
— ■ oe4JOiO-4«c
« « o M c o
en£u4.to«M^
> n n a *4 a
-4414IM4l''40n
tM N4JX3J« a4J 9
-4 a 4J n 41
4J > MM cm
-4 a OtQ 4J 41
•• u « a e 4.1
<^vVM4i4ia««
>(-4 &^ f 41 4J
M > O 4.* 4J m
aM » 5 4.* 4i m
4J t M « ma
JZ n B a<-4 M 41 u M
4.1 9-^ 3419-^41
'on4to^n^ii
*H cmjzjzcnG'^
O t-«24Jn9-4*>40
c n 1
*4 9 a a
M "O <-<
O C 9 10
«> .^ c o c
-4 o >»-^
c — t •M
O >%*J 4J
a xa n a 41
r-l Z JZ
V •o n ** **
U 41 "4
C 4J Ot«J c
a M 41 m -^
-4 O ^ 4)
i-i Oi 9 n
Oi 0.4J CP 9
a 9 C 41
o n o M o
u a 4->
M 41
M n 41 ft 41
o a > •-•
S XI
> a a
41 x: iC • f-t
-4 u 4^ a -4
> *4 41 «
4) £ <M £ >
M > O 4.1 a
:&
M O M 41
O 4J a 4J
Oi a
41 41 9
£ C O A«
O >* V
n n
O M 41
4-t 4) a 41
ao >
u a
o> r-« x:
c >i a
-4 a "O
-4 cr*-4 e
> a 9 a
O JZ
> >
M C 'O 9
a.JLC o
I «> 4.1 u
-4 M a
^ O 4-1
a *M c
O >M O
O a u
o
M
M
1
a
3
o\
A-Al
4J — •
J3 tM
«l U 4-1 4)
U 4J *-t C
U -^ V
*£ 4) J3 m
CO tM O 41
a> V m u
•MM 0>
0>'O
M-l C
o m n
en 4«
c >,>
^ o *J -^
U M -• -M
•« 4-> u m
« -^ c
X M
C O 4>
O 41 4J -M
-4 > r-l
4-1-4 .k ro
m CP 41
N ■ «M
-4 DO
t -ii 4) £ O
4J ^O U «1 4) O
4) C
U O
>• U
5&
9
U C
u 10 m
o
4) C C .. ..
t7« n •^ -4 on •-•
c M
10 o
4J M
C ^
o c
u o
U 41 TS
-^ 3 41
c
-* JJ
41 O
M 41 C
ss
a n
c 4) n M «i
4» M
OS -O ■!-> 4> ■
C i=
3 H
•D *« 4»
C M U
10 4» 9 *
Ot'O «
9 4> 4»
n CO N 4-* -
10 ■ O 4) 4)
41 Oi > 4-t
•rt 4» C
O M O
M 9 ^
C 41 4J
O M
-4 a C
41 -U >«
fl ro 'H a.
•O J= 4-t 9 *M M
c 4-> c c n 10
4> 41 10 -4
5 c 4) -M M
rH « r^ 10 4)
rN ■ u n u
<H M C
•O W 4-t 4)
C Dt 10 4-> >M
9 C O
*M o m '
U -^ JC V
4» J-i U 4-t I
a u -M « *
9 4) x: 10
O) 03 > >
>t O 4) 4-*
tr o
c ■
B V 4-1
) 4-1 M M
u o <0
L> 9 4J >
; -o u
> C (0 41
O H4 £
J U 4-*
n *M
4> >i O
■D >,
9^4-*
4J 4) -*
n VI u
41 X
CMC
o U 4->
-4 c
4-» -^ "O
10 c
4-* 4* 10
4> jd
D» 41
V >.■
> «D 9
4) ■ ^
M O
U >
4> -^
j:: c 41
4J 4) j:
n 4->
c n ^ ■« jrf
O -4 4) D* 41
4-> C 4)
n 4-* 10 -4 M
9 10 -iJ O.U
u jz n cu
o m n >
«M n u o
-^ 0)
> M
O • 4J O H
M n -^ 41
U tt •-) >
fO 4-> <» 10 <-»
C -H 4J > -H
n u o (o
M OH
- •O O) 41 M
C C 41 M (0
<0 9 M
•-4 tU 4» J3
Qm M 41 'O U
41 £ 9 9
C Ot4-* f-H M
O 9 U
-4 CO (M C «
■U O -4 4)
U -M
<0 4> 1-^ M -M
J? U-> 4) n
•Q 4J I 4J
C rn U M
10 M 10 O
O > •«-«
•M 41
4-* 0*JS I-*
V4 « fO U 10
O rH O. 9 U
a o M —
41 M C
M 4J O
B •C 4) I
' C JC <
•-4 9 4J :
« «4
-4 M C
M 41 — » r
4; Ot 4
4J 9 Tl -
SCO 41
*J <
« C 1
•U J= 4> I
O 4J ■ I
9
n 4J u •
C 10 C 10 -I
J it o m
D > -^ M '
= O
t 4-> «*M
fl « C '
J= 4J O
• 4J •^ O
Q M
on »H
1) -. 4J •-* '
J x: -< I
> 4J > I
3 41 •
■M
Dt <a
M O -4
10 4-» 4->
•-4 C
10
•O 4-> 4-> •
C c n •
fO U U3
« 9
4) in •
C 4->
O (0 4J
-4 4-) O
4-> n C ■
"O -4 "O O rH .
-< **4 -* W
4J C 0« « t3 O
4J r< «
r-t 4-t V 4J
fl C M O
4-) C 41 9 C
K C 4->
; o -4
I N U
9 O
o -4 « n 4)
X) 4-) cr 41 M
« 9 -O ■ (0
4-1 9
•o -4 TM-t n
41 4-* ro 41
en -4 u
M c n •o 9
41 -4 -< 41 «
U £ ■ (0
I -< o c
o >«
n 4-1 ^
U )0 M
O •-( J3
C M4 10 U
V O U 9
C 4* -<
O > £
-■ ■ >
" 4t
O lO c
c o
n 10
« 'O
4) "O c
M « n
n o
u <k
41 X) c
o» -^ .
M n
« >« fl)
41
41 > 4)
> ^
n 4>
J -^ a
•^ J3 4-t r-t .
9 "O •-) W Q
( -4 u c o >
m 4)
ID -M
> 4)
-4 4*
n m
JSS
> 4)
•O
sa
c o > c <
-« «M 4) «4
0> ■ 41 <
9 M n 4> 'O
CO 41 4f .a • -^ .
4J > 41 n ■
4) 4) -^^ O M ■ •
x: •a 4J 4J 9 n
4J 10 M 4)
4) C 4) (0 M
•Q ja U k4 V 4-> I
4.> 4-» »H 4) <-t
M 10 4J 10
: 4-) tP£
) <0 C >
4 C -4
« M J=
) 4> 4-> n
1>^ 4t fD
I ^ ■ M
1 10 O «
n 10
) 4) C
: c o <o
* O T) 4^
3 M 4-1 Oi
U 9
: "O >i C
3 -4 10 10
4 n > 41
J C *~t
g o 4J o
J u n
■« 41
4 >1 O.**
X^ ID O
1 C 41
9 o x: c
u o
-*4 n
4-> 4t
M >
c ^
o.a
O 4J ■ -^
M 4J C
O 4* •
c n
-4 o >..
4> C
•-I o
»* XJ
>t o
« -4
4) 4->
4-> n >
9 rH O
n 2 a
4) -4 n 9
x: V o I
H « -4 -o
4) T} M I
4-> 41 ID
fO fl N <
4-> 4> 10 J
n M j= ^
i-t 4-1 « 4-1 n
' * a
) n 9
' c ^
;5?
-^ c
4J J3 V
U O fl
(D M "O
«M B
41 4)
c jz m
I-. 4J 10
4-1 n p.
10 -^ K
V 4J n et p.
K 4) ID > 4>
i3£
> 41 ID >
4> j= x: o
M 4-1 4^ £
4J W 4-1 n « O 41
ID -^ 4J
^ Xi -^
■M H n
I tM 4J ^ lO C
I *4 M (M 41 -^
> 4) -4 4J
: •.•M 4J U 41
< cr n c 4> £
B ID 4> 'p-( 4-1
: «H 4) •a 4>
IB -< n M4
4) 41 O
o«x: 41 >i
I a-p x: r-t «
) ID 4J n 41
1 jC ki S n
I O >i O >(
1 4) •» X) -4 fH
« J3 > ID
I OXQ 41 C
: O B 41 M 10
• 4J -4 > O,
Jrf O JK
) u o •-< n
1 M O rH 41 -M
) ID •-• O £ M
. kl 41 O
10 A 4J I
ID C -4
4; n
fl
41
41
N •»
x: -»
14
•o
JZ
4J n
*j x:
10
9
U 41
H
k
41 4-1
41
U
i-v «
O
41
c
X O ID
9 •
£
M >
TS C
4J
<-H
Cb
4) ^
o
10
n
M n
4->
u
B 9
10
*M
O O
XI
o
»M
^ -a
x:
■o
■^ M
U M
•1
o
ID ID
2 8.
M
4J
■g
s.
U N
■U ID
> a u
s.
CO
n x:
) 9
4)
c
1~\
K
o *u
n 41
XI
41
■ o
4) x:
9
41
•^ 4-1
W
•o
•o
41
«
•-I
41 C
Xi
4)
C ID
■ -^
41
4-1
O >
41
jc
u
o
M n
4J
■o
ID
•o ■
4)
>
41 41
4-*
9
U M
■ n
M
O
ID
M 10
41
x:
H^
.-t H4
41 > -O
U)
o
a, o
4J
C
1 n
9
41 >i
0» 9
M
4.1 ja 4J
B O
er
c
O ^
■O
c
41
u ^
•-• M
4>
fl
ID
4J
4-1
n 2
N
C
ID
n -»
O ID
41
ID
41
jz in
4-1 J5
10
»-
M
a «
C
41
*J
■ 41
-4 tM
U
41 (M
O
o.
41
•o
•o
B
B 41
C 41
ID
10 x:
O ■
u
(0
4-»
.-4 9
41
m
4->
4J ^
>
10
ID
10 *J
ID O
41
>
x: n
CT >
4-1
M
O
4-1 41
ID
4-1
B
4J
*J TJ
C
CO
41
"D
n C
t4
M
C O
41 ID
41
41 4-1
>
4J
•O
M
■
c >.
»-*
c
O
fl n
-t 4J
■0
10
«M
o c
u o
^
M
41 -^
<D -^
4)
«
C
W 4-1
e X3
J=
•o
o
ID
4) O
4-*
c
C
■ ■
o
*J -o —
■
4-1
&
ID
•-4 4.>
o *
m
•o
9 n
U >iJ=
c
O «1
41 4->
**
tfl
41
x: >
M -4
o»
■
m c
O
n
c
fl
ft
c
O
c
•a X
ro
M
u
ID -O
c o
41
O. 01
r-t C
10 4-1
a
CO
M
Q. ID
ON
o
Cr04-> 4>4J<0 41 04-)
C4-)ioflOf-tx:44C
-^ x: o e o 4-1 41
Ts •D 4J n x; >« n
ID 4) C 4-1 M 41
o>n «.iDOio«ai-i
«-iO41l0U4-iJ=MO>
10 ID 4-1 4->
2i
G I-* i-t >-* M
ID J= "O
41 4J
4-1 4-1 41 41
U 10
n > O
4-> 41
x: 9
n B 41
n M4 -a
41 0»
%0 -4 1-^ ti
9 41 M
^ .-« M
Cr^ 10
1 o<
41 x:
Ut fl 4)
M >, O
O • XJ
ID M
41 U 'O
41 fl -I
0« U 41 O
» •o
g^,^«
n
41
O O 41
U **4
H M >
• M O
B 4-1 ID
41 9
O B £
^ O C
* O
10 n o
I 41 r-t CO 4-1
I 4-1 -^ 41 U ID
• fl -< 41 > £ Q 4-1
I 41 fl X) 4-> b -4
. 4J -^ n £ fl
I -H >-« O 41 T} —I
4-1 O C •-•
I B 41 M ID M4
} -^ Xi
4» O M
•a > n 41
•D •-« ID > »-t .
-41 9 j:: 4J -4 o
ID
B M M 9
I C ID -C f-H -4
B-44-in<-l041C
o 4J n -^ Oix: o 4-i
> 4-1 u o m
rH X > > i
O 41 -^ •^ o»j
M 4-> M B 4
4J O -4
C C 41 41 T)
O ID 1-t J= ID
U X3 4-1 O
U* O J< >->
tiS
BO 4-1
4-» TS O^
10 C ^
jz n
41 M •> 4) V
I "O -4 -^
C U U
1 ID B • n
I 41 O* O
t7> D« B 0<
) B ID -^
I f-4 ^ ID -4
> <-( 10 O
: o x: f-4 -iJ
1 M 4-1 ID
4-1 x:
: c n 4) >
) O 41 U
< u -M 9 n
fa 10 "a 9
4J 41
: M n M •-«
41 n n
41 > 41 9
X: -4 41 -i
4J 4-1 J= 4-1 M
10 t4 --4 O
B B iM
•> M 9
•-< 41 4J n
ID 4-1 • M 41
O ^ »4 O >
cr> 10 41 a<-4
> a4-i
■a — • o «
41 >M k4 C
4-1 O M U
10 41 4) 41
4-1 JT 41 4-*
n 41 4-* n iM
0» ID
C -O
41 IQ O i-t 41
> M 4J 9 W
O O O
Xi trjz jz
10 ID B n 4-1
41 •on
xz a* m c -u
4-> B O 41 9
-4 .-I N O
M *> 41
c
ID n M
41 C 10
-o o
■o
^ -4 41
4)
4-1 in
N
41 ID 41
-4
I'D r^ i=
4-1
9 9 fr4
-r4
.-4 tJt
M
U 41
O
B M
M
^ •
a
C •
•O 10 •
•D
r-( 4-1 U
C
O U 4*
x: -4 io
¥14-1 41
a vr-4
B 41 « -4
o n 41 10
■r4 O 4J
n «-4 41
n t7*4-i •o
9 C U
U -4 10 U
M B M X3
-4 B a
•a ID n
^
41
9
£
x:
n
n
t4
9
•O 4J
B
9
t3
ID
X)
u
C
*M
ID
(-4
^
,
«
•-4
n
u
n
c
s,
41
iA
o
n
u
B
D»
41
4->
O
o
D»
ID
41
rH
ID
•o
Z
4-1
o
a c
10
B
«!
r-t H 0»-4
C M 4-1 4-) 41 > C
1041 -44JCON-44I
•«n •'D9-44J-«M>
ID 41 « C O B 41
4-i4ino accr4i
9MM>-4>44 I OOJ=M
AUO OC U4JO
B > 4-1 O 41 41
0.-4 C n B C M 4-1 Ik
n 4) 41 4) -4 u n
r-i fl-4U4-»^ 41^
41^0MM-4 C4J4I
>r-4U4J9fl41lOO>
4l-H4l90<r4X:<-tM4l
•-4>^cn>-<4->a a<-4
n 10 4J -4 •-<
-4 4-t C U 41
r-4 41 4) a
Q,^ -« Q n
fl MB
O -U 10
U C 9 'O
u -4 B n <-4
10 41 9
U Dt-4 O
O -4 B M x:
l-i tM -4 4-1 M
-4 4J n
U -4 9 C
41 fl T> a
a-4 c -*
n •-* -4 Q,
C 9 U O
ID Cjt 41 V
41 4-1 U
« M >t V
> rH M
O 4^ >M
B 4J B 41 C
e 41 *4 «
£ 4; fl M •-<
n tp-u ia a
-4 M ID
rH 41 41 T9 C
a. 4-1 M 41 O
■ 41 4.1 -4 •r4
O ^ H4 *i
O -4 O
U 41 4J 10
ID 41 4-* e
j< n 4) 41
O -4 10 (O J=
4J .-» > -4 4J
■P 4J V
M C lO
M >i'0 •
41
>4
•0
n C rH
B 9
M
41 >
B
M r-l
c n
x: xa
41
n 41 ID
41 n
ID
> 0
10
0 M
ID c
*»
>
9 tP B
fl
•0
-4 *J
fiu ID
0
■o ^
0 >1-4
9
B
M x:
u
41
c
4)
0
n X (M
0 •
fl
u
41
JM r-l
fl 4-1
4-1
n
•H 0
0 jt
4J
41 C
a
M U
41 ID
ID
n
•0 41
•0 M
n
r-l 41
a
10
JZ r-l
•0 JZ
0
•a M
9
r-4 "O
4J 0
«
9
•0
0 41 4->
M h.
4) "O P>*
U r-l
41
■
*^ > ^
41
4-*
41
9
>
4J
41
>~i C
J3 M
10
fl 41
x:
0
>4
fl
4>
JZ
4J 0 -4
4-> M
4-1
x:
4-1
41 X: TI 'O •
rH
n
4-1
c n
t4 10
n "O 4-1
JZ M
9 M B
41
ID n 41
9 .-4
c
1-
4J 10 fl
M
x:
4-1 -4 c
tM U
10
>M
M
W TJ r-l
M
4-1
M
M fO 0
<*4
B
0
M
B a
0
>
0
0 "O
41
0
M -4
0
4> ID
U
0
*M
a 41
0 Ji
41
M
6t«
n 4-* B
M
a x: V
4-1 4-1
> «.
41
9 « 0
o»
-4 4-1 XJ
41
-4 >
ID M
X
41
n c
u
M 0
•a
C M
^ >,*i
41
41 n
4) -4
B
C
9
ID ID
4-> 4J U
10
XI
M 4) -4
41
M M
4J
4J r4
0 -4 «
o»
0 > x:
•O ■ •□
£.9
m
c 0
fi r-l
•D
rH
n
flrH 4J
9 41
0
ID 41
10
c
0
4-1 r-l
>
a 0
X 41
* 9 x:
9
0
n
n id
41
9 >iV
x:
« 0*4-1
0
«>
a e 4>
0
C
4-1
JZ
u
«
41 0 ID
4) M
41 n
m
M4
41 M C
n
c
41
> 4J x:
0 M
r-l 41 -4
M
41 4J
10
>
4.>
0
jQ *J
n
n
M 4)
•*
OA
**4
0 ID C
■
n c
a 9
n
41
U
>i
M > 0
41
4-1
-4 10 +j
c x: <-4
a
4J B
a -4
rH
■
n
41 n
V 4J
41
4-1 XI
-4 ID
u
XI
4>
0
fl 4)
n ID
4J
0 ID
n t-t
0* o» w
0
•~i
■ 4J 9
M
X X3 4-4 4J
M a B C -4
u xa
•H 10 cr
41 41
41
B
41
-4 -4 fl
a
0
41
M 41 a
B ID
10
> c
4J 4J 0
M
S
*. n M
c M a
-4 >
-4 0
n n
c
a
n ID
0 x: 41
41
ID
a
C -4
-4 -4 4->
41
9
-4 4-1 4J
>
Zi 4-1
X X c
tr c
JZ •^V
44
ID
B n
41
u
41 41 ID
>tO
0
f-> o>m
ID M M
s:
41 -4
o»
10
U
X
—*
4J
c
1-4 'D 41
o>
«
•0
4J -4
0
4->
-4
0 C >
>,C
>
c
U 0 «4
9
•0 •
-4 V -4
>4 X 0
41
ID 41
41 4J -4
•D
1^
T)
• Q fl
> m hfo
0 »4
n
JZ
M e
41
r^
41
n 0 41
B
10
4-1
4J
M 0>
>
0
>
C^r^
<n 0 'O
■0 ID
to
0 >l-4
a 41
0 XJ
M U C
M
41 4-1
40
a*i
U rH n
0
.^
-4 4J 0
ID 41 «
> C
r-l
» ID
rH
«
4J
r^
4-1 B M
•q M
10
rH 41
9
x;
0 10 >t
n
c
41
10 41 a
c c
0 fl
0
**
41
XI
fl c 41
n 9
n
41
^ 0 w
•o
0 M
4J ID D« 41
n u
(11
x:
>• 4> 10
M
«
-4 4J C
O) l-H >! >
-4 0
4> n
o« arH
4)
4J
> 9 0
a X
•0 'O
X
41
41 n 9
xz
9
B -4
c 0
4J
> 4-1 4) U
44
C
n
4-1
41 C
2
n
>1 4)
« -H
4-1 13 rH 10
K^^
w -4
01
XI -4
M 4.1
41
c
M 0 rH
4-1
0 x:
1-4
■p m M
M
JZ
41
fl M 0
X -ki 41
0 U >
M
*M 1- M
Si!
"iiS.
?
4-1
M
•0 4J -rl
C C >
« rH
10
n
>
ID rH
0
4J
« 0
•o 0
41
c •
-• e
a «
41
x:
9
4-1 U
« 41 n
r-4
0 n
rH
u 0
>4 a
M
4J
B
n ^ TI
> £ n
^ P -4
u
-4 4J
*M « n
0
0 M •
** c
fl
V **
z
>
n
C 4-1 fl 4-1
0 9
«
10 41
4J
n
41 •O M
«
0 &
a<0 r-l
c M n
C
41
SRgS.
fl 4*
<-4
23
41 *4 -4
ID
u
-4 JS
*J
-4 41
9
V x: J3
rH
X
K « -P »>
0 -M
> «
a fl u
-4 4J ^
a
41
0 > n M
M 4> -
"O 41
0 4-1 tfl
C tfl
>M n c
ID 4)
ID 0
JZ
> -4
n 4-1
n 4-1
C7»
41 n u
C 4-1
> 9 ID
-4 ID
-4 0
rH X;
4J T3 U
■r4 4.>
ID M -H
fl
C ID *«
4->
M N -4
n
41 ID U
41 41
:tJ'S.
•a 41
■H M
« »M «
« o»
0
a fl
«*4
fl
«M B 0
41 B
0 0
M 0
4-» -4
4J M
n 4-1
>• ID 41
4-1 N ^
4) rH
JZ fl
4-1 0
M -4 B
0
ID Xi
> ID «
»M
4J
0 41
n
JZ
ID n
t*
•0 -O
B
B c
0
n ID 4)
S^i
4J n
« -o
-4 B 0
4-1 c
M 41 U
41 0
U fl 41
a«a
n B M
41
41 -4
> n
•O fl 4->
41 CT
4-1 IH
M C
B
>tO
M
<-» 0
41 a
41
JC to
> *. C
4-1
-4 C -4
fl
« 0 n
»4
c -4 5
41 4-1 d
0 fl
4-1 m
4J «
X 4->
41
41 41 M IO x:
XT' 41
41 4-1
41 a4-i
4J > a
« *M
M 41 9
^ 0
0 M
41
a 41
M C
41 -x:
0
M C 4-1
0
>tX^
>-* fl
41 4.1 C
rH N
ea--
fl -4
ID «
0 -4
r4 41
i^
U *J
41 -4
n 4J
M n
4) n
ir>
00
A-42
c
•M 4J n
o -^ -~>
u
a, n -^
a *^ >^
c
m m
w
— t O V
C M C O «
O •» <5 •«
*M M ■ «*
c n 10
9 ^ -U
*M c n
M a
V O T)
o. ■ c
a (0 3
<l w
s. -
4-> f-l -U
a. 10 4-' n 4J
o -^ « o
M > tl 10
C 4-1 Oi
- s?
V fO o «
>« >< o.
*-* ^ o
c « c
O 4^ «
« U rH
£ « u
4>'
•M 41
cog
a o
M a k4
S «l 3
«9 ^ cn
< V «
*J O 4^
C 4-t
C 4> ^
O ^ 10
-* -• 10
9 C fO Q,^ H4
I *4 «l M C
»4 M V O
O 4t JZ ** *J
■^ 0.4> O
MS C
a wi 4)
emu
Qi 4» -^ C
O «> 4) 4)
4-) 4> i3 4J V
M Kt 4>
-4 £ M
4> 9 4J 4-t O
> cr o
-4 4> C 4J «
«l U 9 C
U ^41
9 4-1
ii 4J
4J a. -^
JM
« 'a
■ss.
Oi cr 41
X M
J 4) n *«
4 - 9
> M 10 cr
lb a c 4>
J A 10 M •
M C 4>
D V o n •
: 0)X o
•O ♦« 4J ■
C O
• 10 I
I « c -^
«
c •a 4-1
o •a
n
> >
o -H
■ 4J
4> 4J U
J= 4) -^
O *M
41 C
*J O
41
M C
c >« u
o ^ -^
C jC
o >
Oi n n
(0 -^ f-t
M fO
o> « o
fO 4> en
10 n 5 k4
4» -• o
41 •»< x: 41 c
M U fr^ JC M
10 ■*-* 41
c o
9 >
O -H
«£ 41 «e O
a«^5
«f 4-1 •-<
<-4 9 4; n m
i3 4J > C 4J
on o -4
M 4-1 M •^
Oi n <a n ^ 41
j: n u <o -^
4J ■ « «
>-< V W 'O fO
. 10 -C •-« CM
4) 4J ^ <0 W
JC O 0,*J 4)
M 9 C U
C Oi C O U
m ** 10 X
i 9^ 4> >
9 J3 ra 1^ tM o
O 4i
> 10
4^ j:
■ CO
•I M
I fH 4)
I Oi 41 >
>. ■ jC O
t. O 4J <-<
> U
4J
» •o a 41
I 9 4-* 10
Oi Oi
to O O
O, 'O
N « 4J
41 *<
> -4 n
' o ^
4> ■ 4»
ia -^ 4)
1 M
> •o n u
1 4J •^
C £ >
•^ H O
H
4J jC
C 4J
O -*
-4 M >
4-) O
10 O
. N a
■^ «
M V
OHM
x: - C7»
4J fO «
9 c n
« 9 -4
4) •« "O
K M
41
Oi V
•O 9 »
C CO
4-1
V c
V "O
4> -4 4-> 4) -O 4> 4)
41
a«^
cr c
(7*f0<-<n HflC4->>
■
(0
10 *t
f0rHi0X:OiC9<0<»4
a. n
a.j
Oi Oi>4-* 9 0«M4J-4
>«
«
•O O C M M V) Cq
>
**
o
O M 4) 10 •^ V
OOi94)>Oi4>4l
m
n
u
41
n
4>
rHO.k4^C9J=J=
JS
>
M
'4-ll04-'U4IU3-*^4-l
> 10
« -^ 4-»
CP4J «l
c n -^
I O V 04
« -4 O
t -M O 4*
i u u j:
I 10 ai4J
T3 9 ^
C 10 J3
« U O
0 4.>
C ^ 10
*-4 C tj*
41 -^
4J
>, «
XI 4f
>
(O •> C
n 'D -4
•) c ^
U 9 >«
O M-l C
M M 10
9 n
c o
9 M ^
M o c
H •M 41
4)
Oi4J O
9 9 4J
M O
1 o>
Oi C
V O -^
jC U <-t
4J -^
10 m
-^ Tl 41
T3 -* -I
4* > -^
Oi O J=
r-^ C O .
9 O U
O -* *J
U -M C
10 O •
« •o u
c c
O 41 ^
moo
•o o -^
C 41 4J
«J M 9 '
a»^
O 10 4-*
u 4> n
4> x: c
M 4J -^ .
o c c n •
4-' O 10 4) O
41 ■ 4^ M U
4) « -4 9
M i-l > Oi kt
U 9
e 4) CO
O M V O
*4 41 -4 «
4J O* U 4-* C
U C 10 <0 -4
41 -4 *M M ■
M n V 4J M
M M «1 4>
4) O Oi C 4J
M •O O «
-^ c ^ ■ «
4J 4> >^ 4( I
C ip-i (O «
41 M kt
>i « Oi
« A « M
^ i-i O 4J
£ U tM O
[4 n c
V
• -4 « 41 'O
t« 10 X) U r-<
41 mo
jz m o
cr 4) -o j:
9 M •-• « n
0 9 4J
W O t4 «
£ V JS o c
4J c n iM o
9 IM -^
•U 41 4J
•H M n «
« C T}
Ob O 9 C
■ 9 -4 41 41
41 «n 4-1 'O i
■i> n c i
1-4 •D W O
•M c i u
O 41 i «l
« i O M
«o flu
1 4) O 41 C
m u u M o
-4 41 -4
O H «l 4.*
-it £3
m m n
41 M 4-t <-(
x: 41 n u
r- 4-* i= J3 41
I H 4-> M
(A 41
C C «
-4 ox:
41 ■ •4 14
cr M * **
m V » n
a* 4J 4J c
« M 10 •
•O O *H >t
41 tM a^
M IM X C
Ch « 41 O
C •O 9 O 10
O -^ 4* e 9
-4 U 4> JJ
■*> 41 U M «
a'2g&
10 C Qi<D tt
U U O 4i
■I 4J 9
M «( xa j=
> cr
b >> 9
O C 10 « o
>M 41 > n M
x: 4J £
n 4J 41 -4 ^
4> > N
4J "O -4 O
-4 C ■4' Oi
M « u 41 e
41 •D O
««M — «
•W V tM 4-* •
O M «l w « o.
•0 4J m a
C U 10 c
O 10 4-* 10 •-4 10
•^ •o n > u 4f
4-* k4 O 41 <-(
U « U OS u
V 'O 4f
r-t C fO C 41
41 « C -4 4-»
n 4J (0 ■ 9
10 4J
41 -»
£ O. 41 « • 4->
4-> 9 > cr >« N
c •^ ki cr c
M « 4-1 10 O O
O •> u •-• •-< u
■M r-4 41 O
U >M C 4J
n tM tH i= o
r-« 4) 41 O U C
^ x: 4>
10 4-« 4-* 4-> «
U M Ch 41
4J O 9 O
<« 10 ■ C ^
JZ 10 Oi
■ > 41 9 «
41 4» •-» C •-»
4J 4) JS U n O
1-4 •O 4-» 4) M
-4 »-« 4-»
u M n u c
. 4J -4 4J O
n TS M u
41 CO
> 4J O Oi « F-t
-4 n -^ Oi 10
4J 9 4-) 9 C
10 ■ « « O
C i ^ -H
M U 10 C 4J
41 > •-* W « 9
4J U 1 4-1
rH 4J 41 fl -^
10 M M ■ O 4->
M 41 U W
tM -^ tM 4-) 4) C
O Gb --^ i-« M •'4
4f 4-» O 4J
*i -4 n
U M >« «
•1 C O
« cr « V
C C M
0-4 10
-4 Qi « N
4-* Oi C 10
« 10 O X
« u --
C 4J 4)
4> to J=
i o H 4J
O « i-^ 4-»
U > -4 U
4> O X> 10
V ^
4J 4-* 10 9
•I n u o
« 10 «4 >«
>«4J
10 J= 10
(r a^
4f c -M
c o *-* cr
-4 c 10 cr
-4 o 3
•-I n 4f 41
9 c j; fr
o o u
i= -4
M 4J
9 «. «
C ^ C 41
<0 O O -4
<-« « -4 0»
Oi 44 O
a 10 ^
9 U O
C C -4 c
O « M-l U=
-4 4> -4 U
4-1 •-< M 4»
U U 4J 4-f
m -4
4-1 > 41
V c ^
X: 4) 41 A
!-• C 4-) «
3;:::
u I m
41 •» >
A O 10
CM
in
CM
CM
\0
CM
CM
M M >< ••4
C -« C M
9 « >«-i «J U 4-1
HI M O Oi M U
41 ■ 41 9
>i C 4J -^ U T3
i3 -4 O O C
U C MO
41 C M-t Oi U
4J •« T) O
■^ ^ cr
m 9 CO
« -4 4J
cr^
c m
« ■ M
M I O
c c
I •« O
»M c x:
<*4 o in
o -«
V •-4 Oi
4.» -4
-* XI
10 10 c
I ** o
c u •^
O 4.*
V C 41
« O ^
4J -4 XI
10 m 4>
"4 >
O *4
O « 4->
4-» "O «
c
•O w
) C 4>
I n 9 4J -
41 >*-> •-4 10
U M <0 r-l
I -4 ftl O
: O Oi h
• x: 9 M 4-»
u (A 41 e
J= O
4J U
k4 4f O
. 9 J5 <-•
10 4.* M
> 41 C
4 C N O
r 4) >i-4
> *M jC •-< 4J
4 O > 10 9
} C 4J
« -4
: c m Ai
> o -H «
J -^ o o c
> 4-> M 44 •«
<0 *J
*i C 4)
— O C £
■ U 9 4-*
-* o«
£ rH -4
4^ ia j=
« 4-1
C 4J
4J "a
-4 c
> 10 41
^ 4-1 X3
U C O
10 41 M
■M Oi
C K
O 4)
-H O
^ >
■0 4-> 41
»H U
U «J 10
4f 10
M £
(0 o
£ "O •
4J C C
a -4
4J W h
10 Oi 4t
■U 9 U
(0 VI
*4 41 -4
4 n 2
*M V » U
-4 JO
41 »4
JZ 4-*
44 -^ M
> 4>
c n «j
10 « o
w 9 ^ ■
n 4-1 m M
h4 -4 A w
O 4-* 10 4)
O U <« ^O "D C
4-> O C c o
M4 O* 9 10
M C *<M 4-1
^ C -^ M 4-> C
•M « 4-> 4) C 4)
(0 .-H c o< 41 ■
M-i a. a> 9 4-t 4)
U) 01 X 4J
•O M 4t V n
C 4) M 4->
10 4<t Oi M U
n o 4f
... « *t4 jC T)
« r * 4J »
c •< o
o « a 41 o u
•^ Ul '-4 4-1 XI
*J * X3
10 Tl >i <0 M M
■ C J3 4J 10 -
10 O 4f C
.-4 u ■ M <e
O 4» "O — • C «-•
«> en « 4-» «4 Oi
• n i c
• .^ 10 « o
O « .-4 »4 »4
4-* 4» X) ^ 4J
4J 9 T> >t O
>i M O. C 4-» fl
•-4 (0 Q C
C > C *4 4»
o 4> «o x:
>u « n 4i 4->
n o ja 4-> H
O -4 41 4.*
U 4J M C U 9
O C fO 9 C A
••4 41 £ 9
■
41 4J C 41 41 M
£ « .^ •-< 1 4>
4-* 4) n A o -^
M <e ra M 44
I 10 4-» A M -4
> > 41 4J >
: O 4» Oi <o -« -
M M x: o £ 4> cr
M O 4J 4-» U "
I (0 -
« C Qi C ^ 41
9 -4 C 9
I *4 C
■ -• 10 M 4-< 3 ^
4) 41 tU W
*t-t ••*4 « M M •^
44 U 4-f 41 *4 U fl
m -^ 4J a
M > -4 *J 9 «
.4^-4 M •-• cn -4
b« « 4^
9 U «M 4J
44 10 >M • O U
• u o « 41
4.* 10 •O 41 « f-^
c c -< -i -S
41 ft 9 cr44 ja 9
11 M *M c -4 10 m
41 9 M -4 > 44
44 u 4) 44 -^ u n
10 n & M *4 fl *4
V -4 9-4 U -4 js
M V to '^ « 44 44
4f«CfO)OCr»4M4l>t4l
CMIO C4lOMA>£
--«l0'-4|04)O44 9*44->
m ct,«k4Ui04»(0i-H
>044»uuiam*M
4) £ C i-H «M M
44 U O O W
44 *4 -4 > ^ m
10 r-4 O O 9
U-^ n.«40>44IU
10 •hlOC44i-t44C
«i=j:M4>4i 9<-<«x:
I -4 H > « r^ ^ '
*o n •o 41 Oi
41 • 4* £
44 ■ ■ 44 cr n
« 41 44 JS
1-4 14 C > 44
C M 4) 4f
41 O •
« <M .
41
k4
Oi 4)
I 44 o 0 I
C k4 n 4) 4)
w4 4) »4 jc ig cr
*4 41 -4 £
XX B
3
c
44
*M
0
4>
u
?
M
■ 10
4)
•»'
4C
c
*
44
44
c
44
0.
C
■
41
>1
9
41
44
«
•4
44
41
44
44
Jtf
n
9
M
C CO
4)
0
00
u <«
' >«
41
41 4> n M k4
9 44 x: >
I «4 O ti O
« M 41 C C 44
Oi>«4M k044«M
o -4 n «
44 «
« ^
« c ■
c « <
al
I U^ -4 C O -M 10
•M04441 «e»4>M
M O (-4 >i
4> 44 *M
JZ > -4
44 « 41 44
O 4> C C
C 44 4>
«< n 4f 10
5 JC -4
> 44
«4 O > <-• 41
c-4 -4x:
« 44 >« « 44
U «4 ^4 *M
*4 iO Oi «
•M "O ■ C >
*4 fO O 10^
C U 1-4 O
cr cr Oi n
-4 C O 41
n -4 44 M
cr c
M 44 O O
cr « c -4 44
c f 41 44
*4 u ■ u «
#^ n 44 <o c
rH «4 m O
-4 <o 41 41 -4
^ M J= 44
c 44 f U
-4 «
O ^ « u
41 Oi C 4) I 6 41
M o 10 44 irt o M
C 44 O 4J
V r-< 44 C 1
-4 O 9> > 4»
>44ai-4t^l041-4
OU44 «44)i-40*«
I o M j: --• -4
I 44 44 o ^< o 44 n
:ef ■
44 u u
c > x; o -4 >i
.4 44 H ^4 44 44
21
» VI n n >
9 ^ >
i-t u
^ c
o -4 cr
•M « fH M C »4
9 »4 9 o
M 44 ^ u «
4M o u 44 n
> 44 -4 ■ O i-l 41
«<-4 j=H4i44ienio
OiA 444l444)»4n^ 44
I Ji M *M £ o
« cr M 41 o
o o o 44 44
e Oir-I «
10 41 «
44 J=
41 « U
> ^
10 C O *4
44 *4 fl 41 ^
n 10 41 44 u
o 44 44 V
n m ■ c
41 10 JC 41
M > 41 §
■^41 41 B
10 44 «M M O
M C O U U
-4 41
>« M
41 44 >
x: "o -4 o o
44 41 « (O 44
n «
n 41 u M
cr 41 U 41 o
C M 41 >
-4 Oi C ^ •k
44 K -4 m
10 41 41 «Q 41
U JZ O
41 n 44 «
^ n M to
41 £ "O O ^4
O -4 t«4
*M o n i-t
•4 -4 >,44 -4
I ^ U M C *• 41 9
o U O V > 4*
*• 41 9 «
f-4 B .-» C
44 >|
n
44 o c
B 44 41
C «
41 -4 41
M M
9 M Ch
<-4 41
9 1-4 « ->4 44
10 o 44 « B n
« OiOU OiW*M 41-4V
Nl >• > C C
C 10 o «
n 9 -4 44
-4 Oi O 41 M
844 10 o
U Oi
0» U *-4 ■
M 44 **4 -4
2 0»-4 *4
c Oi n 41
o ^ n «
m C 41 10 41
-4 -4 £ r4£
n n m (0 n ;
^ 4> 9 41 I
C 44 C 44 44 1
O n O 41 M I
cu 10 Oi m <a •
> > <
n 41 «
o« m x: <~t n «
C 9 44 9 9 V
-4 O 00
l-i O tM 4C 'O
Oi 14 o n u ■
OS fo n '
N XC N
fl 10 u <o n
ki x: c 1-4 x:
m 41 a
» 4 -4 tM •
>U U 41 O 4
o •^ x:
41 •44 44
JI 44 *M 44 <
44 C 41 44 C
41 5 •!
44 a 4i£ ■
10 41 £ 44 41
£ > 44 >
44 O 44 O
fl cr « ■
C 41
^ 41 w4 cr 41
41 £ > crx:
44 44 o 9 44
n M «
44 41 Cb
n u ■ 4
9 -4 41 41
n "o to 44
.4 41 <D *0
k4 C C
44 10 -4 -
-4 iq • ■ D*
•. <0 C « 1-4 9
o -4 o 41 n
> i-i N cr
44 O -4 MO
M r-* «-4 O « •
jC 44 -4 « .-4
Oi e xk u 10
M t4 44 44 O 41 I
cr« to *4 M ft I
kt o u c
10 44 • o
Oi Jtf u
•C3 M 10 •
4. 41 O
tn > ftk « o
10 10 44
if* ^ M
a, M
41 a 10 -o *
cr-4 *-t 41 ^
m U44 « (
Oi V CO
^ « 41 cr
9 44 41 M
•-* kl 41
9 O OiJS
o 44 cr
x: c n -4
« -4 .4 £
•4 l-l -4 4)
Ji m m o
4> 41 -4 « 9
44 *4 o
« M •D
x: 41 e
44 44 41
. ID 41
M 41 tl
M 44 10
O C 41
^ -C
44
■
41 C
r-4 •-4 in >
L 41 m
> cr 9
J= M 10 O
44 44 O. ^
« « M
O -^ 10 <0
44 « 4i N
C O « 10
•^ o» u -C
CM
CM
CO
CM
r*
A-43
M c >i «n
o m *f^
n n
o -^
U M
4) -^J
• U C M
I -< -t o
• n *>
I 9 C M
• CT o
; (0 -^ •-•
I .M n
. . c c
« «t -
C 4-) »«
-^ 4^
> n M 4)
«) «i n c n w
j= -o *> o -* "-*
4j ^ o -^ ^ -M
> O 4-> •*-* 4-)
»M o u -^
O M « <-4
C C V •-• V)
O O O £ 10
I o u u «*
) n M-t o »
I -^ C M <
o a,'*
• m
) » r-« > I
I *J O t
1 o ^
■M 4^ «( C « « fO
4) *** It V -^ C
: 4) -4
1 41 4^ O
• £ ID M
»4 41 4>
Q. O
m J£ r~* £i
■ O M 4-> T?
41 b. CT C •-I
4-> 4> rS 3
•-I *J *J O
Jtf C M i=
M -^ o n
4> -I-) •
•a « M u 4>
c c <o a: M
V -^ •-« Z 4J
■^ M 4)
4-t C
-. O J
n -^
O 4J
a, a
JC O O (A •h
4-* M M 10 ■!-■ V
-4 a. o. > ^ £
> o ^
jtf 41 Qi
Q M J= C 41
4> O -M O M O
n u. -^ -*j
10 •44 ^ n
V M O -4 -^ 41
Ckt to m 10 4-> T}
« i-H 4> O
-^ U -^ U "O 4J
•O 4J 4) M
a> -^ 4> M 10
n X > £ n a
.^ 4-> -4 4-* Ot
^ 41 t><
C >i U 4-J M 3
O X) IV fQ Oi O
-^ J= >1
4-) •O M 4J JS
■^ V 41 U C
^ > JS -O -< O
« O 4-1 4) £
O •-< O 4-> > C
O ^ C O
c o 4) n
jtf C 10 Oi U «)
M 4; li CL M -^
O 4* 10 O 0
b. ja T} d «M o
c -^
j< m ro (O -K M
k4 fo no
<Q j:: « 41 fO Tt
«-l 4J M -W <0
U 4-> M 41 fl
10 o > v
J= Q. £ >«
«) 4J 4> 4> 4-* •-I
4J M I
n o f
41 O.
M m
41 -^
4J
c n
^ >
fO o
C X
I o c -«
-• 10
: 4-t 41
) o -"O
> 10 c «
>0 ■
«D ^
C Q. 41
<0 >
4) «
4J J= i3
U -P
O Q
> 4) 41 4-t O
4J
41 J=
4}
tl «
O
n
41
O
»
U £ £
41
4J
^
C
J=
4-»
4->
s.
ia
"^
9
«(
>
4->
9
C
U
M
4-)
C
o
41
a
c
)0
U
4f
k4
4)
■4->
n
tr o. 4>
u
>44
U
41
c
£
o
4)
•**
41
M
^
4-*
**4
4-»
>
V
Oi*i
c
O
41
V
«
u
M
M
4J
4-*
&
c
4J j:
Oi
fl •O
<0
o
c
u
O
41
m
41
9
4J
4J
«
■
■
n
4-»
3
»*4
>,
4)
■O
n
M
>
>
4)
>
JZ
V
ID
4)
5
s;
4)
.-»
4-1
4->
M
I 4> « >tia '-•
t r^ J= -H n 10
t 4) 4-* 4J 10 -4
n > « > 4-»
. U 4> 4-t J=
> 4-1 41 41
I 41 O -M
(-1 4) 41 41 .
-4 • > n 9
ua c 4> •-•
n -^ £ >M
Oi n M 4-* C
« 10 9 -» •
. 4> •'
c m
a a: >
«; U o
^ u. X
O 41 U )0
_ -t a
a\ to • 4-> a C 4>
<N C « O O J=
M 10 ■
O r-l O
Qi a. u
■ fM 4)
n o
U^ 4-> — «
x: 4J
41 cr u
e7»-« 4>
10 M »4
04 -^
M -o
4-» >i
<0 C
> (0
C U -^ 4-) O
V to o u
•o a jz M
M 4> 4.1 M 4) 10
10 > ro 4->
> r-4 >M 4) fO n
0 O O >i Oi 10
1 > -» >
C C M U
-^ O 9 "-i W
». ^ O 4-> -^
r-t U 4-> H4 H J=
to -^ 10 ip *^
M •-« U 4-> Ot
4> ^ 10 in 4->
c 9 o. 10 m
4) Qi 41 Oi O f
C7I M 4-I -P
M-i Q( Of
CO X "O '-•
t-t 4) 4-i 4> 4)
r-« i3 4-> «
4) 4-> M -^ «*4
> 4> >
4> C > C 4>
,-^ -4 O -. >
av 9
c n
O tfl
M 10
4> 4J
> >
to o
i-H 4t 4J
*-« > >
n £ o
-* o o -H o
9 9
Qi O
C -M 9 CP H
O O C 4)
n -• > o CP
10 4J •O M C
X: 10 4) 4> 4-) O
O. M » M k4
-4 3 4J
M -^ M f^ 4>
o -p 10 c 4> x:
: c 4f m V r
t •^ M Oiia I
.-4 O
M 10 41 41 m
^ c c
O U 4J C ■ X3
9 a 9
O 41 X O 41 9
QirH O
Oi M 41 4-t n
Q.O
10
c
"D O r^ "O 4-t W
o >«cm*«4ino
« M
10 ^ U H H4
-^ O
n c 41
•O'Cn'O 9>**'0
M 4-* -^
41 O -4 10 41
o >
n 41 O »-• J2 rt
U C "O
9 » 41 H ^
V -^ <
O 4t -O <0
H
O -C U
•M - *>
4J *j tn
C 41 • "O
rt C C
-1 C XI CO c
fO 41 41
>i in 41 t-4 «
Oi ■ N
«-( <o x: o u
41 -«
M ^ > 4J <»
> 4-»
O r-t CO
n i-t -^
O 41 *.4-l >-* —
- o o
(XJZ «« c •^ u
4J >
4.t oo 41 a
u c -o
tn a -i-t
41 "1 4)
« C •H 41 •**
T-. >
10 -4 4-1 Oi n
O M -^
> - 10 (-I M
W 9 r-l
n >«4-t 9 o
Oi O 1
4-t M n Oi
*J
C « 10 41
41 M
o 4) 9 o 41 x:
J= 4J o
-^ w c -4 x: 4-t
4J « x:
C 41 10 •4-1 4J
x: n
-4 4-t >-> --4 **4
O 4J
o. c u o
4-t 41
O 'H B 41 C
4-t JZ
-^ Oi o a
41 C 4-t
tM n n
9 41
M O >-H 0»— «
Q -D r-l
9 -4 >, C O
O 41 O W -^ -^
•M 10
O* C 4> M 4-t
c o
C 9 > 10 -4
O 41
C 10 O 4) H
U ^
-. W O 10 J= o
V414}nC*-«4>V
cx:x:-4-^.-4 n c
«4 4^ 4-t £ — t £ (0
*M ^ 4-) > 4-t
*M 4J c n
OO«0D^4inMC
4-* C a 4-> (0 o
•O -^ 41 C 41 -^
'OC4>>>41^4J
4lOMO'-iaun
4-1 -^ 41 i-i O B 41
C4-t>.-t> 04J9
^U-Hocuocr
O 4> f-« t*^ -^ C
Oi M 4t C
0.-4 'O r-H U 41 n r-4
10 'O — « ^ N -< 10
m 4-t o «-< — -^
«-t O C J3 4J 4J 4J
«OOC99-4»-hC
^ O O. U 10
>«**4 ML) 4-t
>-( -^ iQ ts *^ ■ n
41U>4>4)(04-)X1
a 41 J= 4J £ C 9
V Oi4-t 4-> -^ 4-> 4> in
M n c a a
4J 41 C •^ 4) 9
X a -4 ^ o u o
41«)41(0 C04->*
«4 4-t 4-1 4t 41 "D k4
41 x: 10 c x: T? 4i
U4-t4-l-^4-t-4 C^4-t
tl IQ 10 tM 10 C 4-t
> a -O C r-« O 41
^4) C O Oi Qii-«
41 41 £ O <0 U n
^ M 4-> 4J C 41 •)
O * W O M -4
C 4-t 4-t a 9 •« .C
CT> 10 M 41 O 4J 4-*
' T* JZ O i-t U O
n 4-t*4-iia<o'04-*c
41 M^ O 41 -^
> 4-t ^o 41 w na <-t
■^UC Q.OI041'D
4-t41iOO »-tCa41
(O -O C 41 -^ -^ «
CO* n t*4 4-t -.^
M' M i-t n -^ n «
41(L-4'0-Cl04l H
4-1 u > E- x: x: £
I-t c 4-> cr 4t
10 ^ 9 41 M 9 n
MOM Q O O
O U 41 ' **4 C C JZ
«M |k4 J= 41 O 41 4-t
o >iE-< T) O
u o m 4J "a n
41 ^ O n U 41 10
a» M n • -^ c 41 "O
C 10— • O»O»10»*-»-4JS
(0'-«>C41i-**W>O
MU'O'^ 0i«09
•< M 41 M in
10 4-t C Oi
M4l-4>fOOJ= *
4ix:(nx:c-<U4)(o
•04-»B 94-i9>C
10 4iU4JuafeM
O N -^ M 10 JZ V
M 4-t ^ .-I O 41 U
jara4JX)«*44}>9C
£-^9cx:iooo
I«4-*U Q, O *i ^ >t U
>i 41
4-* U
-4 C
CO
<-» 41
J£
4>
•D >i
^H
41
VI
41
n
4J 41
ro xa
t-i
x:
41 10
ro
41
M "O
9
>0
4->
M a
9
J3
O
3
ro
O fl
4J -D
5
4->
10
c
c
M a
ftl »-t
u
x:
O. VI
41
in
to
in
n)
a 9
4-1
4> 41
O.
9
4-1
c
4-t
in 41
M O
t-l
t-l 4-1
M
C
M
o
c
•r* xa
41 x:
o
>
o.-t
4)
9
43
a.
o
x:
O. M
»*-»
«
Q.
9
VI
z
4J -a
w
•D
n
41
i-t
•D
o»
C
M
•44
n 9
tM 4-1
41
c
41
9
n
o
4) O
O «-•
4->
>i in
n
O
9
41
n JZ
U
•D
4-t 41
c
M
O
x:
41
U M
4>
C
41 jC
o
m
T3
4J
4.t
O
■M
4t
41
•^ 4J
4-t
M
10
ro
4-1
■o c
o •
4-t
o
c •«
41 «
VI
C
o
10
•a
N
•o
tn
41 M
a 41
o
in M
41
<0
c
ni
m 4->
n
u
o
9
4-1
x:
10
41
C X)
o -*
M •<-*
D>
u
x:
M «
•o
9
41
41
•i-i
4-*
M 41
o.
>« c
o
M
M
o
•o
2 -^
■D
■D
to
in
41
c
^ 4J
C
4>
4.1 r-t
VI
9
41 9
B
n o
41
41
H4
M •44
J= <«^
41
U*JZ M
«
n
V)
M
41 O
4-> M
M
c
4-1 4J
9
41
■0
41
Qi
4>
c
o
41
o. a
Q.
Oi
•M
er-o o
c
9
41
9 n
+4 9
o
10
41 U
•o
41
4)
W
c
9 W
c
U
c
>«-«
M
A
41 41
O
41
lO
c
10
o
JZ N
X)
&
a
U
c
M
•0 J<
> to
O
01
Oi
4-t
M
4-t
o
c c
M
t*-t
£
C -*
O
*j
o o
41
C
>
41
-< o
h.
in
(J -.
>
to
JZ
in
•o
+J
•^
X)
<0
4-*
m 41
C JK
'jz
41
4-t 9
*J
in
41 JZ
M M
4-t
4-1
O 4-t
u
4J
B
Vt
4-t 4.t
41 10
4.J
C ■'^
C
o
VI
U ^
»M
4.1
M
41
41
IQ
C O
a
41 tfl
4-1
41
4.1
4.t
M
c
o
a
M C
VI
>
o
ro
TJ
41 4)
O 41
4.»
o
m t-t
4)
o.
M
■o
4-t x;
x:
10
u
(4
41
ID
m 4-t
4->
x:
41
C
<o
4-1
4-t
41
»
>*4J
41
O
> •.
C M
£l
•-H
4-t
c
0»4J
n
10 o
c
4-t
m
fO
« <-i
o <**
«
* C
9
u
41
9 O
m 41
4-1
<0
41
M
O M
>M «
o.
c a
41
9
t-t
41
•D 4-t
>
o -u
O.
O*
9
x:
t4 C
c o
c
M
c
4J
fO O
cr M
o
>»4J a
41
M
o»
9
u
N U
■^ *j
4->
ro a
a
41
»M
41
n
m c
4J
41
M O
4-t
n
o»j=
o
u
41 U
«
c
c
u
«
O
c
o
>
O
M fO
o
41 «
4-t
10
O c
41 r-t
41
<n
EJ"
>M
41
>*4 O
> 10
JZ
x:
O
4.t
O
m c
4-t
M U
T)
c
C 4J
x: o
in
O 9
n
o»
c
V)
ro 3
4t
«w <n
9
c
<0
41
.-t 4-t
4-1
c
4-t
41
M
a-^
41 9
n 41
M
£
«
4-1
» 4J
n
T3 ^
4J
O
4.t
C M
•o
u 10
4J
n
>!
O c
4-1
41
M
10 a
a
■o
a
4-t
n
4-t
M
N
c
c
o
M
4-1
c
o
o
fO O
o
o
«
M
s.
U tM
C
(*.
x: 4.*
u
a
>«4
10 o
o o xa 4-t 4J M
Mb. 41 'O
X) ''JZ C JZ c
^ fO 4-1 -« > O
(-H U O -^ Oi
10 (0 O > 41 13 n
U r-i XT' 4-t C 41
41 o n ip 10 M
> 41 O.
41 41 in -O -4 c o
M X: Xf 9 U 4) 4->
44 C f-l -^ JC
9 U 4J > 0«
tfl C O C M C
41 -^ M o n *— t
jtt O Oi > o
ro 4-1 r4 o O^
a c .H c X
41 10 O O 9
a •^ 4-t o
C 41 4J • >»
O > 4J U "O C
•^ .-t t-l 41 4) ro 41
4-1 O « 0*<-4 M
U > 10 Oi ro
41 C • 41 M
VI -^ n x: 9 >
Ul E- O C O
U 41 U O X
M -^ O C -4
— I .-t O 4> 4J
x: J3 M • o o-
(-• 9 Oi M 41 ID 4J
41 O 4J
£ Oi ro
4-t 41 J=
4J >»
73 10 'W
41 x: -4
•O 4-t O
a -H
» 4> — t
x: o
I 4-> Oi
4J C 41 9
_. . . Of O >44 —t
41 4J rH « M O JZ
>t to
I -^ Oi
a 4.1
O -4 41
U > tf)
M ro Oi
C --4
O <-->
•CMC
C 41 9
41 "O
4 •a 41 4^ O O
r-t j; .-4
r^ 4J X)
4 VI O
41 *4
•O 4J
J ro '
- 41 4J
x: c
4J 41
a
4)
4-1 »-4
9 Oi I
- o a
* J3 -4 .
CT>'-4
C XI
■^ 9
cr* Oi
41 >
Oi o
■ >
-4 C
>
•0 4-10
C O C
10 c
in c 4J
n «
> 4-t .-t
> c o.
41 4-t i-l 9 4-t
10 4-t
44 U
41 41
> ♦>
ro «
O > C
-H 41
4-f 41 a
« M a
.-4 41 O
9 > U
M >« M
o x: 9
•44 ^ O
;sa
I
U^ 4-t -
M 10 b
41 O •O U
CP Oi C 41
ro 41 41 M
O M
<n U O
r-4 41 iB
41 41
c n
>1 M 4-t
41
« 4J
^
43 U
5^;
M
10
VI
-4 C
C
M
ro
41
o
4->
J= 41
ro
•O 9
k4
41
a
a
4-*
E- 9
r^ O
9 •©
O*
U
0^
9 to
C
M
»4
41
41
n
O
41 10
ro
Oi
«
x:
J 5
41
JZ t> JZ
JC
4-t
n
><iXl
m r-l
4J Q. U
41
10
*> 9
4.1
O
9
41
x:
4.1
JZ
-4 «
M Ul
C
4->
41
U
>
41
C ro
M
•44
-4 V
M
n
4-t
•0
X 41
4J
•^ 4J
4;
ro
9
° £
o
9 x:
U
•44
n
n
Q
4-t t*
ID
cr4J
n
41
ro
c «o
9
o c
o*
44
41
C •
ro 41
w 9
n
^
Jtf
4-t
O 44
rH •o
4-) •M
a
M
>
U
=' J
-4 C
9 9
10 M
c
o
o
U >i4-t 41
O ^
i-H 41
o
41
b. 4.)
b.
lO 4J
to a
« u
9 Oi
x:
o
a 44
» c
O. 9
>
4-t
J£
ro
4i£
•44 U
10 ro
o n
o
»4
M
O -4
r4 «>
X
O.
4-t
ID "O
ro
K
U 14
9
C
O
41 4-1
41 M
4-1
O
O
9
O
C 4.1
M
J= 41 •O U
a
•44
O
^
4J 9
41 -^
10
n
41
M
4)
C
M
U U
41
4>
x:
41
x:
4.)
C ID
44 «
41 4-1
M
4J
0.4-t
ro O
O
U -4
> n
4->
tyt
9
C -4
i-l
41
41 -4
M
c
C
to
c
— C
^ m
4J
n -D
a o
>» >
O 4-t
c
IM
VI
4J
— t M
.-4 O
M C
9 M
o
«
ro
tn
i-i x:
41 a
O. 10
41
n
41
JZ
41
41 u
> 4)
>
4-t
4-1
4-1
-4 1-1
O 41
* 10
u
x:
M
M
c
n
4J i-H
^4 >
41
E->
41
«
41
(0 o
9 •44
41
41
**4
x:
C
JZ
4-t
r-« O
C OS
>
•44
«i
o
¥i
u ^
o
^ -o
41
M
X >%
14 C
41
•M
4-t
*t-i
O
41 4-1
4.1
10
41
41
ro
M4 «)
10
41
4=
M
41 -D
ty
u
•O •
JZ
4J
4=
>
c
c
r4 C
M -H
C B
4J M
4-t
O
41
r-4 41
41 X3
41 O
41
•o
t4
a
>
10 M
n -^
ar
M >
c
JZ
Oi a
o
U 4)
9 «
O 41
ro
Oi a
o
M
*M
u n
o o
•44 m
ID
o
o.
41
o O
U 41
M
41
a •o
fH M
•M Qi
41 M
41
M
a»
O
k4
c
M
a»o
41
n
4->
9
a
C 41
M 41
•44
M
4-1
c
•M
41 10
-t x:
< m
10 n
s.
41
C
M
4J
ro 44
x: o
9
41
41
o»
x:
U Oi
C
A
9
M
Oi
« n
• 4-t
41 o
10
O- O
9
* 41
M
*N
M M
^
«
41
4.t
to
•V •O
C 9
CM
Oi
41
o*
C
•1
O
*N 9
O U
1 c
x:
O x>
ro
M
1 r-l
^ 10
i/> «4
c
4-t
in
Oi9
•M
41
tn o
O 41
n
M
>
c
n •o
4)
-4 x:
c
41
41
4J
O
41 *4
•o
0»"0 4-t 4-«
o
o*
M
41
C
a>
c o
« 41
ro
ID
£
•0
ID
41 4J
CU lO
c
44
cu
>.4-t
4-t
o
0- -o
a
9
a» •*
u
O
u
M
i-t
a n
•r« 10
4>
C
a
o
4J
9
O rH
U
n 41
•44
41
O
a c
O
U -4
c
41 M
•M
o» W
a
O
x:
41 m
•O ro
ro
«
«M
U
v»
M *M
CM
00
CM
0^
CN
O
ro
CO
A-44
E (0 <C >»
(0 JJr-t rH
O O CI
a£*j c
H -I
CP c
C — < «l
:-. ifl-o *«
o r-i CI a
tJ (OT! CI
■H O - l^
C ri*'-' 0«
:>* CI -H
*J — I CI 3
■-1 0X1
^ ^ CI
m a. -o 3
3 •-I
J o ■«
U O ^ -C
O Iju V) ^
S 14 C 01
10 •^ -^
C O O 3
•'^ iJ 4J
O CI -H U»
C i> O •*-•
O E O
o
o CI 3
•O C O T3
CI n a c
ID iJ O CI
O U U Ot
a o a E
o a o
^ S CI u
a-i£
JJ J< <T>
^01 ^ GO
rH U M-< O "^
-K C
CI
C N
o •"!
-< CD *J
JJ -H •-<
« O
Oi 01
•H > CI
0 H >
■^ *J ^
1-1)0 0
u u >
10 CI c
a a-<
o
coo
01 o -u
•-I D> 3
V C 0
-H -H x:
o u
O 01
u u c
O -H -H
•u C E
O M
>i E 01
U 4J
•H 10 01
C -D
3 <M
J-l M 73
14 .H
O 3
a • o
a u £
o u ui
01
o O JJ
ja o ■-"
o
MJ X cp "0 "O
^ CI c 01 CI
i^ ^ -H u c
10 Qi*T3 CI !-• CI
.-I E 3 b 01 £ 0)
O O •-< O J-l £
O O T3 C -u
0 S C O <"
ti <0 — I « O D T)
B
Ti m (A * « c «
CI -H 01 CI -H O -iJ
(A w y — * w
— I >?> 6 c D< JJ iJ
> = Q. « C 4 CI
01 -H ij -H -^ iJ "O
u -I 3 ^ ^ 01 C
a a o a 3
= w o
>i o ■-< o
c o = -o j:
o c 3
CI
ci o
01 1
I 0)
01
a - o
Oi CI -i-i
c £ Id
'H M a
3
O
X
W U -H -H
o ^ o
01 ^ ,Q -H
^ -H fO -M
01 C ■t-' U
j: o "> m
c 1
01 .,
CI
i» '
s e -u e '0
w
u E E C 4J
• O iJ 1-1 o> n •
^ tt_l CI CI -^ 01 lA
aw n o. u
1 0 X -^
* 01*0 ci -u
c c n
o O CI >!-<
-1 rH j: .0 4J
u H 10
•0 u ci 4J
r-l o T3 W
3 •« • <0
3> n E CI
0 01 CI C-H £
OICIUI^OUICI'W
c
0 o ta
H a 01
■U Cl -u
■0 IJ o
•O 3
CUT)
01 **-* C
§10 O
l-l u
0-0
^J J2 -H
01
C i
>.X1
1 rH "O
1-1 U) 10 10 T) C
01 —I -O C rH 10
X U C 10 3
u 01 >< 0) o >>
O w rH E "O £ en
WjJOl'OEClOO
■H C > C O o
c 01 -H nj 0
o e w 01 *j
E 01 C T3
u 01 C £ .
oioaoci<u04J
x:4-iXHi:-HH0)
HWCI-i-'H3D<e
E O
01 J=
c M u a
O-H
•H 4J O Ul
4J -H Xl -H •
10 u x: u)
T3 ro J-i C
C T3 01 O
01 C -H C -H
P 10 iM -H 4J
0 >i-0 >. H
U U O u O
01 W E u Or
i-i u no
3 C 3
o rQ CI -a 01
x: c 01 c j:
H H XI H U
•0 3
Oi-H -o
a 0
C Cl
u
•H C 4J
c
•0 0 C
0 01
C-H t
x:
3 4-11-1
4J 4-1
IM re oi
;.4
'J
0 10
4J H C
a<o
x:.c 01
01
01 a 01
H-O
3 0-0
o>
0 I-
rH -H
U) 4J Ul
•0 <M
3 10
C -H
>. Cl .=
•H W
rH
IM c
O -0 01
01
•
> c c
01 T)
-T
-H lO -H
x: -H
•H
4J ■^■
4-1
1
owe
c
in
10 4J 3
C 01
C <u
■H 01 -O
« 01
XI
^
>0 -H XJ
■0
«
x: H 10
01 (A
4-1 XX
•O 10
m
*J 3 4J
T3 -C
rH
o c
10
1
01 3
rH in
t-»>»-i o
C -H
0 02
01 0
«
M
Cl 144
01
04 Ul
XI rH
01
c •
•H
10
C 0 c
01 <t
e
01
4J 14 <H
3 XI
.H Id O
(0 1-4
c -o a
o c
•H 10 Cl
•D ai
-O I 14-1
< r-l O
«H Cl
E a -H -H ■
U) 4-1 ID
10 10 lO
n 01(0
-H
;^ 4j j^
H ID H
O Cl O
b > b4
C
-iC-H-U
o
ID 01 IM
ID £ «l
Cl 4-' .Q
3 01
Di£ C ID
4-1 Cl 4->
■O K -<
C <U ID 3
0 O Cl
O
Cl Cl
Ul ID O
a4-> >.
TJ
4.> 14 O 3
3 T) 4-1
01 a ID
4J 1 O
10 w Cl
■H 01 -C
14 .C "D 4J
a4J 01
O 01 Cl
H • C >
aT3 «
aci CI.C
« 4J 3
cm o
-H O 4-1 -u
-H 10
oi-ox >i
.a c 3 14
-H 10 •
TJ ID ID ID
rH Cl 3 ID C
3 > 0 0
0 10 rH O-H
3 XrH Cl ID
01 C -H
4J 3 4J U
•HO ID 01
>i O-H-O
4-1
01 ID 4J Cl
ID < ID M (D
O -H 01
a jz
10 4-1 <o 3 n ID E
rHHrHa4JCI0lOl
U O U r4 -H rH C
a ID 3 -O .Q -H
OiaCI-HID30.^
£3.C.CC1-WV4I0
H'D4-l.UHtDas
<D
xj
u
a
(0
Cl
Cl
jC
o
c
C
4J
X
O 1
O
u
4J
ID :
rH 1
0 '
4J
10
•0 A.
u
4JrO
U 1
-r^
Cl
4J
JC
ID
iJ
C 1
UiJ
•H
0-
0
ID
01
E
0
-H
iJ
01
rH -
3
Oi
<0
QJ
3
01
c
ID X3
Or
TJ
-H
C
01 T)
4J
T.
ID
-H
C
3-0
CA
Cl
0 T3
JJ
ID
10
C
*ID
0
C
01 ■
•H
0
C£
i^
-H
4.1
XJ
g
ID
3
0
a
&
C
o-a
01
rH
iJ
•o
01
3
(0
cc
14 '
£
10
4J
JJ
c
ID
c
0
lA
-H
-H
Q>
01
4J
-iJ
3
ID
■0
•O
ID
U-O
u
ID
c
10
•H
■H
Cl
u
1
01
>< k4
0
•H
4J
4J13
-H
3
c
W
14
C
0
^
0
c
0
• H
U4
a 14
0
01
o
a
s:
o
c o
o
a
•J C ID
4-1 -H U
10 J4 0
C U 4-1 -O
O « 01
C 3 rH ID
■H ID <0
-•H.Q
rH C 01 1
10 O 01 Cl
U -H rH *>
(J W 10 ■
rH ID -O £ ID
.H c a o
H E 10 ID H
O E O *J
O >tX c
r-iu 14 a 3
H c
« C 01
4-1 -H M
C ID -H
3 10 4J C J<
rH ffl -H 10 10
0 u -Q >J
>r)
10 rH 10 -O
>. 01 10 C
rH x: O T3 10
-H 4-1 O O
14 10 rH 4J -O
(0 rH C lO
ID ki 01 Cl 01
ID -c s j:
Cl 0) 4J 01 4J
U -C rH 10
01 iJ £ arH
C 4J E [K
Cl 01 3
14 rH
10 a c
E O
ID 10-H
4J X 4-1
T3
C
«
C
o
01 10
-C 3
01 01 a )4
j: H = o
H -C -H 1*4
3 ID
= <
-H ID
3 iJ
u-i C
ID 01
ID 01
01 14
u u
O u
3 O
ID -O
Cl 3
ID O
«
O
4.1 I
•0 >.£
4-1 J3 iJ
Cl I rH
H Cl rO
a ID 01
H rO X
01 o
X_) u4
c 10 o
c -o
r-
o
^
4J
•0
0>
0
3
rH
3
10
■o
14
Cl
01
-C
rM
Oi c
JJ
3
H
0
U4
10
•H
>l
Cl
x;
4J XI
ID
u
•0
3
•o
01
ID
10
o
.§
•H
OI oi
3
o
l4
w
10 -o
14
0
01
c
3
c
0
o
3
c
■o
m
OrH
01
0
3
>i
x:
0
rH 144 C
(0 O -14 o
3 OH
Oi 4-1 01 4J
C -1 10
0 XJ 4J
= 3 01
C ID 14
o a
01
■0
3
O-H 01
Cl 144 ID 4J
-C C 10 c
H 01 -Q -H
•o
-C
•o -k: 01
>. 01 >.
C J=
OI
C 01 14 C £
IM C 44
s
3 01 I-
3
c
10 14 0 0 44
0
•H -H •H
ID »4 3 T
0
0
•^ Cl b.
44 44
IJ I-* r~*
-4
rH 14 O 01 1
14
•O-H
• M 3 -0 IM
ID
10 01 10
4J
0 01 14 14 14 rt
-C
C iJ
><rH 0 .ii: 01 - 0
44 01
rH ID 3
-i
14 aj= 0 0)
U 4J
c
10 10
rH 10 3 44 l4 CD ID
ID 3
c; 10 C
H
4J 3 4J E 4J -O
14 C
-H
a
rH 14 14 10 -0 C CO
Cl --i
41 0"
01 XI
!
iJ C U) 10 c
0 OTJ
CD
01 -H
l00101OrH.QOl4
£ rH
3 (U
0.C l4
t
0 0 -O r< r-r 10
[44 -H Cl
10
> 0
c T) £ aja -H u
0 01 H Cl ID 44 JQ
44 10
0*44 14
4.' H 10 0
l
C U 01 01
•U£
m
-H -H
01 X
44
.c 44 x; lo
-si 10 ID
4J 44
-H IM 14 01 rH 10 £
0 0
■o
14 C 44
■O £ 10
rX
ID rH t-l O • 44 -T
14 -O •H
•o
U 14
4-1 £ 10 M 01
44 4J
c
= 01
01 ■ CO 3
a
Cl 10 01 ID -H 1
10 C rH
10
Cl 10
C - • ID 44 3 -H £
D
4J 01
•C ID-H '
p
0 C rH Cl 3 ><
rH 01 a
Cl
IM a
Cl Cl C -H -0 c
C-O
Cl Cl -o
C ErH =
h
•O 0 • 01 -H
U E g
£ IM
44 4-' -H £ IM -H 10 01
Cl 01
c
Di£ 3
IF 10 .0 -H
-H C ID -O C ID
E 0
44
Cl 0
Ci0IDMC>OlM
arH
0
rO 44 XI
a 14 10
.M
C 4J -H 3 0 01
■0
-H
-H 44 10 -H 14 CJ
O-H
-H
3
>: oiM ID
U
10 3 ID 01 4J -H OI
O 0 0
rH
C rH
ID CO IM Cl -O 0 3
44
X3 oiin
01 O ID Cl
4
iH 4J 10 H (/) 4J 10
3 01 10
u.
■0 a
10 0 131 C
C E
10
C Id
l4 0; 01
rH
a-H .a 10 o a
C 14
3
10 IM J^ rO-H O CO
01
44
«-H X
c a c
u
.u >, C
•H 01
Cl
Cl a
3 0 14 C 01 -H 44
Cl 0)
c
MO
Cl 0 «
C ID H ID 44 3 =
4-1 01 .0
£X1
0 0 rH Cl <M C
.O u
01
TJ 3
Cl 0144 £
»
0 C Cl C -H -T-> 0
c x:
Eh
01
CICDU4-H3rO-HlO
01
Cl -0 Cl
x> c u
c
■^•^ a 0 rH C
0 H C
OrH
o Cl 44 0 3 0 a
01 3
ii
44 £
-H CD
u a-H -H 0 lot
O 0
M.Q
l4>Ji:i0CrH0l-H
0-HMMjioao
>
P-* •
44 0144
CD M -H 44
n
O >4 3 i> J3 O in|
-H
•
CO
10 ID
ain
-H C
10 o 10
1-1
10 0 U -H m:
10 • u
CD
ID l4
Ul 44 10 10 C CO-H
£ 01
E
E-)iM
J5 14 0
£ 44 E £
i!
Cl 10 ID C
01 a
44
01 01
10 >-* a*© -H 44
c
Ml l4
-H rp 44
•H
01 ID.C 10 -H E
14 U l4
c
3-0
.V 44 U 01 C C 14
ID -H
>
01
3 0
tr C 14
X
x; Cl 4J rH 01 01
O-H 5»
114 114 a
01
C -H
ID C M 10 O-H 10
0144
(Ml
£ 44
ID 44 44
rH 0 OI 0
tH -H 10 >" -O iJ
-H ID
•0 01 Cl a 44 a
c Cl
4^
10 a
-H 14
1 E 0 'D
u
01 C -H 01 -H
114 0
01
44 C
fH ID £ Cl ID
-H Cl
H 10
ID C 10
in M
•
0 -H -o -0 -0
IDO 0
4J
C 0
01 44 01 ID 01 a a
44 £
g
Oi£
10 0 a
01 a ID
4i<
• rH 01 C -H 0
-H O
B
0 o
>. M £ -H -O -H 3
Cl
0
0 u
£ E
Cl c c
2
ID 0 ID E 10 > 44
CO
4J
o
oac4J44»i£o
Cl 01
iJ
u
ID
0>-H -o 0
3 C 01 Cl 0
c- o
CO
£
C 01 -H l4 E ID 14
E ID
-H
P» IM
3 14-1
10 rH 01 -H
0 £ 44 14 ID l4 01
O l4 44
rO 4J
Cl M C Cl M 01
oi Di-H a ID Cl
Cl
0
ID 01
a Cl ID 44
g
01 u-H c a ID
-HOW
01
C-H
44 £
0
M
V > 44
ID 0 -H
C 01 ID 44 0 C
U C 44
CO
10 3
10 rH e K van •
O 44
■p
o-o
M-H CO
c 10 a'o
u
0 U 10 -H ID 0
14 Cl -c u -H a
10 14 CO
01
MI0-H-O013E1HC
01
<M C
3 IK 01
o .a o c
IM
•O 01 14
£
c c
01 0.« Cl Cl 0 0
-*-»lM
•
0)
C)
m 3
u 0
l4 U -U 44 10 ID
C > Cl
4J
01 0
44-H1444M44E3-H
0 0
ID
n
c
M V
c Cl a o •
M
« -H ID Oi 01 01
01 0 4J
%-i
c c 0 iD-H a 44
M
Cl
c
O Cl
>< M 01
0 £ 'O
«
IM 10 ID -H ID H
go c
£
>H£3-HClEMrH-H
a< ID-H
a
-H£
44 0 14
-H 44 Cl >• <l
U
ID -H 3 01 44 C
£ -H
44
10
O ID £ Cl O lOrH
01
44
44 44
-H la.
44 £ 44 44
U
•HO l4 ID Q Cl
6 iD-H Cl a 01
4J a 3 3 > ID 0)
0 01
-H
ID M
Jl£CIIDI0444J 1410
-K u
u
10
a
rH Cl
10 IM 44 -H C
•
o x: 44
•
3
10 -H
14440110 44C0CIO
U -H
10
Cl
■O 44
om:
■O 0 rH m
»-4
01 .P 10
%
£ C
O -H M 10 IM > CJ
0 4J
a
M
C 10
SS'^
C IM 40 £
C ID 0 0" C C)
14 C
V
10
U4 IM u 44 0 Cl 01
h4 0
Cl 01 0 3 3
JH
Cl rO Cl -H 14
c u
u
Cl
C 01
OCIOIMO-HCOJ>«
2T3
01
i >»
l-t
E ID 01 0
£"0 14 14
.H-H
8-
u
0 U
M 01 £ Z rH U
a
«
01
E 44
u o ■
E 0 01 0
0 a > M rQ
4J
i C rO rHrg (0
10 ^ CD
tJl
-H 0
UrOOl44rO 01 -0
10 Cl 10 01 .Q M |44
M
44
ID
0 -H
Cl E
0 01 U ID <0 01 4-1
C E Cl
l4
10
ID
10 •
CO
O 3
4J 44 3
O M-H Cl
Q
O E 10 CD -H rH C
-H 10 ID
a
ID
ID rH
rH CD ID 44 • Cl
•-I o
Cl
Cl
01 c
10 U -H
Cl 3 4.4 44 Ql
M a o 10 A
i.^
1 x: 01 -0 H Cl
144 l4 0
Dia
-.4
•H 3
t,idrHaocM>x
aiO3CI-H-H0IM
O-H
u
ID
M-H
3 3 c
ID 0 0 01 « 1
-H U 14 0 E 4^ E
CO
•0
E IM
rH
Cl
■0
44
•0 c
«i 3
tt
01 0 0
■H
E 01
ClEU0rH|DCl3l«
^a
44
Cl
Cl c
Cl C Cl
Cl Ol-ri e
A
x: Cl o i< Cl Cl 0
•C 14 K £
Cl
0 CO
£O0MOi0£0rH
rH 3
c
r^
Cl 0
£ O-H
u » a
£ £ ja IM «
1
H 14 >M a H T) o
H aa4J
3 U 3
|H O rH 01 ID (0 44 .•: I.I
< a-H
a
wo
H 44 0 0 U
I
^^
_
_
«H
l-^
f^
■•
m
\D
f~
A-45
u o
0) ij Oj ij ;^
O >
*- O
a u
o c -I
It
O HI Ul
to >
10
1 o =
3 (U
lU (0 N
O OJ -H 01
O E (1)
• 3 -O
•u O
COW
e
o V c
■u £ O
10 iJ .H
4J ^
M 3 10
O E
(0 U (0
•H ki »-H
£ 10 O
^ c gj
IK
u o
a* ui ^
a (/} 0)
3 1)^
WOW
■D 10
O 3
C uj
O O O
3 -H
C XJ OJ
■H 10 C
AJ £ 0)
C C E
O 'H 4J
O O 10
O 01
O ■< M
» : ij
O 10
O 1-H JJ 0)
-H rH 10 >
4^ 3 0) -0
10 >w ij x:
10 o
JC -u
^ w
i-l
.. 0)
~ O
>
O 4J
0) 0>
^ Di ■
o> c
_ O 3 O
0> ^ -U U) -H
WO) XJ
3 ^ >i W 10
!-. j<: E
■u 10 U 10
O ^ W (0 rH
O w E o
C Qi 0) 0> 0)
O U U ^ M
•-* U 0)
10 W 3
u. .rf d) o
O £ J3 >.
m >>
o c m .
a c
•^ E JJ ■*-> -H
0) 1-1 10 w u^
W 0) -C 10 0)
3 JJ 4J 3 "O
• t r-t . 4J
01 10 c ^
^ • 3 >.
10 J^ D>*« rH .
U C U tJ ^
W O -H 0) W lO
01 h. 4J a o iH
•H 10 3 O D<
■O J^ 3 U) O
3 ij rH (0 ;^
■U 10 10 u a
w .-I > o «
U 01 -O -H 0)
>• = J=
4J 0) dj 3 W AJ
■H j; H 0)
Xi C i/i u u
■H -H W -H 10 C
W I 3 C O
10 « Q D* ^ H
I" -u -o u u o
■H C rH C
T3 W 10 W 10 3
C 10 »w
10 -O rt rH
C Ol W rH >i
W 3 U Q> 10 ;^
C uj > <o
O ^ 0) -H U-l (0
■H 0) x: -w o w
4J OtAJ 10 0)
10 3 ceo
01 W « U( o 0)
•H A> OJ -H C
AJ ^ W AJ AJ
W rH 0) rH 10 13
o 10 01 10 k4 c
> CJi OJ (0
C AJ 3 c TJ
•H 10 W O
n
rH >, 0) AJ
(0 10 O 10 O -H
-3 3 = s o s
■0 iJ 0) 10 3
01 01 T3 iH rH W
E T) -H o ^ C
O C > 0) 3 O
Oi 3 01 U iH o
0) AJ
x:
10 C 04
10 (N
C rH I
10 CU rri
r-i
0) Oi
^ AJ 10
01 w a
AJ 10
w s c
10
■O H C
U-i • AJ
^ TJ 1*4
01 OJ 10
Q. AJ M
3 0) -O
(0 rH
a 01
01 E £
£ O AJ
•o w o
<U 10
Al 3 rt
01 rsl
rH AJ I
D4 u r^
E O
c a 01
O 0) 01
Li (0
O AJ
O AJ
C lAJ
10
XI
10 T3 T) O
£ 01 a
u u u
4 x: c H
& AJ 01
U A4 ^
01 01 10
j:: -H 01 -H
H AJ ij IH
01
o
c w
10 E OJ
T3 01 x:
•H AJ Ai
3-H TJ
W CO
D 10 AJ
O IM 01 W
■W N 0)
» O -H AJ
O 0) W -H
•H O4 10 W
AJ W JC
■H a 01
i-l lAJ E W
0 O O 01
•H x:
U C O AJ
0. O AJ
•H UH
AJ W T3 O
W 3 01
0) i-H -a a
01 O C -H
01 C 0 £
3 -H Al W
a c c
01 -H o
0 £ H
AJ Eh W AJ •
•H 10 ^
■O rH 0)
c • n q; >
01 W 01 Ui -rH
Al W AJ U
C O -H AJ
•H o m c o
0 10 £
AJ Aj TJ AJ AJ
O a C Li
C 3 O iM
T3 uj a o
U C A< E
O 3 01 -H j;
O *J 0. iJ
•O 1-1 3 O rH
01 (/I £ ID
AJ Qi AJ GJ
K 3 01 x:
a<A C O
■H XJ rH
OJ 01 -O -H f-H
M x: i-i u 10
AJ 10 O Li
II 01 w o
j2 O 01 O >
Eh AJ Li TJ 0
01 -o
AJ 01 • rH W W
10 -o r 10 AJ -r^
AJ C i< o c
1/1 O Li -H OJ C •
Qi O AJ £ 0*0
01 W Uj O 01 -H H
-« 3 10 iH AJ 10
W ^ Li 01 10 N
Li £X L< 10
■ T) 10 o AJ x:
W C rH AJ 'r4 C
» 10 o o >; 0) 10
•n coo
w -o o AJ C
10 0) x: m o
3 > AJ -rJ O
x;
AJ AJ
o
c
Li 3
m o
W O O AJ 10
3 W AJ -rH C •
Owe -H
•O H ■-< - E
Li-O E-H
10 ^ Ll rH
N Uh OJ 01 01
(0 o 01 AJ
X: Li o
AJ O 01 AJ
0 c
AJ O 3 10 01 . ,
E O -H rH > X:
0) 01 Li ^ OJ W
> Oi-H 3
0 L4 O W O ><
01 £ 01 Li w X 0)
Li > a o x:
01 rH a Oi AJ
Al we -I 10 E •
0 AJ t/1 -H Ji *
C C 0) T3
10 >i 01 0)
H O
01 3 Lj W rH O 3
O TJ MH -H 10 lO
o
01 E
o o
■D 01
C XI
01 c
E 10
o
AJ rH rH
o o
W 01
AJ O
C 3
01 X!
E 01
01 Li
3 3 01
AJ O Li
Li m
•H >,
> Li fH
01 AJ
W > C
H rH 01
AJ Li
W AJ
c
OJ o
x: o
QJ AJ (0 U
O O -H »H
■HVJ E IM
X -O O IM
O 0) C Li 3
AJ 3 (0 lA-l W
01 AJ 3
.C LI
AJ O W
a-o
01 01 c
C Li O
■H O.
X)-H
Li 10 01
10 c x:
Ol-H AJ
01 Uh
Li Li
01 o
w x: <A^
C AJ
O w
■H C 0)
AJ -H >
10 -H
XI "O AJ
C 01 10
0) AJ C
fO Li
0 01 AJ
O XI ^
0 10
Li C
O C I
O 01 O •
•H XJ H ,
MH AJ ■
■H O U
0 > 10
01 10
dx: .H I
10
w •
*X3 "O .
AJ C 01
C O E
OJ O, 01
AJ Li •
w w
•H Ol W
W C 3
C-^ O
O Li -H
U a Li
U) 10
OJ >
X! E
Li 01
o 10 x:
Eh 3 H
XI •
r-i CO
•H a\
10 rH
AJ
0 >.
XJ-H
Li
01 10
£1 a
0)
x;
H
•O AJ
u ■->
AJ O
10 Q.
a a
•H 3
u u
•H
AJ >,
C rH
10 a
XJXI
*-H Li
0 lo 10
AJ X3
: C
01 rH
Ol rH
c
10 o
j: -r^
O AJ
01
C L<
0 o
01 o
XI JZ
>• o o
rH 3 UH
rH
(0 01 AJ
0 x: Li
•H AJ O
AJ a
01 u a
Li O 3
O w
O 01 c
j: w o
fi 3 C
LJ AJ
C O ILI lAA •
01 10 o .y
> W H H
01 rH -p : o
o w
Al Li OJ AJ
o AJ x: u
e c AJ 0)
w O Q
AJ W U lAJ W
•H 01 O 10
O.H
0 "O 10 r^ 01
AJ C I E
AJ o iJ^ O
01 Li -H w
C O AJ 01 r 3
■H a 3 01
XJ 01 AJ ir w 01
Li H H a « ,C
O AJ 01 AJ
O 01 W « Lj
0 jc e IN x3 c
10 El -H XJ "H
x: 10
xj o a w
01 • AJ 10 O =
W A> H AJ 01
3 Li C 01 rH
O O 10 w ^
C a-H Li c O
U OJ AJ 10 O Li
0; Li >0 O, .-I a
J3 E AJ
OJ 10 U 01
W X: rH . 10 AJ
10 AJ O 01 w
x: Qj a o 10
C Li O AJ 3
c -ft o
O Ol « w OJ
■H Ol C Li c
AJ C -H -O Ol-H
10 -r^ AJ 01 WH £
E C O AJ 41
10 10 -H -H Li C
rH C Li E -H
0 E AJ -H >t 10
OJ W ^ rH -H
Li >t OJ iH a
Li Li Li 10 XJ
E 10 0) U O
Li c AJ x: -H o
OJ O W AJ M-l rH
AJ -H OJ O -H lAJ
AJ 01 U
01 O 01 >i O 0)
.c -H 3 e a .c
Eh -o w (fl w AJ ;
O H
M-i OJ
•H x:
U AJ
01
a o
W AJ
AJ W
C AJ
o o
o >.
10 >
10 I
0 01 r
AJ je r
W U-i J
Li O
01 J
lAl JZ I
01 w -
Lj 3 U
01
W -H
10 >1 rH
.a ;a Li jj
_ 0) 3
T3 0 x> > a
C u-i JC 01 O
10 O AJ « 01
wee
« 01 e 0) 10 o
JJ O -H Ll X: Ll
C C X3 AJ AJ
OJ 10 — 73 w
•H AJ W 10 rH
Li Li OJ -H 01
AJ O U 01 10 Li
3 a Li C AJ -h
C E 3 -H 01 3
•H o 01 XI 0*
1" 0! XI 0)
0 0 Li H
> AJ W QJ
>I-H C -H AJ iH
-a AJ -H 10 rH
3 10 O fH 01 -H
AJ .H a O Li 3
W 01 C Li Ol
Li O AJ »
0 C e C rH
■M 01 O -rt O
« X XI (J Li
■w AJ c m AJ
n 10 c 01 c
1 >< OHO
•H lAJ AJ .r4 O O
Li -H C AJ C
4J AJ -H 3 0) 01
C O rH Ol >
« 01 arH 10 <H
x: XI — o AJ
AJ -H Q^iH O
10 01
1 QJ Li IA4
I U 01 lAj
I Li ro OJ
1 S 3 41
I O O lAJ AJ
WW 3
- - TJ J3
O AJ AJ C
L4 -H C C 10 "AJ
O AJ 01 -H 0) ki
t-1 10 -H o 0) Li O
10 o Li a AJ o a
E -H AJ c 10 1A4 a
£ 3 O AJ QJ 3
< a c z u A w
iw o
O AJ
l«
a c
41 Q)
H O
•H Li
AJ 3
c o
QJ W
01 AJ
x: e
AJ -H
O
o a
o
10 c
rH 0
a
w
XI
0
•H
0
n
w
AJ
0
c
a 01
■H
Li
Li
0 Al
3
01
C
f~*
.Q
Li
ID
0
C u
0
w
>.
10
AJ
41
•H
L)^ .
-< 0)
AJ JQ QJ
0
,4 01
c
U Li
e 10
w
0 x:
•H
ao
w w
AJ
QIH
IH
- X)
Ql
C AJ
01 c
E Q) 10
CI x: AJ
AJ m 01 AJ u
c -H 10 o
0) c XI a
■H c 10 e E
Li 10 S 10 -H AJ
JJ x: -o m
3 AJ 01 - QJ e
e o 3 lj 10 QJ
01 Li 10 10 L4
Dl O 3 01 C -H
C 10 O Li >, O 3
•H a UJ 3 X3 -H O*
AJ m CQ 3 » 01
•H AJ AJ C Ll
£ X! C >i W 10
•H C -H AJ arH
rH 10 O -H CT\ X rH
a rH -rr 01 -H
C Ifl 3
u = O 3 « Q)
iLi H 2 0 1-3 .e M
AJ X £h E
C QJ Ll Q
O O £ 0) iH Lj
•H Li Eh AJ -H . Ol
LJ O 10 O » O
10 E 3 C W Ll
N . 3 01 a
•H Ll AJ 0) O 0
AJ 10 Ll x: u o 0)
■H ILI O AJ L< W
^ a >• a 01
o 4) 0) >iAJ x:
•H Ll L4 XI -H W AJ
a 3 W T? 10 £ lAI
Ol-H 0) 3 AJ O
X) 01 x: L( Ol
C Ll AJ lO c c
10 arH -H o
rH C 01 10 -^
W rH -H Ll AJ W AJ
i-H -H a c a 10
■H 3 0) 01 O AJ
10 rH « E AJ C •
AJ oija E c w 01 AJ
Q) C 10 10 O E L4
•O-HrHLlLlAlQlO
X) -4 Ol -H W rH a
Qiioioo>Liaa
.C0>LiC-HE3
EHrHiOOiUUH-HW
>i
o
■a
01
>
r-i -H
rH w
1 e c
C iri 0; 0)
0 XI 01
01 Q)
N Ol Ll
i< 10 01
0 a 3
OXJ
e rH 01
o >
10 rH
C o
O AJ m
W -H 10 w
w 01 x:h
•H W AJ -o
TJ 3
O AJ lAJ
•o w w o
C -H 01
10 X) 01 >t
Ol u
Q) QJ 3 C
a x: u QJ
Dl AJ 3
rH O 01
10 e AJ o
•-I Ll
C 01 IM
4) X) o
01 4J e 41
3 N 4) j:
AJ -H X3 AJ
01 C -H
.Q 01 > 41
O 4) O
a u 3
•H 01 01X3
x: Ll c 01
:il O Ll
C W Ll
O -H AJ -O
•H
AJ C
« O
t-i -H -
31 AJ
H 0)
CO r
11 a QJ 01 a
x: 0) x: rH 41
Eh XI Eh 10 T3
41
01
41
U
C
o
a
0)
MH AJ E IM
4) -^ --I
U rH 41 O
10 > 4)
41 o 10 a
W U £ M
■0
O 41 3 AJ
-H x: o o
0< H >. C
O Q)
H w AJ 0) w
0 Ol Ll O AJ U
3 C O -H O O
3 -H aiM Ll -o
H Ll Q) -H a e
J a Ll o QJ
3*1/1 41 o
J c QJ aAj AJ
H o E j: w o
J -H Ll H AJ e
0 AJ 10 >< e
: 10 3 c 4J w
H AJ • (0 -H QJ
41 41 AJ o 0 •
■* Lix: LiAJ-H'O'O
? a Al o 10 lAj 41
Ll ax: IM AJ AJ
:41AJ4IAJ3L|W
> 4J 10 H W O 41
^ C AJ = a 01
J -H W rH W 01 Ol
owei04)WLi3
J -H O C Ol-H w
J E -H -H 01 4J
ji AJ »M 3 c x; 01
J Ll O W O H >
» 01 10 0) -H 10
J -C .C Ll AJ JZ
J AJ O AJ O O •
3 3 IM c 0) E O
;(M-H-r4AJLi:H>i
11 o 10 O 41
3 >i QJ X3 AJ AJ 10
: C a QJ W * lO
3 10 Ul > >i 01
J O 01 01 C (0
UTJLiEEOOTJ
J-H O 0)-Hi-HrH O
O UH Ll AJ O JZ
H> C 41 AJ
< 10 w c >ijz -c o
4 c 41 c u AJ E
9 o o 41 10 41
) fH-H jQ AJ C O
AJ AJ -r^ -H
to 01 10 * IM
• X) > 01 Ll -H
Jl C 10 AJ 3 01 O
rH 01 X O 0" > 41
o £ c -H -H a
Ll E U C M W
AJ O T3 <0 X
C U C 01 U QJ >•
o o o o 0) x: e
O Lj Ol XI AJ AJ lO
QJ w
x:-H
AJ -o
AJ QJ
I AJ U.I -H
Ll 10 10 IM
O Ll -H
IM X3 X3 "O
c 01 S
•H AJ 0) S •
■H X rH
0) O AJ c 10
-c 00
AJ W C QJ -H
-H -H ^ AJ
IM U
O AJ AJ W 10
10 C 10 Ll
0 X 0) £ a
W JJ £
10 01 AJ 01
Ll AJ AJ Ll XI
X Ll 10 O
a o AJ a JJ
10 a w 01 o
M Q) Ll C
10 Ll >,
a HrH >J
rH 10 10 10
« rH E C El
-H £ -H
W X 3 IM U
•H S W 0)
IN 0) M
r-J X 01 X 3
1/1 U X fH w
1 H 10
m 0) 01
X • E
QJ AJ -0)
Dl X AJ rH
10 c a 10 10
a-H 10 M -H
M 3 XI
c XI 01 o 0)
o 0) 10 o E
C M 10 01
AJ-H 10 M
c 10 a >.
Q) AJ rt X
E C 01 01 U
Q) O X Ll 3
AJ O AJ -H CO
10 AJ
AJ C IM C >,
n O O 01 10
•H W
4) AJ XI AJ
X 10 e o o
Eh £ OJ e AJ
A-46
II) >i
0>
£ « 0)
•
c
14 4.' g -1
x>
•H «
0
u
>£
•r-. C ,H U
o
0 -K
iO-< 0 «
0.
U
E U ^
11
a c ui
•0 ■»-* -r^
u
E 0 -<
<0 01 c^
M j:
J-> 0 10
^
: >i 4J
III UI (J x:
■0
1-4
•H ~l
c
^•0 C
><
01 Ui Oi
■-H
. i« Ol-H
rH
r-( 0) SI C
(U
•
iJ -H JJ
0"
O 10 > -1
r^
C U IS u
c
U 10 c
0)
CM
W fl) <-t c
-r^
iJ o o »
£
:*
E a V 0
T3
C J= XI 10
iJ
« 01 iJ -1
k4
0 3 a
E
JJ 0) -u
0
o jj m
E
01
10 JJ 10
0
0) 10
0
XI
JJ - 3 T3
o
u -u x: >-*
^4
•H
w c J3 e
■0
11 0) iJ 10
tU
0 o
> -4 0
0
r-l -H 0) g
r}
10 Oi'V ■■^
•o
■U
10 u iJ g
<
a
0) 0 41 -iJ
01
C U <fl 0
c
•H
^ ^ JJ 'rH
4J
»
-( ifl I- o
0
«M
0 01 u
0)
in
O* fO U •H
•H
iJ~l CI o
rH
c
-H « a 14 4J
"§
10 A 0<
01
0
ki 11 V
u
£ 0>>M
•o
a
0 M to Ut
IB
g
4J 01 3 -H
0)
-< 3
CI 01
c
o>
>j 3^ 0-d
c
4-1 -H W
01
k4
3 cr 10
c
<l
01 ^ J-< 01
0)
0 V u u
3
V
01 01 1-1 -H
A
o
M (U O ^
ja
Di£ 0 k4
01
-u >
^
01 01 0. 10
01
u
u >< a v
II
u
3 -H 0) 4-1
<0
0 u u c
a.
10
01 [14 1-1 3
£
1
a 0 0
3
x:
J3
1
a^ c
U]
JJ 01 -H
C
0)
3 0) H >,
c
0 • -1 14
0
XJ
m -H r-l
0
0
C C £ 4J
■H
C
u-i CL c ^
-H
•W AJ
i-1
01
•O 3 O
iJ
01 01 c
•0
E
C J< u.
01
ifl
0 U u-1 0
•o
E
<0 14 Q
u
T3
0 ja 0
c
0
0 :
CI
C
13 >>
01
O
«| b4 <U .
IM
o
01 C L4
•
g
0 -CO)
V
g
JJ £ 0 n; T)
E
?
u M u ^
u
U J-l -rH 01
CI
c
01 U -H
0
0 MJ tn
c
O
-H
10 n! UJ 14
c
u
a c 10 o>
0)
1)
•0
m rH O 0
0
9)
Ol-H u 0
iJ
IH
3
■H U tJi
•H
^
L4 10 Cl
10
»H
•o jj a» -u
•0 a =
01
01
0
CI ^ J->
u
CI
O CJ 0
u
•r4
c
O i 10 10
V
JZ
j: 0 1-1 01
f
X
0
3 -u a 0
01
H
H Z 2.X1 -u
F<
u
1 -r4 fcj *J
4J 10 C
I lA 01 II
: c u -o
I -H AJ -H ;
01
>• 01 CI
^3 J=
r-l tr 3 4J
0! 3 —I 01 1
C u-t C 01 -H U
0 £ -I > 01
•H 0) O 01 -o
^ 1-1 01 Tf u C
U « J-i C 3
10 10 rt
CI 4-1 TJ
01 3 C >i 01
> 0) ja • 4J
o e TI o-
j3 • iJ-O C 3
10 01 10 0) 3 -O
0} Cl -u 14-1 C
CI 01 ^ 16 IH O
£ O -14 u 01 O
4J o CI a
u CI c 3 u
U Q«^ 01 (/> -^
10 II) 0>
£ lO 10 CO)
1- C 3 C O 0)
3 01 -I
4-1 IW r-4 0) Ol Ol
C V4 10 XI c o
01 01 -r-l -H PH
E QiU 01 J< O
0) 3 C 10 M C
4J u) 01 x: o x:
n u 3 o
4J 01 Q -u 41
0) £ a 0) 01 4.1
■U -r^ 01
U IW rH o 01
3 01 O £01
O X4 0) 4J 01
-r^ 4J £ £
U TI 0) (H >44J
b 0) -4 d
O QirH HH
Q.X •■O O
Q. Cl O* 0) 01
3 C 01 u C
0) o o i-i II o
iJ -H 0) -O -^
>i 10 H 4.1
^ Q« 10 3 0) «
0>rH C 3
C 01 <u 9) O -H
0 £ O C O «
IH -1 >
4J -o 41 E ^ II
01 r-4 U C
3 10 k4-r1 T3
I O 3 O « C
4 a 10
n o 10 1« .
0X1
01
01
4J
4J
01
C rH
O
a
E
•
0)
010
u
0
0)
•H
T3
3
CI
C
0- 14
01
0
10
E
^
01
0
41
c
u
£
0
0)
■U .H
^
XJ
o
10
01
4J
Di u
•^
10
1 CB4-'
C
W
0)
•r^
01
c
■0
>
o
^
C-H
0 .H 4J
o
0
o
O
10
10 -1
144
I-i
0) .H
Ifl
0)
O-H
41
fllTJ
0
a
01
O
0)
u
u
ail
M
to
U)
0
o
U4 £-1
^-
H«M
1 M
•^
> o:
u
I
1TJT3
s.
1 C
c
U}
1 3
3
IM
144
Q)
1 u
u
u
,s
,S.£
! 3 3
1 {/) 1/)
%
it
TJ 0)
01 O 10
O £ 01 H
Oi-u Ifl
Ifl 01 S^TJ •
L4 MH ^ (J C VI
3 O O C 10 O
O C 01 -H
O 4J ^ O^rH 4J
C 01 10 Ifl
u ><
£ 4J
H
c o ji:
3 _ u
i OrH
0 -0 u
'J Id
01
01
E
01 01 >i
. C 10 u
_.,-.. £ -1 O
CIOCl-i*40)'O •4J'O'O0)
Sifl01Clk43C 3Cl-rH
O J-l'OCIr-l -H»MrH>>
4J 0IC0l>O01OOlH'O
••O»Hl*-'r4Cl0 COI<
XJ ifl -^ C"H^OI-H0)
MO>>CIE3 O 01
0C0£0 OOIC -OlC
>U'Hl4HlHCl4J£OIC>OI
1444^0* 144£ 4.4JJ010N
CIO i4'0 0)-r^£•H
OlO'i-l CI4J-H4J iJ
>.E4JCCIT34J3X-rH .-H
k4 OCCCOOIrHOlO
a)4JlO-HClO-H£ iflU
>0'H4J0 OtJiOIOOlOl
CI03iflO) •'a3£UU£
••-iOO.k401D,04J --4^
ClOOl-^CIOIifl^ 0)144
XI u 0) o a-< £ II £ IM »
Ifl a-^ -H 44«4J^4JO0)
E E4J.-i4Jifl O O-
rH 44lfl0)3E*44M-l'dk4lA
01.-HCI0O3 OCIOCOCU
iflifl-r^CX'H'OrHlHXl ifl(u3
£ C C -4 *44 W O
4JXJC£-HO xi^o)ji:m
xJiOiHClo C0)^1i440)Oi
O llNll443lH£X3Q)ifl
OC£-H4J00Ok4E£f-iJ«
T-»0 *) -r-iClTJOOlE U
O-^ C'HtJ It ifluZCISxO
UAJCIUOE^V EU3
O* 10 11 i4 rH W C
a,a UTS ' o iflr-ovc
X-H OOUO]rH3ClHO>0
1hU4)I444J0I-hiO 0104
0*H> W-H>.HI0-*4O44X3
b4 44 10 ><-H UXl44a4J|04lC
44£UmCrt4J3-^ 4J«
Jl^lfl -<C1I MOrHCC
44aOlCOO<OI344«Ol-l -
10 Oi30iOCT30<0-< i-l
rHOC44 OIC Ui-'CI-H
U-r4-HU0)CIN-Hl) .r4£0
rH4>QO*4-^ 01J^^44C
Q)jaciQ*44io4J'Ooi44m 3
£3Cia044'HC£00<440
HCuEOUiOljiawbiUOU
a
3
o
4J 01 0)
Ifl 01 0
o
£
c c
0-1
4J 0)
Ifl c
N O
c
• a> £-
10
4J
0)
c
0)
a
44
4J
rH
10
.r^
01
CI
c
Ifl
01 0
44
a
•r4
3
44
01
a X
T3
OXI
01
rH
.r4
01
Ifl
>
E
>1
£
44 — 1
•rl
u
44
■r4
0 -0
^
.H
01
0
C UH rH
C £
a
.r4
g
•^
4J
01
144
«)
rH
a
01 »44
>.0
iflXj
3
0
c
3
c
Ifl
CO
Ifl
01 4)
0-1
C
0)
c
—4
>
c
-H
3
.r4
4J
.r^
0
XJ
10
10 TJ
— 1
in
0
4J
a c
4J
ft
41
c
■r4
•.H
0
m X>
01
0
01
III
-4
44 rA
10 TJ
4)
4J
OrH
4)
5.
44 £
0
0)
44
rH
Ifl
4J
0
a
0
0)
0
a
10
44
3
>
«
0
rH
c
4)
4J
44
0)-l£
44
«
Ci» 0)
44
3XJ
44
XI
.y
»■^^ M
44
44
u
11
11
0
0
0)£
V
01 <44
3
3
4J
u
c
0
«
144
4J <44
44
■M
rH
0
41
0
0
44 JO
0
c
10 -H
01
a 0)
H
V)
44
CI
«)X>
■H
c ■
i!
44
3 H
10 XI
c
10
a.s
E
01
0
D< 01 M
01 £
CI
4)
44
0) 10
Z
44.03
0
44 X)
10
rH C
44 3
rH -rH
rH rf
c
1 XI
D.<
0
in 44 •
01
.r4 4J
10 4J
X «
44 01
01 o> C
rH
•H .rH .
01 01 01
>l3
-H JJ 0) C
Ifl u g
JJ 0 •
10 01 0)-l
a 3
C 0) 44
0 0 10 01
c 0
3 « ;.
U Z 10
coo
ssa
T3X1
O-HXJ
Ji rH
44
1 0)
44 • 3 41
JJ 10 44
>1 0 iJ
0 C 0£
44 E «
JJ £
b4-H £ 4J
0 44 £
— 4 4J rH
n 0)
a 0 44
0 10
.y Ifl c
01 144
01 -
H m c~i
44 C 0
Ifl C-t
Ifl «
■M 44
rH -J *4
rH Ji rH 10
01
3X3
u 44 ajj
£ 0 4j
0 44 0)
0 44
44 .r4 01
01 10 £
0) Ui C 0
*4 *4
01 0<4J
£ 0*4
*J .r4 01
-1 01
iJ .a^ .r4 144
0 0 44
£ 44*4
44 44 41
0)
0
E « U
0) ax)
11 C
0 rH Ifl 4)
U 0) rH
£ 0 "
44 U 44
44 3
JJ .r4 rM
"44 TJ 3
3 CI 0
44 1
11 11 44
0 JC£
*j atn
0) £ « 3
0) -1 01
OXJ
44 44 0 144
rH
c «
c a
11 01
C 41 CD
01 c 0 o«
£X) C
0 1 S
E -r^ 44 C
1 a-i
JJ rH 0
-< E a
3-H
JJ 0
5 « c
X) 0 44
Ifl u c
0 C D-l
0) 3 «
X) 4) 0
fl)£'44
-1 XJ
C 44
11 M 44 0
»j 0 C
11 -o
£-H XJ
-<£ 4)
i fl <i
4J 4J -
U 3 i
E x>
•H > C
&J
0 -"0
» 0 rH-l
0 44 «
E xJ
01 II U
01 c
OrH C 0)
T3 U
-IS
0 rH 10 C
U « 44
rH 10 44 1)
> II
jgt:j!
01 UN
« U «l
'§^:!
£ «
>. 0
44 «
am
11 U E -I
OCX
.1iS3
3*4 -H 0
3 -t JJ
A-47
u
o
«
3
C Q.
L
+»
a» in
re
■ - c
«
C
X
in
O > •
4"
o>
U V
QQ
J3 4" O
-)
o
:
o ■*-• «>
X
o
X
—
+» X
V.
O ID -
>
o
+»
o
+•
J£
+»
U)
+»
^
lA +»
0
J£
-} o +•
L
u
-H
o
-t->
.—
U —
o
■ —
c
V.
1-
■ - m
O
£L
C
V
Q.
* (« U T)
TJ
3
IA
— L
O
T» — +>
in
V
1
<
X 3 • C
TJ
4>
re
o
ID
u.
o a c
-—
c
E
o
a
+• cr+» ID
c
+>
ID (A
41
4> V
O 3 «
>
E
u
«
O ID
ID
ID
01
V
>
XI
J£
Ol-D E
■o
(A
o
a
X
L 3 .
>
IA in
■- +•
re
i.
4«
re
(V
u
«
+»
> • T) J£
+•
O
re re
4)
+» (A
—
re
(D cn —
cn
-o
■D
r -^^ C O
.-
c
or
l-
O O
—
—
c a
c
>« <
c
c
« 3 O
a
41
T3 k-
O
0) o
re
u
Ol - E
m
je
— c
3
tn
3 O »-
l-
L
o> o
E V
>
C +J ■-
V.
c ■-
*•-
+»
L.
«
«
IA C
u- «>
re
41
■- re
>•
o
o
L
3
u
W < OJT?
X
«
+•
tn .-
in
4> X
X
O C "D
Si
u.
+»
a>
O
«
- Q. i-
+•
XI
IA
V
«
+>
—
+1
■Q — C
— tA
a
+»
O Ul - «
n
I. \.
E
\-
_
E 01
■o
JC
— V
D
e
n) a> « X
3 0) <*- -
O)
TJ
IA
Tt 0)
o
O (*.
—
O
4> - E
^ - G
in
u
■— u
Ul
o
c
o
w o
"tf
(0
3 OP
\.
^ o +» c
3
T7
ID ID
41
(t-
V o
U)
+*
<
«*-
c •-
i.
O
3
^
O) «
(A
O O
3
u
'-« c
a
•
T3 >■ *
a>
X
—
>
C L
«
OlV - 4»
U
bj
X
0>
- O -H Ifl
■*-»
lA
ID
— **-
«
— re
•P
C
L i-
IA
«
(A
c:
E c o o»
c
« o
0»J( X
in w
j:
• «
c
3
o
* d i-
4)
E
+•
>
re
O U)
IA
"O
I- X o
•o
+>
c >
n
Q.-0
• 3 3
«
C
.- -H
I.
o
c
ID +» 4"
n n
X CT -4^
E
+»
«
4^ (A
o
— V.
>
3
<V 4)
in
c
— X
U)
(D
CB+J 0> U) O
o
tn
+•
o o
+>
■—
C
t^
a o) c
m
O Q.
k.
c
\- (fl ID
L
>.
o
0) u
IA
IA «
ID
a o o
+>
_
+»
._
.>V « i-
*«-
in
a
*»-
*- X
E
■D
m +j ._
ifi
U V
+•
c
CT
X
X
X> I. <♦-
V «
»-
« +»
4)
4"
E
• o
C
O 10
C
«
+»
•O ID
L
IA
>
« X
•
X
•
3
+< IA -
4)
— > c
«
■- c
■ _
»
EC X
«
•D
c
+»
+•
-H >
I.
C
o 4* in
4'
O L
E
■H O
■D
c
E
D ID Q. CB+»
C
ID
+»
10
o re
re
■ —
Ol u o
--
t. «
E
o —
O
<0
o
£ 3
ID
o
O (A
3
Q.
4^
-) » a
Q. >
o
< -H
o
(A
> -P « O
3
Ul
a
E
c <
•V
«p
C
o -,
C
o
o
u
(0
_
«
3 C O ^
re
0
•.
c o
I.
o
Lore
o
c U)
C\J
■D T3
ll.
^
+»
— 3 X
>
»
lA
i-
IA
T3
re 4-
«
u
a L
■-
c
to
o
c c
V
— O +• +*
+>
k.
O)**-
C
X
a c
4J
C lA «
o
0)
-t-"
(0 01
Of
o
O)
m E (A
._
re
c
C
n
IA Of
t-
4^
01
O
o to X
lO
E
c
-»-•
ID (0 C
—
»
« o
E
+• >
L
-- tn
re
irt CQ +*
+»
B
«
+• 6
-—
o
• UJ O
Q
•o
L
(*-
OJ-
V
IA re
*
0
X 3 4)
c
a
■D
J£
»- o
r
(A
+•
X •
3
«
a
re
re -P
-o
— X
•
+<
aH o J3
V
X J£ (*-
-H
1-
L
o o
-o
+* X c +•
CT
+»
(0
(A
I. re
c
IA
C
a
•—
X
o i- o to s:
n
_
Q. 01
•
«
«
+• — CD
(t
O "O
•o
0 —
«
«
3
L TJ
4»
-> o
3
01 l-
■*-»
«
_
Ol C
■o
c
E
«
+• c
4)
■ — _
■—
E
IA
. n ~
•
li.
_
.
o
T)
cr
+»
c
Ji
c • ot —
o
■ —
L
I.
(0 »
IA
+• —
4^
a.
+* > 3
*t- —
Xt V
ID
n
I
0)
3
n
- -o C E
o
E
m
10
E
re
« 3
-—
o
—
o o
o —
V. ^ o
-H
c
D
+» X
m
«
+»
X 3 — m
Ol
re
3
L E
«>
«
—
—
_
0* ot o
o
ro L -
«
L
O
^ V
L
0)
o - +» +»
+»
>
« o
L
*- 3
._
«
.—
-t c
>s C
J m «*-
a
Q
3
n
w
«P
E
n u iA c
«
c
«
«
+J o
o
o o
U
>
3
O .- -D
C 3
O — "*-
ffl
<v
a>
^ %-
X
X
« C «( o
X
o
X
X
re V
c
» —
ID
«
L > c
ID O
I U O O -X
Q
K-.
O o
H
+«
■!->
L — +t o
+•
o
t-
+»
3 ^
a *.-
««-
■o
•-♦
CL 4> (D
£ O
(J) >-
o o *
m " o
n
A-48
;C
•
X
0
■p
S rM
u
^
0
d) m
<U n
C 0
"o
XI
(D x: fd
C 1
0 U4
^ -P X
in
•H
kJ
^-1
■P Q
l|H
4-1 ;!>(;
0
c
O Q)
(0 u
u
M-l C
MH -H >i
01
4-1 (d
0)
^ 0
0 ja
>i tJ
C rH
^
>1
-o
■P CU
0) u
4J CJl
c (u -d
■H
E
•H C
O C (U
rH C
0) (U
^
>-l -H
■H H W
X3 0
rH ;C •
M
O M
4J rH (0
•H
CI44-) 0)
U
■r^ i^
(0 4J Q)
W -O
E CJ
CO
^^ 0
> d rH
<tJ (D
•H MH -H
a ^
0 0 o
<U T)
0 MH
%
C S-I
MH 73
E MH
fi
jC (U
QJ (1)
(fl
«o <u 0
M
Di >-i
M J3 0)
<U
u 0
0
-H (fl
A
x: c
D> C W
Xi
X
U rH
-p (1)
0 (0 -
l-l
(A
0 rH T3
(1)
M d sh
^
3
MH -H rH
Q) XJ
4-1
a d 0
•H C
■H
W 0
•
M 0
(fl W
)H 4-1 )H
M
•■H M
E
<U E jC
3 »0
0 c <u
E-t
CP <u
> (U m
rH x:
MH 0 >
CJi
rH
•H 4J
(0
0 0
^
C jG^
-P W 4J
> w
c c?
5
•H U
O
(d >i 03
<1) 4J
<U. (U
CQ
XJ 0
u
c w x:
o
ro x: (1)
0 Xi
a
U 4J
0 0)
0 4J x:
£
0
Q) W
4-1 -I-.
x: 4->
0
rH -a
0)
■p -d >i
0
0 in
M
u< c
•H
rH C -0
c: u
•r1 c
M-4
(0 42
<« 0 d
0 a
(\> -rH
0)
-U
^ -p •
•H
> >i
)-l
c ^
-d IS) a\
4J (U
•rH 4-> 4J
0)
-^ w
O
<U W 00
(t Gi
4J H 0
■P
s u
4-)
U tJl >i(T\
"d m
(0 d <U
4J
X
M C -P rH
C >H
C CJ •^^
0)
0) Q
0)
<U H -H
0) 0
^H -H 0
H
4-)
c
l*-l !h rH >,
E ^
(U 4-J >H
-p "a
0
Q) a-H rH
E w
4-> C 04
0
3 C
■H
U U) A U
O
rH 0
■U
(Q (d
4-)
CU -H (fl
o u
(0 u C
:3
E « (U
(U 0)
■rH
0)
<U < rH
0) >H (fl
>H 4J
QJ "d w
U)
jc cm
0
x: <« (U c
TJ
X C (0
c
&
CO
Eh W
w
H IS MH -H
'< 3
Eh <0 m
^
. — .
. — .
-— »k
^_,
»;
r-i
tN)
ro
•>*
A-A9
•<-, O r-
-O O C tJ
U 4-> 3
-— *0> 30> reXTTS**- c
a. c 0) CT
ro •<- O ^ ^ CTi
re •♦- ••-
« r—
.-H 4-> t- 1 Q. 3
o» w
c .— o» w.
1 .^ x: oc o
t- re
•.- r- c a>
in u 4-> --s a> 1-
O 0* CO
W 0) -<- ♦-»
O X X3 ^
u
n> u (/) re
1 -.- T3 ♦J
oi re ^
CO X X
1_ 0) O T3
c: i-
0) re
r-t Q.T3 O^ r-
■r- - O
^ 9»
^ C UJ 3 O
C >»U-
t- c c ^
1 o> o» O 1-
C 4->
o re •>- *J
IT) c E a» x: 4->
. ■<- E ^ tf) C
re -r- ^
li.
(— i- u
(A 0) o
a-o o 4-> o
Q. o re
ji ■*-»<— +J
— CO .— u
x: .—
t- c ^
3 0* T3 O
0) 4-> O
I
re 0) re u)
C »*- I- C 1- c
»- 3
r- </> .— c
re « 4-> o
o re 0)
tj a» .- o
r- - « C •<-
E -c
I- re •>-
a. M 0> C O 4^
>>4J
■
,
4~t a. > *->
-^ ..- re o 3
4-> t~
<«- 0) re 3
C Irt *J ^ r-
re o 4-
,.j-
L
re I- •—
o re ■»- CL c »—
x: 4-> o
fr
^
U >t o
•.- X3 U O O
4-* re
^^
> Z UJ
O -M r— (/)
4J O 4J ■•- a
.— tf)
3 •-
U Ifl
O 0» -r- C *J
^ 3 E
>
-, O CO
0) o 3 a>
re -o u a> 3 0)
0) ot a>
* cJ
y 5S y
£ a o >
■»- Q. e r- (J
at at f-
>.
^ a3 oc
+j o) ■!- ■•-
0)X a)r-f-«*-t~o
O
&->(/)
^1 Ot C7t O 3
o
a>
>^ ■ ^
C W V)
4-> Of x: re a. o
4-» 4J t-
1-
V^ <J .
O W> U 0)
4-> 4-> c v>
0 3 0.
0)
2 ^ ^
3 a. t-
•«- re re 01
c o
u
^ >: t
4-> 4-> Ol
O -M O E O 4-»
JZ c
c .
a: <
C re 4-1 Qt
LO 4-) i- C
O 4-> O
••" c^
T- < t-
at 4-> o re
C 01 3 -r-
■o .- "-
00 *-''
•s^ o */)
E (/) c
o re c o o o
I «-»
\
E **-
•p- a> 1- M a.
i~-« 3
t
O 0) M O
4J C > 3 C
>.r-
u ^ re
I- o ■•- o +> o
t- 1 »-
o o>co c c
• #— o
o «
c
a. ■•-
M re o.
♦J 4-» J3
• a» -t-> o <4-
+j •.-
• re E
M
0) V) J3 C CL O
(J u ot
>» c x: 3
re
o *J •■- c
0) at u
4J re ■!-> c
CO
U C 13 O O C
•r-i a, i-
3 «> •— a. c o
O W 3
c a! c re
^
O E 3 C •<-
U 01 o
3 o
i-
(A E O O I- 4->
Q. tf>
4^
4-* C •<- W
o
o ^ z o re
u
i- O 4J 4-»
U-
4-> U <A 4- 4->
c x'4->
Of t-
O
o -r- re C
C Irt c
O 01 c
f 1 O
(M
a.4-> E a>
J^
■r- O . WO)
o c
to
ex u t- ut
s-
O ■.- O 3 -r- E
*J > o
1- 1-
Ot
O < O 0)
re
Q.*»- I. re tn 0)
re at o.
a. 0)
U-)
<*- t-
c .- 4-> o> re .—
S- (- c
>
4) -O C 0.0
ouct-x:cx4J o
c o
jr c •.-
c 0) o 3 a E
w •*- c
..- ta
C «
4-> re c
4)
a. u CO E ■<-
c o
C M
o c
4- re
j=
0> M 4>
o ot
o n) V
.»- 10
fc. 4-» o ^
4-»
x: c > -o
I/) (C ^
4-* 4^
o u o.
♦-» ^ O 4-» 0» C
a> at 4J
C -M
n c
■o
«»- o c
•*-
re •.- -^ x: re
TJ >
f -m;
*J o
L.
Q. O C
O
Ol U 4J r- h-
at o
O 1- H-
i/y £
m
3 01 ■<- O
c « 3 re c
■O .— 4J
'^ o o
z
O QC 4-> -^
^ >r- 3 O
c:
Ll.
o
. >, re 4-1
C O r- O* • -f-
re u CO
-T3 01
o «
X
«0 1— u
I- W O 4J 4->
ot V.
L. ^ U
4-) C
j^ 3 ■<- re
o> a. u 1- re
ot ^ 0)
(0 t- ••-
■.- 4)
u
c 4-1 a
^
O 0) 0) o u
U 4J I
I *0 *^
tt^
«
re re E 0)
o
C > OO 4-> Ot 3
re o w
Or- 4-
(0 0)
01
^ +J O £
w
oreQ.reo>T3x:cc
X O O O X
o
1- t/J o t-
a
o j: z :* t- o(
w re re
I— £
■I- o
A-50
400 copies of this public document were published at an estimated
cost of $13.75 per copy, for a total cost of $5,500.00, which includes
$5,500.00 for printing and $.00 for distribution.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11