Skip to main content

Full text of "Environmental pollution by fluorides in Flathead National Forest and Glacier National Park"

See other formats 


£2^-  3^2- 


Environmental  Pollution  by  Fluorides 


in  FLATHEAD  NATIONAL  FOREST  and  GLACIER  NATIONAL  PARK 


By 

Clinton  E.  Carlson,  Plant  Pathologist 
and 

Jerald  E.  Dewey,  Entomologist 


^55. 1.6AAVS. 
mow*** 


U«tA*T 


U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE 
FOREST  SERVICE 


Division  of  State  and  Private  Forestry 
Forest  Insect  and  Disease  Branch 
Missoula,  Montana 


Cover  Photographs 


Top  — Plume  created  by  the  Anaconda  Aluminum  Company  Plant  at  Colum- 
bia Falls,  Montana.  Teakettle  Mountain  is  in  background. 

Bottom  — Fluoride  injury  on  lodgepole  pine  caused  by  emissions  from  the 
Anaconda  Aluminum  Company  Plant. 


October,  1971 


AFPS  / OGDEN,  UTAH  / 72-203 


/\//C-P5  # s~a/ 


PROPER' 
DEPARTMENT  CP 

STATE  OF 


LAN 


u: 


A A 


ik 


Environmental  Pollution 
by  Fluorides 

in  FLATHEAD  NATIONAL  FOREST 

and  GLACIER  NATIONAL  PARK 

By 

Clinton  E.  Carlson,  Plant  Pathologist 
and 

Jerald  E.  Dewey,  Entomologist 


U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE  - FOREST  SERVICE 
Northern  Region  Headquarters 
Division  of  State  and  Private  Forestry 
Forest  Insect  and  Disease  Branch 
Missoula,  Montana 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/environmentalpol1971carl 


Table  of 
Contents 

Page 

Summary i 

Introduction  1 

Literature  Review  2 

Origin  of  fluorides 2 

Effects  on  vegetation  2 

Accumulation  and  symptoms  on  plants 3 

Entomological  effects  3 

Environmental  effects 3 

Methods,  Pathological  Phase  4 

Description  of  the  area 4 

The  aluminum  plant  4 

Field  study  design  4 

Laboratory  study  design  6 

Histological  analyses  6 

Aerial  photography  8 

Methods,  Entolomological  Phase 8 

Accumulation  of  fluoride  by  insects  8 

Insect  population  sampling  8 

Results,  Pathological  Phase  10 

Parameters 10 

Control  plots 10 

Radial  system  10 


Page 

Special  samples  18 

Relation  between  injury  index  and  fluoride  content  20 

Rates  of  accumulation 20 

Histological  results 20 

Aerial  photography 23 

Results,  Entomological  Phase  26 

Fluoride  accumulation  by  insects  26 

Insect  population  sampling 26 

Discussion  and  Conclusions 28 

General  28 

Rates  of  accumulation : 28 

Susceptibility  of  species 28 

Ecological  Implications  29 

Pollution  in  Glacier  National  Park  29 

Pollution  in  Coram  Experimental  Forest 29 

Insects  and  fluoride 29 

Economic  and  esthetic  damage 30 

Future  plans  30 

Acknowledgements 31 

Literature  cited  32 

Appendixes 34 

LIST  OF  FIGURES 

1.  Fluoride  study  area 5 

2.  Anaconda  Aluminum  Reduction  Plant 7 

3.  Location  of  special  sample  areas  9 

4.  Schematic  of  fluoride  gradients 13 

5.  Profile  of  radius  4 14 

6.  Profile  of  radius  5 15 

7.  Profile  of  radius  6 16 


Page 

8.  Isopols  of  fluoride  pollution ' ....  17 

9.  Insect  and  fluoride  injury  19 

10.  Fluoride  burn  on  lodgepole  pine  21 

11.  Fluoride  burn  on  lodgepole  pine  21 

12.  Terminal  dieback  of  Douglas-fir 22 

13.  Hypertrophied  phloem  and  transfusion  parenchyma 23 

14.  Hypertrophied  nuclei  of  mesophyll  cells 24 

15.  Hypertrophied  epithelial  cells 25 

16.  Regression  of  scale  counts  on  fluoride 27 

LIST  OF  TABLES 

I-A  Analysis  of  variance  of  control  data 11 

I- B  Means  for  factors,  control  data 11 

II  Classification  of  visual  injury 18 

III  Rates  of  fluoride  accumulation 20 

LIST  OF  APPENDIXES 

I Common  and  scientific  names  of  plants  and  animals 34 

II- A  Tabulation  of  radial  and  control  data,  first  sampling 37 

II- B  Tabulation  of  radial  and  control  data,  second  sampling 40 

III- A  Area  polluted  by  fluorides,  all  lands  studied  43 

III-B  Area  polluted  by  fluorides,  Glacier  National  Park  44 

IV  Fluoride  content  and  injury  index  values  for  special  samples 45 

V Regression  analysis  of  injury  index  on  fluoride  content 50 

VI  Fluoride  accumulation  levels  in  insects  51 

VII  Larch  casebearer  per  100  spurs  sampled 53 

VIII  Pine  needle  scales  per  600  lodgepole  needles 54 

IX  Pine  needle  scales  per  600  ponderosa  needles 55 

X Regression  analysis  of  pine  needle  scales  on  fluoride  content 56 


Summary 


The  U.  S.  Forest  Service  initiated  a study  in 
1969  to  determine:  (1)  the  major  cause  of  vege- 
tational  injury  and  damage  on  forested  lands 
proximal  to  the  Anaconda  Aluminum  Com- 
pany, (2)  the  source  of  the  cause,  (3)  the  area 
affected,  (4)  whether  insects  were  accumu- 
lating fluorides,  and  (5)  if  insect  populations 
were  being  affected  by  fluorides. 

Fluorides  emitted  from  the  Anaconda 
Aluminum  Company  were  determined  to  be 
the  primary  cause  of  the  injury  and  damage  to 
vegetation  in  the  surrounding  area.  Isopols, 
lines  of  equal  pollution,  were  established  for 
the  area.  Highest  fluoride  concentrations,  up  to 
1000  ppm1  , in  foliar  tissue  were  found  near  the 
Anaconda  aluminum  plant.  Data  indicated  the 
fluorides  were  carried  by  air  movement  from 
the  aluminum  plant  through  a saddle  in  Tea- 
kettle Mountain  to  Glacier  National  Park,  fol- 
lowing the  pattern  of  the  prevailing  winds  in 
the  area.  Elevated  fluorides  (greater  than  10 
ppm)  were  found  in  vegetation  on  Columbia 
Mountain  and  Teakettle  Mountain,  in  vegeta- 
tion near  the  towns  of  Columbia  Falls,  Hungry 

' ppm  — parts  per  million 


Horse,  and  Coram,  Montana,  and  in  the  south- 
west portion  of  Glacier  National  Park.  Varying 
degrees  of  visible  fluoride  injury  were  found  on 
vegetation  over  more  than  69,120  acres.  Ele- 
vated fluorides  were  found  in  vegetation  on 
nearly  214,000  acres  of  forested  lands  of  mixed 
ownerships. 

Although  fluoride  emissions  were  reduced 
during  the  summer  of  1970,  fir  and  spruce  trees 
continued  to  accumulate  fluorides  at  the  same 
rate  as  in  1969. 

Definite  histological  reactions  to  elevated 
fluorides  occur  in  conifer  needle  tissue,  in- 
cluding hypertrophy  of  parenchymatous  cells. 

Fluorides  also  were  found  to  accumulate  in 
insect  tissue.  All  groups  of  insects  studied  con- 
tained high  fluoride  levels.  Pollinators  pos- 
sessed the  highest,  up  to  406  ppm.  Cambium 
feeders  contained  in  excess  of  52  ppm,  indi- 
cating that  fluoride  must  be  translocated  in  the 
cambium  of  trees.  Predatory  insects  had  fluo- 
ride counts  over  53  ppm,  showing  fluoride  is 
passed  along  the  food  chain.  Insect  population 
samples  indicated  that  elevated  fluoride  levels 
in  pine  needles  leads  to  a buildup  of  the  pine 
needle  scale. 


Introduction 


On  August  15,  1955,  the  Anaconda  Com- 
pany formally  dedicated  a new  aluminum  re- 
duction plant  on  their  lands  at  Columbia  Falls, 
Montana  adjacent  to  the  Glacier  View  Ranger 
District,  Flathead  National  Forest.  Partial  oper- 
ation of  the  plant  had  already  begun  using  the 
Vertical  Soderberg  anode  pot  system.  Ana- 
conda Company  officials  insisted  that  injury 
caused  to  vegetation  and  animals  by  emitted 
fluorides  would  be  negligible.  F.  J.  Nietzling, 
Supervisor  of  the  Flathead  National  Forest, 
wrote  a letter  to  Glacier  View  District  Ranger 
Mel  Yuhas  on  June  27,  1957,  and  indicated 
ponderosa  pine1  trees  in  the  vicinity  of  the  re- 
duction plant  were  dying.  Subsequently,  in 
July  of  1957,  Ranger  Mel  Yuhas,  Bert  Morris, 
Forester  on  the  Glacier  View  District,  and  Don 
Leaphart2 , pathologist,  Forest  Service  Inland 
Empire  Research  Center,  inspected  suspected 
fume  damage  near  the  aluminum  plant.  In  a 
Forest  Service  memorandum  Leaphart  ex- 
pressed his  opinion  that  the  injury  was  caused 
by  fluoride  fumes  escaping  from  the  reduction 
works.  Little  in  the  way  of  evaluation  was  done 
subsequently  until  1969.  In  the  meantime,  the 
Anaconda  Company  expanded  the  plant  in 


1 Scientific  names  of  all  plant  and  animal  species 
mentioned  in  this  report  are  listed  in  Appendix  I. 

2 Now  at  Intermountain  Research  Station, 
Moscow,  Idaho. 


1964-1965  and  again  in  1967-1968.  Following 
the  1968  expansion  and  increased  production, 
dead  and  dying  trees  and  foliage  necrosis  were 
observed  over  the  entire  west  face  of  Teakettle 
Mountain  immediately  east  of  the  reduction 
works. 

In  preliminary  evaluations  in  June  and 
November  1969,  we  found  tissue  necrosis  and 
elevated  fluoride  levels  in  26  of  35  vegetation 
samples  consisting  of  ponderosa  pine,  lodge- 
pole  pine,  western  white  pine,  and  Douglas-fir. 
It  became  obvious  that  a detailed  evaluation 
was  needed  to  accurately  assess  the  problem.  In 
January  of  1970  a study  plan,  designed  to 
analyze  the  fluoride  problem,  was  finalized. 

Our  hypothesis  was  that  fluorides  from  the 
aluminum  plant  were  causing  ecological  dam- 
age to  flora  and  fauna.  To  test  this  hypothesis, 
the  following  objectives  were  outlined: 

1.  Identify  the  major  cause  of  vegetational 
injury  and  damage  on  forested  lands  near  the 
aluminum  plant. 

2.  Identify  the  source  of  the  cause. 

3.  Determine  the  area  affected. 

4.  Determine  if  insects  accumulate 
fluorides. 

5.  Determine  if  insect  populations  were 
fluctuating  relative  to  the  injury. 

This  report  is  divided  into  two  phases:  Path- 
ological, dealing  with  objectives  1-3,  and 
entomological,  dealing  with  objectives  4 and  5. 


1 


Literature 

Review 


Origin  of  Fluorides 

Electrolytic  reduction  of  alumina  (AI2O3) 
produces  pure  aluminum.  The  electrolysis  is 
done  within  a reduction  cell  or  “pot”  and  is 
accomplished  in  the  presence  of  the  electrolyte 
cryolite  (3  NaF-AlF3).  Sodium  fluoride  (NaF) 
and  aluminum  fluoride  (AIF3)  are  released  in 
particulate  form  as  waste  during  the  high  tem- 
perature electrolysis  (965°  to  975°  C.),  and 
hydrogen  fluoride  (HF)  and  small  quantities  of 
carbon  tetrafluoride  (CF4)  are  released  as  gases 
(Hickey,  1968).  Hydrocarbons  in  considerable 
amounts  are  released.  NaF,  AIF3,  and  HF  are 
accumulated  by  and  cause  injury  to  plants.  Al- 
though no  highly  reliable  figures  are  available, 
it  has  been  estimated  that  about  half  of  the 
emissions  are  gaseous  and  half  particulate 
(Semrau,  1957). 

Fluoride  emissions  can  be  contolled  to  vari- 
ous extents  by  a process  known  as  scrubbing. 
This  involves  the  injection  of  a high-pressure 
spray  of  water  or  lime  solution  into  the  effluent 


stacks  or  the  application  of  a low  pressure 
scrubbing  system,  resulting  in  absorption  of  the 
fluorides  (Hickey,  1968). 

Effects  on  Vegetation 

General.  During  the  past  20  years,  effects  of 
fluorides  on  vegetation  have  been  studied  quite 
extensively  in  laboratory-controlled  experi- 
ments and  in  field  experiments  proximal  to 
aluminum  reduction  plants.  Shaw,  et.  al. 
(1951)  reported  foliar  necrosis  and  retarded 
diameter  growth  in  ponderosa  pine  near  the 
Kaiser  Aluminum  Company  aluminum  reduc- 
tion plant  at  Mead,  Washington.  The  injury 
could  not  be  attributed  to  insects,  fungi,  nor 
climate,  but  was  highly  correlated  with  exces- 
sive foliar  fluoride  concentrations  ranging  to 
600  ppm  dry  weight  basis.  Lynch  (1951)  found 
nearly  a sixfold  decrease  in  diameter  growth 
rate  in  ponderosa  pine  near  the  same  reduction 
plant  and  attributed  the  effect  to  fluorides. 
Adams,  et.  al.  (1956)  tested  the  sensitivity  of 


2 


ponderosa  pine  as  an  indicator  of  fluoride  pol- 
lution and  found  it  readily  express  visual 
symptoms  (foliar  necrosis). 

A study  made  near  the  Harvey  Aluminum 
Company  reduction  plant  at  The  Dalles, 
Oregon  (Compton,  et.  al.  1961),  showed  foliar 
necrosis  of  ponderosa  pine  to  be  related  to  ele- 
vated fluoride  levels  and  not  to  fungal,  climatic, 
nor  insect  agents.  They  also  found  abnormally 
large  concentrations  of  black  pine  leaf  scale 
in  the  affected  area. 

Treshow,  et.  al.  (1967),  reported  mortality 
and  growth  decline  of  Douglas-fir  near  a phos- 
phate reduction  plant  in  Idaho.  They  found  up 
to  100  percent  reduced  diameter  growth  when 
the  foliar  fluoride  concentrations  exceeded  50 
ppm.  Interestingly,  they  found  increased  shoot 
and  needle  elongation  under  insidious  levels  of 
fluoride  pollution,  but  concluded  the  increased 
length  was  due  to  abnormal  cell  elongation  and 
not  excessive  division. 

Accumulation  and  Symptoms  on  Plants 

Fluorides  enter  needles  and  leaves  mainly 
through  stomata.  Once  in  the  foliar  tissue,  they 
are  in  a soluble  state,  free-flowing  and  tend  to 
accumulate  at  conifer  needle  tips  or  broadleaf 
margins,  causing  tip  or  margin  necrosis.  Be- 
cause particulate  fluorides  are  readily  adsorbed 
to  dust  particles,  dust  on  the  leaf  surface  may 
aid  in  accumulating  fluorides  (Jacobson,  et.  al. 
1966). 

Hindawi  (1970),  through  the  use  of  colored 
pictures,  vividly  portrayed  symptoms  of  fluo- 
ride injury.  Browning  of  leaf  margins  and 
needle  tips  associated  with  a distinct  demarca- 
tion line  between  healthy  and  injured  tissue 
was  a constant  indicator  of  fluoride  pollution. 

Reductions  in  photosynthesis  have  been 
shown  to  occur  in  fluoride  fumigated  plants. 
Thomas  (1961)  reported  a decrease  in  photo- 
synthesis of  up  to  45  percent  on  Gladiolus 
plants,  resulting  in  decreased  plant  vigor  and 
growth. 

Entomological  Aspects 

The  literature  pertaining  to  the  effects  of 
fluorides  on  insect  populations  is  limited.  In  a 
study  of  blighted  ponderosa  pines  near  an 
aluminum  reduction  facility,  Johnson  (1950) 
found  a significant  increase  of  the  black  pine 


leaf  scale  as  tree  damage  caused  by  fluorides 
increased.  Lezovic  (1969)  indicated  that  in  a 
study  conducted  near  an  aluminum  factory  “all 
colonies  of  bees,  a total  of  70,  died  off.”  Other 
authors  reporting  on  fluoride  injury  to  bees  in- 
clude Caparrini  (1957),  Guilhon  et.  al.  (1962), 
Marier  (1968),  and  Maurizio  and  Staub  (1956). 

Outram  (1970)  concluded  sulphuryl  fluo- 
ride caused  a reduction  in  oxygen  uptake  and 
changes  of  respiratory  quotient  in  the  eggs  of 
the  desert  locust,  and  the  yellow  meal  worm. 
He  said,  “it  is  suggested  that  sulphuryl  fluoride 
is  nonspecific  in  respect  to  sites  of  attack  in  the 
insect  egg  and  inhibits  several  metabolic 
processes.” 

Pollution  by  chemicals  other  than  fluorides 
has  been  reported  to  indirectly  affect  insect 
populations.  Stark  et.  al.  ( 1968)  in  a study  deal- 
ing with  oxidants  of  photochemical  air  pollu- 
tion (particularly  ozone)  stated  that  “air  pollu- 
tion injury  predisposed  ponderosa  pine  to  bark 
beetle  infestations.” 

Environmental  Effects 

Maclean  et.  al.  ( 1969)  showed  that  livestock 
forage  accumulated  enough  fluorides  to  be  a 
potential  hazard  to  livestock.  Little  fluoride  is 
taken  in  by  breathing;  most  is  ingested  through 
foods,  forage,  etc.  Marier  et.  al.  (1969)  pointed 
out  that  excessive  inorganic  fluorides  in  ani- 
mals tend  to  be  either  excreted  through  the 
kidneys  or  accumulated  in  the  teeth  and  skele- 
tal tissues.  In  acute  cases,  excessive  fluorides 
have  caused  skeletal  fracture  and  disintegration 
of  teeth,  associated  with  severe  pain.  Normally, 
in  animals  feeding  on  foliage  not  contaminated 
by  fluorides,  fluorides  in  bones  do  not  exceed 
1000  ppm.  However,  ingestion  by  animals  of 
fluoride-contaminated  forage  can  lead  to  fluo- 
ride accumulations  of  5000  ppm  or  more,  at 
which  levels  severe  fluorosis  can  occur  (Marier, 
1969). 

Gordon  ( 1969)  in  a study  near  the  Cominco 
American  phosphate  fertilizer  plant  in  western 
Montana  found  large  concentrations  of  fluo- 
rides in  femur  bones  of  Columbian  ground 
squirrel  and  concluded  the  fluorides  were  in- 
gested with  the  contaminated  forage.  Available 
forage  in  the  area  was  found  to  have  excessive 
fluorides.  No  fluorosis  in  the  animals  was 
indicated. 


3 


Methods 


Pathological  Phase 


Description  of  the  Area 

The  Anaconda  Aluminum  Company  reduc- 
tion plant  is  located  about  2 miles  east  of 
Columbia  Falls,  Montana,  (fig.  1)  at  3,100  feet 
m.s.l.  (mean  sea  level).  Teakettle  Mountain 
rises  abruptly  to  5,936  feet  m.s.l.  immediately 
east  of  the  plant.  Columbia  Mountain  is  2 miles 
south  and  Glacier  National  Park  6 miles  north- 
east of  the  plant.  Topography  west  and  south- 
west of  the  reduction  plant  is  quite  flat  for  10 
to  1 5 miles,  but  mountainous  with  deep  valleys 
to  the  northwest,  north,  northeast,  and  south- 
east. The  higher  peaks  in  the  general  area  attain 
an  elevation  of  8,000  to  9,000  feet  m.s.l.  The 
prevailing  wind  is  southwesterly. 

Because  of  the  variable  topography,  a num- 
ber of  different  habitat  types  are  represented. 
The  more  common  are:  Pseudotsuga 
menziesii  — Symphoricarpos  albus  h.t.,  Abies 
lasiocarpa  — Xerophyllum  tenax  h.t.;  and 
Pinus  albicaulis  — Abies  lasiocarpa  h.t. 
(Daubenmire  and  Daubenmire,  1968).  A large 
variety  of  fauna,  from  grizzly  bear  and  elk  to 
small  rodents,  proliferate  in  the  area. 

The  Aluminum  Plant 

The  reduction  plant  is  owned  by  the  Ana- 
conda Company.  The  physical  plant  is  com- 
posed of  five  pot  lines,  each  line  containing  120 
individual  reduction  pots,  for  a total  of  600 
pots(fig.  2).  The  Vertical  Stud  Soderberg  Pot 
system  is  used  for  reducing  the  alumina  to  pure 
aluminum,  a process  shown  to  be  one  of  the 
most  problematical  in  terms  of  controlling 
effluents. 

During  1969  and  early  1970  the  Anaconda 
Company  reported  fluorides  were  emitted  at  a 


rate  of  nearly  7,600  pounds  per  day  but  were 
reduced  to  about  5,000  pounds  by  September 
of  1970.  By  early  May,  1971,  company  of- 
ficials reported  emissions  were  reduced  to 
2,500  pounds  per  day.  Although  the  fluoride 
component  of  the  effluent  plume  is  nearly  in- 
visible, the  hydrocarbon  portion  readily  indi- 
cates the  general  direction  of  atmospheric  F 
transport  of  the  pollutants. 

Field  Study  Design 

Control  Plots.  Two  areas,  one  30  miles  south 
of  Columbia  Falls  near  Big  Fork,  Montana,  and 
the  other  30  miles  west  of  Columbia  Falls, 
about  15  miles  west  of  Kalispell,  Montana, 
were  selected  for  control  sampling.  The  loca- 
tions were  upwind  of  the  aluminum  plant  in 
terms  of  the  general  prevailing  southwesterly 
winds.  Three  plots,  each  one-hundredth  acre  in 
size  (6.6  feet  wide  by  66  feet  long),  were  in- 
stalled in  each  area.  All  conifers  and  shrubs  on 
the  plots  were  sampled.  Also,  representative 
herbaceous  plants  and  at  least  one  grass  species 
were  sampled.  We  collected  control  samples  in 
June-July  and  again  in  September-October, 
1970. 

Radial  System.  Ten  radii,  numbered  con- 
secutively from  1 to  10,  were  established  ex- 
tending from  the  aluminum  plant  into  adjacent 
forested  lands  (figure  1).  The  direction  of  each 
radius  was  based  on  two  criteria:  (1)  it  must 
transect  National  Forest  land, and  (2)  it  should 
follow  suspected  wind  channels.  On  each 
radius,  basic  plots  one-hundredth  acre  in  size 
(6.6  feet  wide  by  66  feet  long,  oriented  longi- 
tudinally) were  established  at  one-fourth,  one- 
half,  1,  2,  4,  6,  and  8 miles  from  the  plant.  Be- 


4 


5 


cause  radii  4,  5,  and  6 intercepted  Glacier  Na- 
tional Park,  additional  plots  were  established  at 
10,  12,  and  14  miles  on  radii  4 and  5 and  at  14 
miles  on  radius  6 to  sample  vegetation  in  the 
Park.  Each  plot  was  permanently  established  as 
witnessed  by  driving  a wooden  stake  at  the  plot 
location  with  plot  information  written  on  it. 

Collection  of  Vegetation  on  Control  and 
Radial  Plots.  Plots  were  sampled  twice,  once 
during  June-July  1970,  and  again  in  October- 
November  1970.  For  convenience,  we  termed 
the  June-July  collection  the  “first  sampling” 
and  the  October-November  collection  the 
“second  sampling.”  About  3 pounds  of  foliage 
on  each  plot  were  collected  and  maintained 
separately  from  one  to  several  representatives 
of  each  conifer  species,  one  representative  of 
each  of  two  shrub  species,  and  one  repre- 
sentative of  each  of  one  herbaceous  and  one 
grass  species.  Foliage  collected  from  each  grass, 
broadleaf  plant,  and  deciduous  conifer  was 
considered  a separate  sample.  Foliage  collected 
from  other  conifers  was  separated  by  year  of 
origin,  and  foliage  of  each  year  was  considered 
a separate  sample.  Generally  only  1969  and 
1970  needles  were  sampled.  For  conifers,  the 
sample  was  always  collected  from  dominant 
and  codominant  trees  and  always  in  the  upper 
one-third  of  the  crown  facing  the  aluminum 
plant.  Samples  from  other  types  of  vegetation 
were  collected  as  foliage  was  available. 

Special  sampling.  In  addition  to  the  sys- 
tematic field  design,  a supplemental  series  of 
“special  samples”  were  collected  in  areas 
deemed  most  likely  to  sustain  high  fluoride 
levels.  Because  fluorides  are  transported  in  at- 
mosphere, vegetation  on  ridges  and  prominent 
topography  downwind  from  the  prevailing 
winds  over  the  aluminum  plant  may  be  more 
likely  to  intercept  fluorides  than  vegetation  in 
valleys  or  other  areas.  The  general  locations  of 
special  sampling  are  shown  in  figure  3.  The  lo- 
cations were:  1)  near  Columbia  Falls,  2) 
Columbia  Mountain,  3)  Teakettle  Mountain, 
4)  Southwest  Glacier  National  Park,  5)  Coram 
Experimental  Forest,  near  Desert  Mountain, 
and  6)  northeast  edge  of  Hungry  Horse  Reser- 
voir. Samples  were  not  collected  on  a plot 
basis  as  described  for  the  radial  collections; 
rather,  vegetation  representative  of  the  area, 
with  emphasis  on  coniferous  species,  was  col- 
lected in  June  and  again  in  October  1970.  A 


sample  was  defined  as  stated  in  the  section  on 
Collection  of  Vegetation. 

Laboratory  Study  Design 

Visual  Burn.  All  vegetation  samples  were 
brought  to  the  laboratory  for  analysis  of  visu- 
al burn.  For  each  conifer  sample,  needles  were 
sorted  according  to  year  of  origin,  1969  or 
1970.  The  proportion  of  different  needles 
showing  evidence  of  foliar  burn  was  recorded 
(Carlson  and  Dewey,  1970).  Also  the  average 
proportion  of  length  of  burn  on  affected 
needles  was  estimated.  For  shrubs,  the  pro- 
portion of  different  leaves  showing  bum 
symptoms  was  estimated,  and  burned  on  leaves, 
the  actual  proportion  of  area  affected  was  es- 
timated. Symptoms  on  grasses  could  not  be 
measured.  Extreme  care  was  exercised  to 
avoid  confusing  insect  or  disease  injury  with 
fluoride  burn. 

Chemical  Analysis.  After  estimation  of 
foliar  burn,  separate  subsamples  of  30  to  40 
grams  of  foliar  tissue  from  samples  of  1969 
and  1970  needles  of  each  conifer  species  and 
from  one  sample  of  each  of  two  shmb  species 
from  each  plot  were  prepared  for  chemical 
analysis  of  available  fluorine  (i.e.,  gaseous  and 
particulate).  A subsample  of  grass  and  herba- 
ceous tissue  from  each  plot  was  similarly  pre- 
pared. All  samples  were  sent  to  WARF  Insti- 
tute, Inc.,  Madison,  Wisconsin,  for  analysis. 
The  semi-sutomated  method  as  outlined  by 
Health  Laboratory  Science  (1969)  was  used 
for  determination  of  total  fluorine.  Results 
were  given  in  ppm  (parts  per  million)  dry 
weight  basis.  For  the  purposes  of  this  report, 
the  terms  “fluorine”  and  “fluoride”  will  be 
used  interchangeably. 

Histological  Analyses 

Solberg  and  Adams  (1956)  and  Gordon 
(1970)  in  controlled  studies  described  histo- 
logical responses  of  conifers  to  fumigations  by 
fluorides.  Protoplasmic  and  nuclear  hyper- 
trophy of  parenchyma  cells  resulting  in  death 
of  foliar  phloem  tissue  were  regarded  as 
symptomatic  of  fluorosis  in  conifer  tissue. 
Therefore,  we  arbitrarily  selected  subsamples 
from  burned  conifer  needles  for  histological 
analysis  of  tissue  showing  fluoride  bum.  Ap- 
proximately 2 mm.  sections  of  tissue  were  ex- 
tracted from  the  “transition  zone”  (that  por- 
tion between  the  green  and  burned  tissue  on 


6 


Figure  2.  — Anaconda  Aluminum  Reduction  plant  at  Columbia  Falls , Montana.  Note  effluent 
from  the  five  pot  lines.  View  is  southerly,  Columbia  Mountain  is  in  background. 


7 


the  needles).  The  sections  included  green, 
chlorotic,  and  necrotic  tissue.  The  specimens 
were  killed  and  fixed  in  formalin- 
aceto-alcohol,  dehydrated  through  a tertiary 
butyl  alcohol  series,  embedded  in  paraplast, 
sectioned  at  9 micra  thickness  on  a rotary 
microtome,  and  examined  and  photographed 
through  a Leitz  Ortholux  phase  contrast 
microscope  equipped  with  an  Aristophot 
photographic  system. 

Aerial  Photography 

The  entire  area  suspected  to  be  affected  by 
fluorides  was  photographed  in  July  of  1970 
with  Aero  Ektachrome,  9x9  format,  at  a scale 
of  1:12000.  In  addition,  stereo  pairs  were 
taken  of  all  the  radial  plots  at  a scale  of 
1:4000. 

Entomological  Phase 

Accumulation  of  Fluoride  by  Insects 

A broad  spectrum  of  insects  including  fo- 
liage feeders,  cambium  feeders,  pollinators, 
and  predators  were  sampled  and  analyzed  for 
fluoride  accumulation  (Appendix  VI).  At 
least  5 grams  of  each  species  were  oven  dried 
and  sent  to  WARF  for  analysis  of  available 
fluoride  (5  grams  = from  100-500  individual 
insects,  depending  on  the  species.)  Insects 
were  collected  in  the  spring  (June  1),  summer 
(August  12),  and  fall  (October  9),  1970,  on 
the  basis  of  their  availability.  All  collections 
were  made  within  one-half  mile  of  the  alumi- 


num plant  except  for  eight  control  samples 
that  were  taken  at  least  50  miles  from  the 
plant.  The  less  common  insects  were  sent  to 
the  U.  S.  National  Museum  for  identification; 
the  remainder  were  identified  by  Jerald  E. 
Dewey. 

Insect  Population  Sampling 

Controls.  Two  forest  insects,  larch  case- 
bearer  and  pine  needle  scale,  were  sampled  in 
an  attempt  to  relate  population  numbers  to 
fluoride  accumulations.  Control  samples  were 
taken  30  miles  to  the  north,  south,  east,  and 
west  of  the  plant.  Larch  casebearer  popula- 
tions were  measured  using  the  system  de- 
scribed by  Bousfield  (1969)  in  which  case- 
bearers  per  100  larch  spurs  were  measured. 
Pine  needle  scale  populations  were  measured 
modifying  the  method  reported  by  Fischer 
(1950)  in  which  scales  per  linear  inch  of 
“new”  and  “old”  foliage  were  counted.  Val- 
ues of  scales  per  600  needles  were  obtained. 

Radial  Sampling.  To  determine  if  insect 
populations  were  increasing,  decreasing,  or  re- 
maining static  in  relation  to  distance  from  the 
suspected  fluoride  source  and  to  foliar  fluo- 
ride content,  sampling  was  conducted  in  mid- 
April  1970,  for  populations  of  larch  case- 
bearer  and  pine  needle  scale,  along  the  estab- 
lished radii.  The  same  procedures  were  used  as 
described  above.  Sample  intervals  were  one- 
fourth,  one-half,  1,  2,  4,  and  8 miles  from  the 
aluminum  plant. 


8 


FIGURE  3 


Location  of  areas  in  which 
special  sampling  was  done. 


SCAU 
2 3 

Mile 


N 


Teakettle  Mtn.« 


A 


GLACIER 
NATIONAL 
PARK 


% m' 


4 


Park 
i Hdqrs 


West 

lacier 


Lake  Five 


aacQ 


Falls 


nHungry 

Horse 


umbia 


'Mtn. 


O 


FLATHEAD  rL 
NATIONAL  ^ 

FOREST 

6 


V 


9 


Results 


Pathological  Phase 


Parameters 

The  following  parameters  were  used  in  the 
evaluation  of  the  pollution  problem: 

1 . Fluoride  content  — Available  fluoride 
content  of  whole  leaves  and  whole  needles  of 
plants,  dry  weight  basis,  in  ppm. 

2.  Injury  index  — The  concept  of  injury 
index  (I. I.)  was  developed  after  the  field  data 
were  collected.  Let  P equal  proportion  of  dif- 
ferent needles  showing  fluoride  burn  symp- 
toms for  a given  sample  and  let  R equal  the 
Ratio  of  length  of  burn  on  burned  needles  of 
the  same  sample,  as  described  previously. 
Then  the  product  PR  would  be  an  estimate  of 
the  gross  amount  burned  for  foliage  of  a given 
year.  A similar  value  can  be  computed  for 
broadleaf  plants.  We  have  termed  this  value 
the  “injury  index”  for  a given  sample.  Estima- 
tions of  foliar  burn  for  determining  injury  in- 
dex were  done  on  all  samples  (except  grasses) 
collected  the  first  sampling  period,  but  only 
on  conifers  the  second.  An  early  freeze  caused 
premature  death  of  broadleaf  foliage,  making 
estimation  of  burn  nearly  impossible. 

Control  Plots 

Fluorine  Content.  One  hundred  and  nine 
control  samples,  including  collections  of  both 
sampling  periods,  were  analyzed  chemically. 
Data  for  fluoride  accumulation  in  vegetation 
were  classified  and  grouped  as  shrub,  1969 
conifer,  1970  conifer,  herbaceous,  and  grass 
(Appendixes  II-A  and  II-B)  and  were  sub- 
jected to  a four-factor  analysis  of  variance 
shown  in  table  I-A.  The  means  for  factors  are 
shown  in  table  I-B. 


Only  means  in  vegetation  type  showed  sig- 
nificance: the  other  factors  were  insignificant. 
The  significance  in  vegetation  type  was  vested 
between  1970  conifer  tissue  at  6.17  ppm  and 
the  grass  tissue  at  10.73.  All  factors,  with  the 
exception  of  grass  species,  had  average  fluo- 
ride content  of  less  than  10  ppm.  Therefore, 
we  selected  10  ppm  fluoride  as  a conservative 
control  or  “background”  level  for  all  plant  tis- 
sue sampled  in  the  study. 

Injury  Index.  For  all  control  samples  in  the 
first  sampling  the  average  injury  index  (I. I.) 
was  0.001;  for  the  second  sampling  was  0.000. 
Thus  we  arbitrarily  established  a higher 
value  of  0.006  as  a conservative  control  level 
for  injury  index;  i.e.,  only  samples  having  an 
1. 1.  greater  than  0.006  would  be  considered 
visually  injured  by  fluorides.  To  further  sub- 
stantiate 1. 1.  as  a parameter  for  evaluating 
foliar  fluorosis  we  made  a nonparametric  anal- 
ysis over  all  the  samples,  control  and  other- 
wise, including  both  sampling  periods  and 
found  that  of  237  samples  having  an  1. 1.  ex- 
ceeding 0.006,  227  had  fluorine  concentra- 
tions greater  than  10  ppm  and  10  had  less 
than  10  ppm.  Thus,  96  percent  of  the  time  an 
1. 1.  exceeding  0.006  was  highly  indicative 
of  elevated  (abnormal)  fluoride  levels.  How- 
ever, many  samples  having  high  fluoride 
levels  did  not  show  injury.  Therefore,  1. 1.,  at 
best,  is  a useful  but  very  conservative  param- 
eter for  estimating  fluoride  pollution. 

Radial  System 

Fluoride  Content.  For  the  purpose  of  dem- 
onstrating general  pollution  levels,  fluoride 


10 


Table  I-A.  — Analysis  of  variance  of  control  data,  fluoride  content 


Source  of 
variation 

Degrees  of 
freedom 

Sum  squares 

Mean  squares 

F ratio 

Significance 

Collection  period 

1 

27.2431 

27.2431 

2.75 

NS1 

Area 

1 

27.4862 

27.4862 

2.78 

NS 

Plots 

2 

23.0648 

11.5324 

1.17 

NS 

Vegetation  type 

4 

158.2020 

39.5504 

4.00 

*2 

Residual 

51 

504.3950 

9.8900 

Total 

59 

704.3950 

1 NS  = Nonsignificant 

2 * = Significant  at  the  95  percent  level 


Table  I-B.  — Means  for  factors,  control  data 


Factor 

Level 

Mean 

Collection  period 

June 

7.6713 

October 

9.018 

Area 

I 

7.668 

II 

9.021 

Plot 

1 

9.136 

2 

7.622 

3 

8.276 

Vegetation  type 

Shrub 

8.324 

Conifer,  1969 

7.076 

Conifer,  1970 

6.171 

Herbaceous 

9.423 

Grass 

10.729 

Grand  mean 

8.344 

3 Fluoride  content,  ppm 


11 


content  values  were  averaged  separately  on  a 
plot-by-plot  basis,  irrespective  of  the  general 
vegetation  type.  This  procedure  was  consid- 
ered quite  valid  because  very  nearly  the  same 
amount  and  type  of  vegetation  was  collected 
from  all  plots  sampled  and  would  be  readily 
comparable  to  the  plot-by-plot  analysis  of 
control  data  mentioned  previously.  (Control 
plot  averages  did  not  show  significance  and 
were  less  than  10  ppm).  However,  on  all  11  of 
the  plots  located  very  close  to  the  reduction 
plant,  conifers  had  been  killed,  apparently 
from  fluorides,  and  samples  could  not  be  ob- 
tained. Results  are  tabulated  in  Appendix  II- A 
(first  sampling)  and  Appendix  II-B  (second 
sampling).  Blanks  in  data  indicate  the  vegeta- 
tion type  was  not  found  on  the  plot.  A total 
of  1,254  samples  obtained  during  both  sam- 
pling periods  were  chemically  analyzed. 

For  every  radius  there  exists  a general 
trend  of  very  high  fluoride  content  near  the 
aluminum  plant,  decreasing  to  control  levels 
at  the  furthest  plots.  One  can  easily  see  from 
the  tables  the  same  general  trend  exists  for 
separate  vegetational  types  as  exists  for  the 
plot  averages,  thus  supporting  our  decision  to 
use  plot  averages.  In  figure  4,  the  fluoride  gra- 
dients from  the  grand  average  column,  Appen- 
dix II-B,  are  schematically  portrayed.  On  all 
the  radii  the  lines  of  increasing  concentration 
converge  at  the  aluminum  reduction  plant,  in- 
dicating the  source  of  the  fluorides.  In  figures 
5,  6,  and  7,  we  have  graphed  for  radii  4,  5, 
and  6 respectively,  the  fluoride  concentration 
data  from  the  grand  average  column,  Appen- 
dix II-B  (second  sampling  period)  against  dis- 
tance from  the  aluminum  plant.  We  termed 
these  graphs  “Radial  Profiles.”  These  specific 
radii  were  selected  for  discussion  because:  1) 
they  are  representative  of  all  radii,  and  2) 
they  extend  into  Glacier  National  Park.  The 
right  ordinate  depicts  fluoride  concentration 
from  10  to  10,000  ppm,  (10  ppm  is  the  con- 
trol level)  and  the  abscissa  represents  distance 
from  the  plant  in  miles.  The  data  was  plotted 
on  logarithmic  paper  to  accentuate  smaller 
fluoride  values.  Plots  located  in  Glacier  Na- 
tional Park  are  designated  by  G.N.P. 

The  general  shape  of  the  fluoride  curve  is 
similar  on  all  three  radii,  and  similar  on  the 
other  seven  radii  sampled,  and  shows  abnor- 


mally high  fluoride  concentrations  occurred 
(above  10  ppm)  up  to  12  and  14  miles  from 
the  reduction  plant,  including  lands  within 
Glacier  National  Park. 

To  simplify  interpretation  of  the  fluoride 
data,  a single  diagram  was  prepared  that  de- 
picts virtually  the  entire  extent  of  the  pollu- 
tion (figure  8).  From  the  graphs  of  all  the 
radial  profiles,  second  sampling,  we  inter- 
preted the  distance  at  which  average  plot  fluo- 
ride concentrations  equalled  the  arbitrarily  es- 
tablished levels  of  10,  15,  20,  30,  60,  100, 
300,  and  600  ppm.  Those  distances  were 
plotted  on  the  radii,  and  then  equal  pollution 
(fluoride  concentration)  levels  were  con- 
nected by  lines.  These  lines  of  equal  pollution 
are  termed  “isopols.”  Data  from  the  first 
sampling  gave  a similar  figure,  as  did  data  for 
the  separate  vegetational  categories.  One  can 
easily  see  the  area  of  fluoride  “fallout”  and 
the  various  levels  of  average  concentration. 
The  distribution  of  fluorides  generally  cor- 
responds with  the  prevailing  southwesterly 
winds.1  The  areas  included  within  (total  area 
within  a given  isopol,  including  all  area  sus- 
taining fluoride  levels  equal  to  or  greater  than 
the  given  isopol)  and  between  (the  area  be- 
tween two  given  isopols,  such  as  the  area  be- 
tween the  30  and  60  isopols)  isopols  are 
tabulated  in  Appendix  III-A.  Vegetation  on 
approximately  214,000  acres  had  accumu- 
lated more  than  10  ppm  fluoride,  on  69,120 
acres  had  accumulated  30  ppm  or  more,  and 
on  7,040  had  accumulated  100  ppm  or  more. 
(The  isopols  southwest  of  Columbia  Falls 
were  constructed  from  special  sample  data 
and  may  not  be  as  reliable  as  those  estimated 
from  radial  data.  They  are,  however,  indica- 
tive of  the  general  pattern  in  a southwesterly 
direction.)  Much  vegetation  in  the  area  within 
the  30  ppm  isopol  has  been  affected  to  vari- 
ous degrees  by  fluorides  from  the  aluminum 
plant. 

Injury  Index.  Injury  index  values  were 
averaged  separately  on  a plot  by  plot  basis  for 
fluoride  content,  irrespective  of  vegetation 
type  (Appendix  II-A  and  II-B).  However,  plot 


xThe  Environmental  Protection  Agency  collected 
detailed  information  on  meteorological  conditions  in 
the  area  and  will  publish  the  findings  soon. 


12 


FIGURE  4 


Schematic  diagram  showing  increasing  concentration  of  fluorides  in 
vegetation  in  the  direction  of  and  converging  at  the  Anaconda  Aluminum. 
The  arrows  represent  the  direction  of  increasing  concentration. 


13 


Injury  Index 


14 


Fluoride,  PPM 


Injury  Index 


15 


Fluor i de, PPM 


Injury  Index 


1 .000 
.800 

.600 
. WO 


.200 


. 100 
.080 

.060 

.040 

.020 


.010 

.008 

.006 

.004 


.002 


.001 


,/4,,,  12  4 6 8 10  12  14 


Distance  From  Plant, Miles 


16 


Fluoride, PPM 


FIGURE  8 


Isopols  of  fluoride  pollution  at 
Columbia  Falls,  Montana.  69,120 
acres  are  included  within  the  30 
isopol.  See  append  i xes  III  A and  III  B 
for  acreage  data. 


10 


SCALE 

2 3 4 5 


M>les 


N 


A* 


GLACIER 
NATIONAL 
PARK 


% 

^ /W\ 

*2. 

/s,y 


JO 


15 


20 


Teakettle  Mtn  . 


''Columbia 
Falls 


100 


J00 


'A  AC 


600 


60 


Park 
, Hdqr . 


West  Q 
Glacier 


Lake  Five 


Hills 


^Hungry 

Horse 


■Xolumbia 
\tn 


m/dolf\ 


^/v  / 

.-VS 

Q JS/ 

/v  / 

Jv/  / ^VvMt  p*  nrose 

FLATHEAD 

' I 

NATIONAL 

] 

FOREST 


/> 


17 


averages  were  determined  by  considering  only 
those  samples  that  had  an  I.I.  of  0.001  or 
greater.  Radial  profiles  of  I.I.  values  were 
made  for  all  radii  separately  for  each  sampling 
period.  Only  radii  4,  5,  and  6 - figures  5,  6, 
and  7,  respectively  were  selected  for  inclusion 
in  this  report,  for  the  same  reasons  as  outlined 
in  the  previous  section  on  fluoride  content. 
The  left  ordinate  depicts  I.I.  values  from 
0.001  to  1.00.  The  abscissa  represents  dis- 
tance in  miles  from  the  aluminum  factory. 
The  graphs  indicate  a decreasing  amount  of 
visual  injury  at  increasing  distances  from  the 
aluminum  plant.  Visual  injury  was  found  up 
to  8.5  miles  from  the  factory  on  radius  4,  up 
to  12  miles  on  radius  5,  and  up  to  4 miles  on 
radius  6.  Generally,  visual  injury  was  found 
on  sensitive  species  (Western  white  pine, 
lodgepole  pine,  and  ponderosa  pine)  within 
the  30  isopol. 

High  injury  indices  were  nearly  always  as- 
sociated with  values  of  fluoride  concentration 
above  100  ppm.  From  data  collected  the 
second  sampling  period,  we  found  the  average 
injury  index  for  plots  1-4,  radii  3-8,  was 
0.142.  As  mentioned  previously,  of  vegetation 
collected  during  the  second  sampling  period, 
only  conifers  were  analyzed  for  I.I.  Radii  3-8 
all  transected  a part  of  Teakettle  Mountain, 
and  plots  1-3  occurred  on  the  west  face  of 
Teakettle  Mountain.  Plots  No.  4 were  on  the 
east  side  of  Teakettle,  just  over  the  crest  of 
the  ridge.  All  these  plots  had  average  fluoride 
values  more  than  100  ppm,  as  indicated  in 
Appendixes  II-A  and  II-B.  Because  the  great- 
est and  most  obvious  amount  of  visual  injury 
occurred  on  the  west  face  of  the  mountain, 
we  used  this  area  as  a basis  for  establishing  the 
classes  of  injury  as  shown  in  Table  II. 


Table  II.  — Classification  of  Visual  Injury  of 
Conifers 


Class 

Average  injury  index 

Non-injured 

< 0.006 

Light 

0.007  - 0.050 

Moderate 

0.051  - 0.099 

Severe 

> 0.100 

In  general,  conifers  on  most  of  the  west 
face  of  Teakettle  Mountain  have  been  severely 


injured  by  fluorides;  on  the  north  face  of 
Columbia  Mountain  have  sustained  moderate 
injury;  and  on  the  east  face  of  Teakettle  have 
showed  moderate  injury.  Vegetation, 
especially  ponderosa  pine,  within  the  city  of 
Columbia  Falls  has  been  injured  moderately 
to  severely  by  fluorides. 

Visual  injury  to  vegetation  between  the  30 
and  100  isopols  was  restricted  primarily  to 
the  conifers  — lodgepole  pine,  western  white 
pine,  whitebark  pine,  ponderosa  pine,  and 
Douglas-fir.  However,  the  forb  lily  of  the  val- 
ley proved  to  be  very  sensitive  to  fluorides 
and  showed  typical  symptoms  within  the  30 
isopol. 

The  most  serious  visible  injury  to  vegeta- 
tion occurred  in  the  19,840  acres  included 
within  the  60  ppm  isopol.  In  12,800  acres  be- 
tween the  60  and  100  isopols,  100  percent  of 
the  foliage  of  lodgepole  pine  showed  partial 
necrosis,  of  which  50  percent  was  necrotic 
due  to  fluorides.  The  remaining  50  percent 
had  been  infested  by  four  different  insect 
species:  sugar  pine  tortrix,  pine  needle  scale, 
needle  sheath  miner,  and  a needle  miner  (fig- 
ure 9).  A causal  relationship  was  not  estab- 
lished between  elevated  fluorides  and  insect 
infestation;  however,  it  would  seem  more 
than  coincidental  that  the  infestation  was  as- 
sociated so  closely  with  the  high  fluorides. 

In  the  5,760  acres  between  the  100  and 
300  isopols,  insects  subsided  to  endemic 
levels.  However,  foliage  of  nearly  all  vegeta- 
tion, including  shrubs,  forbs,  and  conifers, 
showed  moderate  fluoride  burn.  In  1,280 
acres  within  the  300  and  600  isopols,  foliage 
of  all  vegetation  except  grasses  was  severely 
burned  (figures  10  and  11)  and  conifers  ex- 
hibited terminal  dieback  (figure  12). 

Special  Samples 

Fluoride  Content  and  I.I.  Data  concerning 
fluoride  content  and  injury  index  collected  on 
a total  of  175  special  samples  were  very  simi- 
lar to  radial  data  collected  in  the  same  areas. 
Data  is  shown  in  Appendix  IV.  High  levels  of 
fluorides,  up  to  290  ppm,  were  found  in  the 
Columbia  Falls  area.  Moderate  levels  up  to 
86.5  ppm  along  with  moderate  foliar  injury 
were  found  on  Columbia  Mountain,  and  up  to 
1163  ppm  were  found  in  1969  Douglas-fir 
needles  on  Teakettle  Mountain.  Injury  was 


18 


Figure  9.  — Fluoride  and  insect  injury  on  lodgepole  pine  from  the  east  side  of  Teakettle  Moun- 
tain. About  50%  of  the  needles  show  typical  fluoride  burn  (1 );  the  rest  are  infested  separate- 
ly by  sugar  pine  tortrix  (2);  pine  needle  scale  (3);  a needle  sheath  miner  (4);  and  a needle 
miner  (5). 


19 


severe  on  Teakettle  Mountain.  Fluoride  levels 
between  20-30  ppm  in  1969  conifer  tissue 
were  common  in  southwest  Glacier  Park. 
Light  to  moderate  foliar  injury  also  was 
found.  Light  fluoride  accumulations  between 
15-20  ppm  and  little  injury  was  found  on  the 
Coram  Experimental  Forest,  and  little  fluo- 
ride or  injury  was  found  along  the  northeast 
edge  of  Hungry  Horse  Reservoir. 

Much  of  the  special  data  was  used  in  the 
verification  of  isopols  and  the  extension  of 
isopols  southwest  from  the  aluminum  plant. 

Relation  Between  Injury  Index  and  Fluoride 
Content 

As  explained  previously,  each  sample  col- 
lected was  subjected  to  both  a fluoride 
analysis  and  estimation  of  1. 1.  Because  exces- 
sive fluorides  can  cause  injury  to  plant  tissue, 
one  can  hypothesize  a positive  correlation  be- 
tween fluoride  level  and  I.I.  We  tested  this 
hypothesis  by  regression  analysis  separately 
on  1969  and  1970  conifer  needles  and  shrub 
foliage.  Data  obtained  from  radial  plots  and 
special  samples  were  used,  combining  data  for 
both  sampling  periods.  Results  of  the  analysis 
are  shown  in  Appendix  V.  The  correlation 
was  positive  and  significant  at  the  99  percent 
level  of  confidence  for  1969  conifer  needle 
tissue.  The  “F”  ratio  for  slope  was  also  highly 
significant.  For  1970  conifer  needles  and  for 
shrubs,  the  correlation  was  nonsignificant. 
This  analysis  readily  substantiated  that  for 


1970  conifer  tissue  and  for  all  broadleaf  tissue 
tested,  high  fluoride  levels  existed  without 
corresponding  visible  necrosis  or  burn. 

Rates  of  Accumulation 

To  obtain  a comparison  of  the  relative 
rates  of  fluoride  accumulation  for  1969  and 
1970  coniferous  tissue,  accumulations  in 

1969  tissue  were  paired  with  accumulations  in 

1970  tissue  sampled  from  the  same  tree.  Data 
collected  from  the  radial  plots  and  special 
samples,  second  sampling  period,  were  used. 
The  data  was  stratified  by  isopol  and  species 
type  as  shown  in  Table  III.  Values  given  in  the 
table  are  average  monthly  fluoride  accumula- 
tions in  excess  of  the  normal  10  ppm  back- 
ground level.  The  rate  for  1969  tissue  was 
found  by  dividing  the  total  excess  fluoride  by 
17  (total  length  of  exposure  in  months)  and 
by  5 for  1970  tissue. 

The  data  indicates  for  pines  that  the  rate  of 
accumulation  was  about  the  same  in  1970  as 
in  1969  between  the  60-600  isopols  but  slowed 
down  between  the  10-60  isopols.  The  firs  and 
spruces  maintained  about  the  same  rate  in 
1970  as  in  1969  for  all  the  isopols. 

Histological  Results 

Definite  histological  reactions  were  found 
in  internal  tissue  of  necrotic  conifer  needles. 
As  described  previously  a 2mm  piece  of  needle 
was  taken  from  the  “transition  zone”  be- 
tween healthy  and  necrotic  tissue  and  sec- 


TABLE  III 


Rates  of  Fluoride  Accumulation 
Species  Type  1 


Pines 

Firs  and  spruces 

Isopol 

1969 

1970 

1969 

1970 

300  - 600 

12.69 

16.26 

30.16 

32.26 

100  - 300 

16.73 

8.27 

24.11 

15.76 

60-100 

4.56 

7.22 

30-  60 

1.69 

0.54 

1.54 

1.22 

10-  30 

0.67 

0.45 

0.94 

1.58 

1 "Pines”  includes  ponderosa,  western  white,  whitebark,  and  lodgepole  pines.  Firs  and  Spruces ” includes 
Douglas,  grand,  and  subalpine  firs  and  Engelmann  spruce. 


20 


Figure  10.  — (top)  Severe  foliar  fluoride  burn  on  lodgepole  pine.  This  sample  was  collected  in 
the  300  isopol  zone  on  U.  S.  Forest  Service  land.  XO.5 


Figure  11.  — (bottom)  Closeup  of  fluoride  burn  on  lodgepole  pine  collected  from  within  the 
300  isopol  zone  on  U.  S.  Forest  Service  land.  X2 


21 


Figure  12.  — Terminal  dieback  of  Doublas-fir,  caused  by  repeated  fluoride  fumigations.  This 
tree  is  within  the  300  isopol  zone  on  Forest  Service  land.  XO.5 


Figure  13.  — Hypertrophied  transfusion  parenchyma  cells  and  associated  collapse  of  transfusion 
tracheids  (arrow).  Lodgepole  pine.  X350. 


tioned  at  9 micra  thickness.  Microscopic  ex- 
amination of  conifer  tissue  in  the  early  stage 
of  necrosis  (green-yellow  part  of  transition 
zone)  revealed  that  phloem  and  transfusion 
parenchyma  and  albuminous  cells  hyper- 
trophied extensively,  crushing  and  causing 
collapse  of  transfusion  tracheids  and  phloem 
elements  (figure  13).  Enlarged  nuclei  were  al- 
ways associated  with  the  hypertrophied  cells 
and  expanded  nuclei  often  occurred  in  meso- 
phyll  cells  (figure  14).  Often  the  mesophyll 
cell  immediately  interior  to  the  stomatal 
opening  had  been  killed  before  fixation  and 
sectioning.  Epithelial  tissue  and  nuclei  hyper- 
trophied extensively,  often  occluding  resin 
canals  (figure  15). 

In  the  later  stage  of  fluorosis  (necrotic  por- 
tion of  transition  zone),  many  of  the  hyper- 
trophied cells  had  collapsed,  leaving  a void  in 
the  tissue.  Granulosis  of  the  chloroplasts  in 
mesophyll  cells  was  obvious. 


This  disease  syndrome  is  unlike  any  caused 
by  fungi  or  adverse  weather  conditions,  and  is 
very  distinctive  for  fluorosis  of  conifer  tissue. 
This  type  of  internal  injury  caused  by  fluo- 
rides occurred  generally  within  the  isopols  30 
ppm  and  greater,  including  vegetation  in  Gla- 
cier National  Park,  but  varied  depending  on 
the  species. 

Aerial  Photography 

The  aerial  photography  was  scheduled  to 
be  completed  by  June  15,  1970.  However,  be- 
cause of  adverse  weather,  it  was  not  done 
until  mid-July,  and  much  of  the  injury  pres- 
ent on  vegetation  was  masked  by  the  new 
flush  of  growth.  Even  so,  injury  was  detec- 
table generally  within  the  60  ppm  isopol. 
Mortality  of  conifers  was  readily  identifiable 
within  the  300  ppm  isopol.  Ektachrome  Aero 
film  was  satisfactory  for  delineating  general 
areas  sustaining  visual  pollution  injury. 


23 


Figure  14.  — Hypertrophied  nuclei  in  mesophyll  parenchyma  cells  (arrows).  Lodgepole  pine. 
X950 


24 


Figure  15.  — Hypertrophied  epithelial  cells  in  ponderosa  pine  resin  canal  (arrow).  X950. 


Entomological  Phase 


Fluoride  accumulation  by  Insects 

Control  Samples.  Fluoride  content  data  of 
control  insects  are  given  in  Appendix  VI. 
Foliage  feeders  were  represented  by  larch 
casebearer  at  16.5  ppm  and  grasshoppers  at 
7.5  ppm.  Highest  control  for  cambial  feeders 
was  11.5  ppm  found  in  Ips  sp.  Red  turpentine 
beetle,  also  a cambial  feeder,  had  4.8  ppm 
fluoride.  Bumblebees,  which  are  pollinating 
insects,  had  7.5  ppm  and  damselflies,  which 
are  predaceous,  had  9.2  ppm  fluoride. 

Test  Samples.  Generally  at  least  twice  as 
much  fluoride  was  found  in  test  samples  as  in 
corresponding  control  samples.  Foliage 
feeders  collected  within  the  areas  sustaining 
fluoride  pollution  had  from  21.3  to  48.6  ppm 
fluoride,  with  weevils  containing  the  highest. 
From  8.5  to  52.5  ppm  fluoride  was  found  in 
the  cambial  feeding  group,  with  engraver 
beetles  sustaining  the  largest  amount.  The 
highest  readings  in  the  pollinating  groups  were 
found  in  bumblebees  at  406  ppm  and  the  low- 
est in  the  wood  nymph  butterfly  at  58.0  ppm. 
Predaceous  insects  ranged  from  6.1  to  170.0 
ppm  fluoride,  with  ants  accumulating  the 
largest  amount. 

Insect  Population  Sampling 

Controls.  Larch  casebearers  ranged  from 
0 - 27.6  per  100  spur  shoots  (Appendix  VII). 

Scale  counts  on  lodgepole  pine  averaged 
0.3  insects  per  600  needles  (Appendix  VIII); 
on  ponderosa  pine  they  averaged  5 per  600 
needles  (Appendix  IX). 

Radial  Collections.  Of  the  possible  sam- 
pling locations,  only  30  plots  had  sufficient 
larch  to  sample  larch  casebearer  populations; 
34  plots  had  sufficient  lodgepole  pine  to  sam- 
ple for  scale  insects;  and  16  plots  had  suffi- 
cient ponderosa  pine  to  sample  for  scales. 


Because  extensive  sampling  of  vegetation 
for  foliar  fluoride  analysis  was  done  in  the 
pathological  phase,  we  did  not  feel  it  neces- 
sary to  repeat  vegetation  collections  on  indi- 
vidual plots  during  this  phase.  Therefore, 
counts  of  casebearer  and  scale  were  compared 
to  the  fluoride  readings  from  the  respective 
plots  in  the  pathological  phase. 

No  discernible  pattern  existed  from  the 
larch  casebearer  samples  (Appendix  VII).  Rel- 
atively high  casebearer  counts  were  found  at 
all  distances  from  the  aluminum  plant  with 
the  exception  of  one-fourth  mile  where  the 
only  larch  sample  taken  had  no  casebearer. 

Generally,  scale  counts  on  lodgepole  pine 
decreased  with  increasing  distance  from  the 
aluminum  plant,  with  the  exception  of  the 
8-mile  samples  (Appendix  VIII). 

Scale  counts  on  lodgepole  pine  were  com- 
pared to  foliar  fluoride  content  of  conifers  on 
the  same  plot  (Appendix  X).  Linear  regression 
analysis  showed  no  significant  correlation  (r  = 
0.201,  30  degrees  of  freedom)  existed. 

The  regression  line  is  shown  in  Figure  16. 
A constant  increase  in  scale  numbers  with  in- 
creasing fluoride  concentrations  is  indicated. 
Although  the  correlation  is  insignificant,  the 
graph  does  indicate  a trend  and  more  exten- 
sive sampling  likely  would  confirm  the 
relationship. 

Lodgepole  pine  that  had  scale  counts  ex- 
ceeding 50  per  600  needles  contained  23  to 
401  ppm  fluoride  (average  133  ppm)  in  all 
vegetation,  compared  to  a range  of  6 to  160 
ppm  fluoride  (average  36  ppm)  for  pines  with 
less  than  50  scales  per  600  needles. 

The  same  pattern  existed  for  the  ponder- 
osa pine  samples  (Appendix  VIII)  even 
though  the  number  of  samples  was  smaller. 


26 


o 


sa  lPaaN  009/sa  LB3S  ^O'ON 


27 


Fluoride,  PPM 


Discussion 

and 

Conclusions 


General 

The  original  objectives  of  the  evaluation 
were  satisfied.  The  chemical  and  histological 
analyses  showed  definitely  that  fluorides  were 
the  major  factor  contributing  to  injury  and 
damage  on  vegetation  peripheral  to  the  alumi- 
num reduction  plant.  That  the  source  of  the 
fluorides  was  the  Anaconda  Company’s  alumi- 
num reduction  plant  is  confirmed  by  the  con- 
vergence of  lines  of  increasing  concentration 
at  the  reduction  plant.  Through  systematic 
and  special  sampling  systems,  we  were  able  to 
map  the  area  affected  by  fluorides. 

The  32  insect  tissue  samples  analyzed 
showed  definitely  that  fluorides  accumulate 
in  insects.  Generally,  scale  insects  increased 
with  increasing  concentrations  of  fluoride  in 
lodgepole  and  ponderosa  pine  needle  tissue; 
however,  data  was  not  complete.  Larch  case- 
bearer  populations  showed  no  trends. 

Rates  of  Accumulation 

Previously  we  mentioned  that  the  alumi- 
num plant  had  reduced  fluoride  emissions 
from  7,600  to  5,000  pounds  per  day.  One  can 
hypothesize  that  a corresponding  decrease  in 
fluroide  content  of  vegetation  should  occur. 
However,  our  data  shows  this  is  not  uni- 
versally true.  In  fact,  only  for  the  pine  species 
under  insidious  levels  of  fumigation  (10-60 
ppm  isopols)  did  the  rate  drop  substantially. 
The  rate  of  accumulation  in  firs  did  not 
change  even  at  the  insidious  levels  of  fumiga- 
tion. We  interpret  this  as  indicating  the  exist- 
ence of  a threshold  concentration  of  atmos- 
pheric fluoride  as  measured  by  emission  at  the 
aluminum  plant,  below  which  a decreasing 
level  of  atmospheric  fluoride  results  in  a cor- 
responding decrease  in  accumulation  by 
plants  and  which,  when  exceeded,  contributes 
little  to  the  total  accumulation  by  plants.  This 
threshold  effect  could  be  realized  either  by 
short  exposures  to  high  concentrations  of  at- 


mospheric fluorides  or  prolonged  exposure  to 
lower  levels.  The  threshold  level  may  be  much 
lower  than  5,000  pounds  per  day.  Even  at 
“low”  levels  of  500  to  1,000  pounds  per  day, 
injury  to  vegetation  could  be  expected  up  to 
3 or  4 miles  from  the  aluminum  plant,  and 
even  farther  under  stable  inversion  periods. 

Possibly  the  threshold  for  pine  species  was 
reached  somewhere  between  the  10-60 
isopols,  but  was  never  reached  for  the  firs  and 
spruces.  A possible  explanation  for  this  dif- 
ferential response  between  pines  and  firs  is 
that  pines  are  more  sensitive  to  fluorides  than 
are  firs  and  spruces.  Gordon  (personal  com- 
munication) has  indicated  that  the  physi- 
ological activity  of  a tree  is  directly  related  to 
its  ability  to  accumulate  fluorides.  Thus  pine 
trees  sensitive  to  fluorides  may  accumulate 
fluorides  rapidly  up  to  a point,  at  which  time 
phytotoxic  effects  result  in  a decrease  in 
physiological  activity  and  a corresponding  de- 
crease in  fluoride  accumulation  rate.  Because 
the  fluoride  concentration  at  which  phyto- 
toxicity occurs  in  firs  and  spruces  may  be 
higher  than  pines,  their  physiological  activity 
would  be  greater  and  their  ability  to  accumu- 
late fluorides  would  continue  beyond  that  of 
pines. 

Susceptibility  of  Species 

We  noted  apparent  differences  in  fluoride 
susceptibility  in  terms  of  expression  of  visual 
burn  symptoms  by  the  plant.  Of  the  conifers, 
white  pines  were  most  susceptible  followed 
by  ponderosa  pine,  lodgepole  pine,  and 
Douglas-fir,  respectively.  Spruces,  western  red 
cedar,  and  subalpine  fir  were  most  tolerant. 
Of  the  shrubs,  chokecherry  and  serviceberry 
showed  symptoms  of  fluorosis  quite  readily, 
with  buffalo  berry  the  most  tolerant.  Lily  of 
the  valley  and  disporum  were  highly  sensitive 
compared  to  other  forbs.  These  classifications 
are,  however,  based  only  on  field  data  and  ob- 
servations. 


28 


Ecological  Implications 

Ecologically,  western  white  pine  is  re- 
garded as  a serai  or  temporary  species  in  the 
trend  towards  a climax  community.  This 
species  occurs  on  the  east  side  of  Teakettle 
Mountain  as  an  integral  part  of  the  forest 
community.  However,  it  has  been  severely  af- 
fected by  fluorides,  and  in  many  cases  is  dy- 
ing or  dead.  This  unnatural  selection  most  cer- 
tainly is  hastening  the  trend  towards  climax. 
The  same  sort  of  rational  could  also  be  made 
for  lodgepole  pine,  for  it  too  is  affected  by 
fluorides  much  more  severely  than  subalpine 
fir  and  western  red  cedar.  Certainly  unnatural 
ecological  changes  are  occurring  in  response 
to  the  fluoride  pollution,  are  resulting  in  re- 
duced biological  diversity,  and  should  receive 
considerable  study  in  the  future. 

Pollution  in  Glacier  National  Park 

Vegetation  within  71,670  acres  of  Glacier 
National  Park  has  accumulated,  in  quantities 
greater  than  10  ppm,  fluorides  emitted  from 
the  reduction  plant  (Appendix  III-B).  On 
9,600  acres,  plants  have  accumulated  30  ppm 
or  more,  and  some  have  been  lightly  injured. 
Plants  on  371  acres  showed  average  accumu- 
lations up  to  60  ppm  with  some  moderate  in- 
jury on  lodgepole,  white,  and  ponderosa  pines 
and  Douglas-fir.  As  indicated  by  figure  8, 
most  of  the  injury  and  high  accumulation 
levels  occurred  on  the  southwest  face  of  the 
Apgar  Mountains  and  the  southwest  face  of 
the  Belton  Hills.  No  samples  were  collected 
from  the  upper  reaches  of  McDonald  Creek  in 
Glacier  National  Park.  However,  the  isopol 
map  does  indicate  the  possibility  of  pollution 
damage  near  Logan  Pass,  and  future  sampling 
should  include  these  areas. 

Pollution  in  Coram  Experimental  Forest 

All  the  special  samples  collected  near 
Desert  Mountain  (Figure  3)  were  located 
within  Coram  Experimental  Forest.  Many 
studies  important  to  management  of  western 
larch  currently  are  in  progress  on  the  exper- 
imental forests.  Generally,  average  fluoride  ac- 
cumulations in  western  white  pine  and  west- 
ern larch  ranged  from  10-25  ppm.  Little  foliar 
injury  was  found.  We  do  not  know  what  af- 
fect these  insidious  fluoride  accumulations 
may  have  on  reproductive  potential,  growth, 
and  other  factors  of  the  species  being  studied. 


However,  the  presence  of  elevated  fluorides 
may  contribute  to  unexplained  error  in  sta- 
tistical analyses  of  the  data. 

Study  Replicated 

Data  for  construction  of  isopols  and  radial 
profiles  displayed  in  this  report  were  obtained 
from  the  second  sampling  period  as  these 
were  more  current.  A similar  pattern  existed 
for  data  of  the  first  sampling  period  but  was 
not  of  the  magnitude  as  that  of  the  second. 
Because  data  of  both  sampling  periods  was 
collected  in  the  same  manner,  each  sampling 
period  could  be  considered  a replicate  of  the 
same  experiment.  As  both  sampling  periods 
yielded  data  showing  similar  trends,  the  tech- 
niques used  (i.e.,  radial  sampling)  are  con- 
sidered valid. 

Insects  and  Fluoride 

The  damsel  flies  and  ostomids  are  100  per- 
cent predatory  in  both  larval  and  adult  stages. 
Fluoride  accumulated  in  these  insects  must 
have  come  from  the  insects  upon  which  they 
fed,  indicating  that  fluoride  is  passed  along 
the  food  chain  to  some  predators. 

In  two  instances  where  both  larvae  and 
adults  of  the  same  species  (flatheaded  beetles 
and  ostomids)  were  analyzed,  accumulation 
was  much  higher  in  the  adults.  Bumblebees 
collected  in  the  summer  had  over  twice  the 
fluoride  levels  as  those  collected  in  the  spring. 
Both  cases  suggest  that  accumulation  occurs 
throughout  the  life  of  the  insects. 

Many  plants  are  dependent  upon  insect 
pollinators  for  seed  production.  By  altering 
the  pollinator  complex,  i.e.,  bumblebees, 
honeybees,  sphinx  moths,  and  others,  it  is 
possible  to  alter  vegetational  types,  and  subse- 
quently much  of  ecology  of  an  area.  Studies 
have  shown  fluorides  to  be  devastating  to 
honeybees.  If  this  applies  to  pollinators  in 
general  it  could  have  a detrimental  effect  on 
fruit  trees,  legumes,  and  many  other  insect- 
pollinated  flowering  plants  in  the  polluted 
area. 

Current  research  shows  that  several  chemi- 
cals and  pesticides  (DDT,  etc.)  are  adversely 
affecting  organisms  farther  up  the  food  chain. 
Eagles  lay  soft-shelled  nonviable  eggs  due  to 
feeding  on  fish  containing  high  levels  of  DDT. 
Insects  are  one  of  the  most  important  ele- 
ments of  the  food  chain.  They  are  the  only 


29 


watershed  through  loss  of  ground  cover  likely 
is  minimal. 

Previous  research  has  shown  that  livestock 
will  develop  fluorosis  if  feeding  is  done  on 
vegetation  containing  more  than  35  ppm  fluo- 
ride. The  area  within  the  30  isopol  contains 
several  thousand  acres  of  grazing  lands  that 
should  not  be  utilized,  indicating  a dollar 
value  which  can  be  fixed. 

Research  also  has  shown  that  diameter 
growth  rates  of  conifers  will  decrease  from" 
1-6  fold  in  fluoride  polluted  areas.  We  have 
not  collected  at  Columbia  Falls  any  data  con- 
cerning growth  decline  of  conifers.  However, 
the  decrease  mentioned  above  could  be  ap- 
plied to  commercial  species  in  the  area. 

Environmental  damage  is  continuing  and 
can  be  stopped  only  by  (1)  installation  of  effi- 
cient pollution  abatement  equipment  at  the 
reduction  plant  to  limit  fluoride  emission  to 
0.0  pounds  per  day,  which  likely  is  impossi- 
ble, or  (2)  closure  of  the  plant.  The  latter  is 
an  unrealistic  position  because  the  aluminum 
plant  does  provide  jobs  to  hundreds  of  people 
at  a payroll  exceeding  $9  million  per  year. 
Therefore,  it  would  seem  appropriate  to  sup- 
port the  fluoride  emission  standard  of  864 
pounds  per  day  set  by  the  State  of  Montana. 

If  emissions  are  not  reduced  to  the  State 
standard,  extensive  pollution  can  be  expected 
to  continue.  As  a result,  it  would  be  unwise  to 
raise  livestock  within  the  area  included  by  the 
30  ppm  isopol.  Leafy  vegetables  and  fruits 
grown  or  collected  within  the  30  ppm  isopol 
should  be  thoroughly  washed  before  they  are 
eaten. 

Forest  vegetation  would  continue  to  de- 
cline, and  the  southwestern  portion  of  Glacier 
National  Park  would  continue  to  sustain  a 
chronic  level  of  injury  caused  by  excessive 
fluorides. 


food  of  some  birds,  fish,  amphibians,  reptiles, 
mammals,  and  arthropods  including  other  in- 
sects and  arachnids.  If  fluorides  accumulated 
by  insects  are  injurious  to  insectivorous  ani- 
mals, then  additional  damage  may  be 
occurring. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  while  there 
are  many  undesirable  insects  we  would  like  to 
control,  only  about  one  in  100  is  considered 
to  cause  significant  crop  loss.  Much  research  is 
needed  before  the  effect  of  different  levels  of 
atmospheric  fluoride  upon  insect  populations 
is  clearly  understood. 

Fluroide  has  not  been  reported  to  be  trans- 
located in  conifers,  it  is  said  to  accumulate  in 
the  foliage  by  absorption.  The  bark  beetle 
species  examined  feed  solely  as  larvae  and 
adults  on  the  cambium  of  conifers.  The  high 
fluoride  readings  in  some  bark  beetle  samples 
indicate  that  fluorides  are  translocated  in  the 
xylem  or  phloem  of  the  tree  and  are  accessi- 
ble to  bark  beetles. 

Scale  insects  are  known  to  build  up  on 
weakened  or  disturbed  trees.  Excessive  dust 
alone  can  trigger  scale  outbreaks.  There  ap- 
pears to  be  a relationship  to  scale  populations 
and  fluoride  accumulated  by  the  vegetation, 
but  more  extensive  sampling  is  needed. 

Economic  and  Esthetic  Damage 

The  Forest  Service  is  charged  with  the  re- 
sponsibility of  wise  use  of  all  National  Forest 
lands.  We  are  also  responsible  for  technical  ad- 
vise and  service  to  National  Parks,  State  and 
private  concerns.  The  responsibilities  are  ad- 
ministered in  five  general  use  categories:  1) 
wildlife,  2)  water,  3)  forage,  4)  recreation, 
and  5)  timber.  Therefore,  an  economic  analy- 
sis of  fluoride  pollution  would  have  to  con- 
sider values  in  all  these  categories. 

We  have  not  yet  made  a thorough  eco- 
nomic analysis  of  the  fluoride  pollution  prob- 
lem at  Columbia  Falls.  Recreation  and  wild- 
life values  are  difficult  to  establish.  Gordon1 
has  shown  that  wildlife  in  the  area  is  accumu- 
lating fluorides,  but  no  economic  loss  has 
been  established.  Excessive  fluoride  concen- 
trations in  water  have  not  yet  been  reported 
in  the  Columbia  Falls  area,  and  damage  to  the 


1 Personal  communication  with  Dr.  C.  C.  Gordon, 
University  of  Montana. 


Future  Plans 

We  are  establishing  a permanent  system  to 
monitor  for  fluoride  pollution  in  the  Colum- 
bia Falls  area.  The  precise  methods  have  not 
yet  been  outlined. 

During  the  summer  of  1971  we  will  evalu- 
ate possible  timber  growth  losses  due  to  fluo- 
ride. It  is  anticipated  that  a series  of  variable 
plots  would  provide  the  data,  but  definite 
procedures  have  not  yet  been  established. 


30 


Acknowledgements 


Special  appreciation  is  extended  to  person- 
nel of  the  Flathead  National  Forest,  especially 
Mr.  John  Ulrich,  for  assistance  in  organization 
of  the  field  part  of  this  study;  to  Mrs.  Carma 
Gilligan  for  her  excellent  histological  work;  to 
Mr.  Ralph  E.  Williams  for  valuable  assistance 
in  organizing  the  manuscript,  and  to  many 
other  close  associates  who  aided  in  the  field 
work  and  reviewed  the  manuscript.  We  also 
wish  to  extend  our  gratitude  to  Mrs.  Karen 
Brown,  who  typed  the  manuscript. 


31 


Literature 

Cited 


Adams,  Donald  F.,  C.  Gardner  Shaw,  Richard 
M.  Gnagy  and  others. 

1956.  Relationship  of  atmospheric  fluo- 
ride levels  and  injury  indexes  on  Gladiolus 
and  ponderosa  pine.  Agricultural  and  Food 
Chemistry  4(1):  64-66. 

Anonymous. 

1969.  Tentative  Method  of  analysis  for 
Fluoride  content  of  the  atmosphere  and 
plant  tissue.  Health  Laboratory  Science,  6: 
84-101. 

Bousfield,  W.  E. 

1969.  Sampling  plan  for  larch  casebearer. 
USDA  For.  Serv.,  Div.  State  & Pri.  For- 
estry, Missoula,  MT.  Unpub.  rept. 

Caparrini,  W. 

1957.  Fluorine  poisoning  in  domestic  ani- 
mals (cattle)  and  bees.  Zooprofilass  12: 
249-250. 

Carlson,  C.  E.  and  J.  E.  Dewey. 

1970.  Study  plan  for  the  evaluation  of  flu- 
oride damage  to  ecosystem  segments  on 
National  Forest  land  in  the  vicinity  of  Co- 
lumbia Falls,  MT.  USDA  For.  Serv.,  Div. 
State  & Private  Forestry,  Missoula,  MT. 

Compton,  O.  C.,  L.  F.  Remmert,  J.  A. 
Rudinsky  and  others. 

1961.  Needle  scorch  and  condition  of 
ponderosa  pine  trees  in  The  Dalles  area. 
Misc.  paper  120,  Agri.  Exp.  Sta.,  Oregon 
State  Univ.,  Corvallis,  OR. 


Daubenmire,  R.,  and  J.  B.  Daubenmire. 

1968.  Forest  Vegetation  of  Eastern 
Washington  and  Northern  Idaho.  Wash- 
ington Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Tech.  Bull.  60. 

Fischer,  G.  W. 

1950.  Second  progress  report  Spokane 
County  ponderosa  pine  blight  investi- 
gation. USDA  For.  Serv.,  Unpub.  rept. 

Gordon,  C.  C. 

1970.  Damage  to  Christmas  trees  near 
Oakland,  Maryland,  and  Mountain  Storm, 
West  Virginia.  Univ.  of  Montana,  Missoula, 
MT.,  special  report. 

1969.  Cominco  American  Report  II.  Univ. 
of  Montana,  Missoula,  MT. 

Guilhon,  J.,  R.  Truhaut,  and  J.  Bernuchon. 
1962.  Studies  on  the  variations  in  fluorine 
levels  in  bees  with  respect  to  industrial  at- 
mospheric air  pollution  in  a Pyrenean  vil- 
lage. Acad.  d’Agr.  de  France,  Compt. 
Rendt.  48:  607-615. 

Hickey,  H.  R. 

1968.  Controlling  aluminum  effluent  re- 
duction. System  Services  Resources  Re- 
search, Inc.  Sub.  of  Hazelton  Laboratories, 
Inc.  TRW  Life  Sciences  Center. 

Hindawi,  I.  J. 

1970.  Air  pollution  injury  to  vegetation. 
U.  S.  Dept.  HEW,  Natl.  Air  Pollution  Con- 
trol Adminis.,  Raleigh,  NC.,  pp.  26-29. 


32 


Jacobson,  Jay  S.,  Leonard  H.  Weinstein,  D.  C. 
McCune,  and  A.  E.  Hitchcock. 

1966.  The  accumulation  of  fluorine  by 
plants.  J.  Air  Poll.  Cont.  Assoc.  16  (8): 
412-417. 

Johnson,  P.  C. 

1950.  Entomological  aspects  of  the  pon- 
derosa  pine  blight  study,  Spokane,  WN. 
USDA  For.  Serv.  Unpubl.  Rept. 

Lezovic,  J. 

1969.  The  influence  of  fluorine  com- 
pounds on  the  biological  life  near  an  alumi- 
num factory.  Fluoride  Quarterly  Rept., 
vol.  2,  No.  1. 

Lynch,  Donald  W. 

1951.  Diameter  growth  of  ponderosa  pine 
in  relation  to  the  Spokane  pine-blight 
problem.  Northwest  Science  25:  157-163. 

MacLean,  D.  C.,  R.  E.  Schneider,  and  L.  H. 
Weinstein. 

1969.  Accumulation  of  fluoride  by  forage 
crops.  Contrib.  Boyce  Thompson  Inst.  24 
(7):  165-166. 

Marier,  J.  R. 

1968.  Fluoride  research.  Science  159: 
1494-1495. 

Marier,  J.  R.,  Dyson  Rose,  and  J.  S.  Hart. 

1969.  Environmental  fluoride.  Pollution 
Task  Force  Rept.  Div.  of  Biology,  N.R.C., 
Ottawa. 

Maurizio,  A.,  and  M.  Staub. 

1956.  Poisoning  of  bees  with  industrial 


gasses  containing  fluorine  in  Switzerland. 
Schweiz.  Bieren  Ztg.  79:  476-486. 

Outram,  I. 

1970.  Some  effects  of  fumigant  sulphryl 
fluoride  on  the  gross  metabolism  of  insect 
eggs.  Fluoride  Quarterly  Rept.  vol.  3, 
No.  2. 

Semrau,  Konrad  T. 

1957.  Emission  of  fluorides  from  indus- 
trial processes  — a review.  J.  of  Air  Poll. 
Cont.  Assoc.,  7:  92-108. 

Shaw,  Charles  Gardner,  George  W.  Fischer, 
Donald  F.  Adams,  and  Mark  F.  Adams. 

1951.  Fluorine  injury  to  ponderosa  pine. 
Phytopath.  4a:  10,  p.  943,  abs. 

Solberg,  R.  A.  and  D.  F.  Adams. 

1956.  Histological  responses  of  some  plant 
leaves  to  hydrogen  fluoride  and  sulfur 
dioxide.  Amer.  J.  Bot.  43:  755-760. 

Stark,  R.  W.,  P.  R.  Miller,  R.  W.  Cobb,  Jr., 
and  others. 

1968.  Photochemical  oxidant  injury  and 
bark  beetle  (Coleoptera:  Scolytidae)  infes- 
tation of  ponderosa  pine.  Hilgardia,  39  (6). 

Thomas,  M.  D. 

1961.  Effects  of  air  pollution  on  plants. 
World  Health  Organization  Monograph  Se- 
ries 46. 

Treshow,  M.,  Franklin  K.  Anderson,  and 
Frances  Harner. 

1967.  Responses  of  Douglas  fir  to  elevated 
atmospheric  fluorides.  For.  Science  13(2): 
114-120. 


33 


Appendix  I 


COMMON  AND  SCIENTIFIC  NAMES  OF  PLANTS  AND 
ANIMALS  STUDIED  OR  REFERRED  TO  IN  THIS  REPORT 


TREES 

Common  Name 

Western  Larch 
Western  White  Pine 
Whitebark  Pine 
Ponderosa  Pine 
Douglas-fir 
Lodgepole  Pine 
Engelmann  spruce 
Grand  fir 

Western  Red  Cedar 
Subalpine  fir 
Yew 
Juniper 

SHRUBS 

Service  berry 
Oregon  grape 
Ribes 

Snowberry 
Ocean  Spray 
Buffalo  Berry 
Spiraea 
Paper  Birch 
Rose 

Mountain  maple 

Willow 

Dogwood 

Cottonwood 

Huckleberry 


Scientific  Name 

Larix  occidentalis  Nutt. 

Pinus  monticola  Dough  ex.  D. 

Pinus  albicaulis  Engelm. 

Pinus  ponderosa  Laws. 

Pseudotsuga  menziesii  (Mirbel)  Franco 
Pinus  contorta  var.  latifolia  Engelm. 
Picea  engelmannii  Parry  ex  Engelm. 
Abies  grandis  (Dough)  Lindl. 

Thuja  plicata  Donn.  Hort. 

Abies  lasiocarpa  (Hook.)  Nutt. 

Taxus  brevifolia  Nutt. 

Juniperus  occidentalis  Hook. 


Amelanchier  alni folia  Nutt. 

Berberis  repens  Lindl. 

Ribes  sp.  L. 

Symphoricarpos  albus  (L).  Blake 
Holodiscus  discolor  (Pursh)  Maxim. 
Shepherdia  argentea  (Pursh)  Nutt. 
Spiraea  betulifolia  Pall. 

Betula  papyrifera  Marsh. 

Rosa  woodsii  Lindl. 

Acer  glabrum  Torr. 

Salix  sp.  L. 

Cornus  canadensis  L. 

Populus  trichocarpa  T.  and  G.  ex  Hook 
Vaccinium  sp.  L. 


34 


Common  Name 


Scientific  Name 


Mountain  ash 
Ninebark 
Aspen 
Alder 

Chokecherry 

Red  stem  ceanothus 

Evergreen  Ceanothus 

Pachistima 

Hawthorne 

Honeysuckle 

Elderberry 

Kinnikinnick 

Syringa 

FORBS 

Lily  of  the  Valley 

Lupine 

Mullein 

Heart  Leaf  Arnica 
Strawberry 
Thimbleberry 
Fern 

Wild  Snapdragon 

Hawkweed 

Fireweed 

Yarrow 

Mint 

Larkspur 

Arrow  Leaf  Balsam  Root 
Wild  Pea 
Devils  Club 
Aster 

Meadow  Rue 

False  Azalea 

Bedstraw 

Goldenrod 

Wild  Onion 

Lousewort 

Canadian  Thistle 

Disporum 

Absinthium 

Raspberry 

Pussytoes 

Michaux  sagebrush 

Hounds  Tongue 

Alum  Root 

Dogbane 


Sorbus  scopulina  Greene 
Physocarpus  malvaceus  (Greene)  Kuntze 
Populus  tremuloides  Michx. 

Alnus  incana  (L.)  Moench 
Prunus  virginiana  L. 

Ceanothus  sanguineus  Pursh 
Ceanothus  uelutinus  Dougl.  ex  Hook. 
Pachistima  myrsinites  (Pursh)  Raf. 
Crataegus  douglasii  Lindl. 

Lonicera  ciliosa  (Pursh)  DC. 

Sambucus  cerulea  Raf. 

Arctostaphylos  uua-ursi  (L.)  Spreng. 
Philadelphus  lewisii  Pursh 


Smilacina  stellata  (L.)  Desf. 

Lupinus  Sp.  L. 

Verbascum  thapsus  L. 

Arnica  cordi folia  Hook. 

Fragaria  virginiana  Duchesne 
Rubus  parviflorus  Nutt. 

Pteridium  equilinum  (L.)  Kuhn 
Antirrhinum  sp.  L. 

Hieracium  sp.  L. 

Epilobium  angustifolium  L. 

Anchillea  millefolium  L. 

Mentha  sp.  L. 

Delphinium  sp.  L. 

Balsamorhiza  sagittata  (Pursh)  Nutt. 
Vicia  sativa  L. 

Oplopanax  horridum  (J.  E.  Smith)  Miq. 
Aster  sp.  L. 

Thalictrum  occidentale  Gray 
Rhododendron  sp.  L. 

Galium  sp.  L. 

Solidago  sp.  L. 

Allium  sp.  L. 

Pedicularis  sp.  L. 

Cirsium  arvense  L.  (Scop.) 

Disporum  hookeri  (Torr.)  Nicholson 
Artemisia  absinthium  L. 

Rubus  idaeus  L. 

Antennaria  sp.  Gaertn. 

Artemesia  michauxiana  Bess. 
Cynoglossum  officinale  L. 

Heuchera  sp.  L. 

Apocynum  androsaemifolium  L. 


35 


GRASSES 


Common  Name 

Scientific  Name 

Pine  Grass 
Bear  Grass 
Timothy  Grass 
Cheat  Grass 
Blue  Grass 

Calamgrostis  rubescens  Buckl. 
Xerophyllum  tenax  (Pursh)  Nutt. 
Phleum  sp.  L. 

Bromus  tectorum  L. 

Poa  sp.  L. 

INSECTS 

Black  pine  leaf  scale 
Desert  Locust 
Yellow  Meal  Worm 
Larch  case  bearer 
Pine  Needle  Scale 
Sugar  pine  tortrix 
Needle  Sheath  Miner 
Needle  Miner 
Bumblebee 
Sphinx  moth 
Honey  bee 
Skipper  butterfly 
Wood  nymph 
Weevils 
Grasshoppers 
Cicadas 

Engraver  beetles 
Buprestid  larvae 
Buprestid  adults 
Red  Turpentine  Beetle 
Douglas-fir  Beetle 
Ants 

Ostomids 
Damsel  Flies 
Longlegged  fly 
Cerambycids 
Elaterids 

Nuculaspis  californica  (Coleman) 
Schistocera  gregaria  (Forsk.) 
Tenebrio  molitor  (L.) 

Coleophora  laricella  (Hbn.) 
Phenacaspis  pinifoliae  (Fitch) 
Choristoneura  lambertiana  (Busck) 
Zellaria  hambachi  Busck 
Recurvaria  sp. 

Bombus  sp. 

Hemaris  sp. 

Apis  me lli f era  Linn. 

Erynnis  sp. 

Cercyonis  sp. 

Magdalis  sp. 

Melanoplus  sp. 

Family  Cicadidae 
Ips  sp.  DeGeer 
Melanophila  sp. 

Melanophila  sp. 

Dendroctonus  valens  LeConte 
Dendroctonus  pseudotsugae  Hopk. 
Family  Formicidae 
Temnochila  sp. 

Argia  sp. 

Medeterus  sp. 

Family  Cerambycidae 
Family  E later idae 

MAMMALS 

Columbian-ground  squirrel 

Grizzly  Bear 

Elk 

Spermophilus  columbianus  columbianus  Ord 

Ursus  horribilis  Merriam 

Cervus  canadensis  Nelsoni  Bailey 

36 


Appendix  IIA 


TABULATION  OF  RADIAL  AND  CONTROL  DATA 
First  Sampling 


Average  Fluoride  Content  I.  I. 


Plot# 

Shrubs 

Conifers 
1969  1970 

Herbs 

Grasses 

Grand 

Ave 

Ave 
I.  I. 

High 
I.  I. 

Control  #1 

5.651 

6.25 

9.25 

6.67 

- 

6.92 

.003 

.006 

Control  #2 

5.0 

3.5 

7.5 

5.0 

1.3 

4.79 

0.0 

0.0 

Control  #3 

11.4 

7.58 

6.28 

10.0 

9.8 

8.02 

0.0 

0.0 

Control  #4 

7.5 

10.0 

11.0 

8.5 

8.5 

10.36 

0.0 

0.0 

Control  #5 

7.17 

4.75 

6.77 

12.0 

- 

7.03 

.007 

.014 

Control  #6 

4.77 

6.33 

3.00 

5.50 

16.0 

5.80 

.005 

.006 

Rl-Pl2 

108.5 

300 

40.8 

188 

70.0 

122.36 

.138 

.235 

R1-P2 

106.5 

107.8 

18.3 

- 

45.0 

70.72 

.305 

.442 

R1-P3 

48.8 

42.2 

11.4 

- 

18.8 

31.94 

.044 

.090 

R1-P4 

19.8 

18.3 

14.7 

12.5 

2.5 

15.46 

.132 

.301 

R1-P5 

17.0 

-- 

- 

16.0 

8.0 

12.88 

0.0 

0.0 

R1-P6 

3.0 

12.5 

9.0 

- 

4.0 

8.94 

0.0 

0.0 

R1-P7 

6.3 

5.8 

9.3 

- 

4.0 

6.80 

0.0 

0.0 

R2-P1 

42.4 

143.5 

17.5 

93.8 

66.3 

91.21 

.075 

.313 

R2-P2 

112.7 

127.5 

20.0 

90.0 

83.3 

89.59 

.196 

.528 

R2-P3 

44.3 

77.9 

17.8 

50.0 

49.0 

50.21 

.163 

.313 

R2-P4 

13.2 

20.7 

8.83 

- 

13.0 

14.71 

.079 

.200 

R2-P5 

13.0 

9.5 

17.3 

9.0 

32.0 

15.86 

.012 

.019 

R2-P6 

3.6 

5.5 

2.3 

5.5 

2.5 

3.70 

0.0 

0.0 

R2-P7 

7.1 

8.9 

9.2 

7.3 

6.0 

8.13 

.004 

.008 

1 Fluoride  content,  ppm,  dry  weight  basis 
2R  = Radius  No.,  P = Plot  No. 


37 


APPENDIX  II-A,  Con’t 


Average  Fluoride  Content  I.  I. 


Plot# 

Shrubs 

Conifers 
1969  1970 

Herbs 

Grasses 

Grand 

Ave 

Ave 
I.  I. 

High 
I.  I. 

R3-P1 

1166.6 

- 

- 

875.5 

775 

1004.3 

.020 

.027 

R3-P2 

488 

637 

229 

315 

344 

411.3 

.107 

.271 

R3-P3 

149.0 

- 

- 

115 

3.0 

118.6 

.009 

.021 

R3-P4 

100.0 

96.0 

16.0 

- 

82.5 

78.90 

.136 

.136 

R3-P5 

37.2 

31.5 

11.5 

-- 

22.5 

26.31 

.066 

.334 

R3-P6 

10.0 

10.8 

10.9 

-- 

2.1 

9.23 

0.0 

0.0 

R3-P7 

14.5 

7.0 

8.0 

3.3 

8.20 

0.0 

0.0 

R4-P1 

704.2 

— 

-- 

628.0 

156 

604.14 

.025 

.076 

R4-P2 

778.0 

- 

- 

450.5 

231 

537.60 

.010 

.063 

R4-P3 

425.5 

681.5 

116.5 

525 

206 

397.25 

.072 

.500 

R4-P4 

120.0 

198.4 

65.1 

96.5 

234 

130.23 

.150 

.470 

R4-P5 

21.2 

57.2 

15.3 

34.5 

49.0 

38.16 

.066 

.215 

*R4-P6 

14.0 

9.77 

7.50 

10.0 

13.0 

10.13 

.003 

.007 

*R4-P7 

13.7 

17.8 

6.83 

17.8 

- 

13.25 

.038 

.051 

*R4-P8 

15.4 

18.0 

7.15 

9.9 

103 

19.68 

.003 

.003 

*R4-P9 

8.0 

11.2 

6.0 

15.5 

71.5 

16.98 

0.0 

0.0 

*R4-P10 

9.27 

8.93 

4.0 

5.7 

5.8 

6.88 

.008 

.008 

R5-P1 

1719 

— 

- 

1038 

250 

1181.5 

.288 

.580 

R5-P2 

653 

-- 

-- 

375 

600 

597.8 

.029 

.029 

R5-P3 

173.7 

341.0 

45.0 

281 

444 

224.2 

.197 

.343 

R5-P4 

137.5 

243.7 

68.6 

70.0 

87.5 

130.7 

.086 

.392 

R5-P5 

25.0 

45.9 

9.60 

22.5 

6.0 

27.80 

.151 

.344 

R5-P6 

20.0 

30.2 

12.7 

- 

21.0 

19.93 

.007 

.023 

R5-P7 

16.3 

30.5 

- 

11.5 

23.5 

19.60 

.003 

.006 

*R5-P8 

20.50 

19.15 

10.2 

21.0 

26.0 

17.43 

.006 

.011 

*R5-P9 

20.25 

29.75 

11.0 

13.5 

72.5 

24.33 

.115 

.115 

* R5-P10 

11.05 

10.1 

4.10 

8.28 

5.5 

7.46 

0.0 

0.0 

R6-P1 

— 

1950 

- 

363 

313 

875.3 

.202 

.442 

R6-P2 

1125.3 

- 

- 

431 

581 

877.6 

.019 

.089 

R6-P3 

115.3 

292 

29.8 

163 

68.8 

138.2 

.019 

.083 

R6-P4 

57.0 

85.0 

33.0 

63.3 

36.0 

51.17 

.106 

.209 

R6-P5 

33.8 

20.6 

7.5 

29.2 

24.5 

23.0 

.073 

.146 

R6-P6 

17.1 

37.5 

8.5 

20.8 

37.0 

21.4 

0.0 

0.0 

R6-P7 

7.5 

19.0 

10.5 

11.0 

15.0 

11.75 

0.0 

0.0 

*R6-P1Q 

14.65 

13.5 

6.0 

18.5 

51.5 

17.83 

0.0 

0.0 

R7-P1 

1073 

- 

-- 

600 

338 

871.7 

.065 

.299 

R7-P2 

881.3 

-- 

-- 

103 

233 

596.0 

.118 

.230 

38 


APPENDIX  II-A,  Con’t 

Average  Fluoride  Content  I.  I. 


Plot# 

Shrubs 

Conifers 
1969  1970 

Herbs 

Grasses 

Grand 

Ave 

Ave 
I.  I. 

High 
I.  I. 

R7-P3 

65.3 

168 

22.3 

62.5 

75.0 

68.67 

.091 

.225 

R7-P4 

55.0 

111.0 

18.9 

44.0 

44.0 

63.20 

.058 

.111 

R7-P5 

25.3 

- 

- 

25.5 

42.0 

29.50 

0.0 

0.0 

R7-P6 

4.8 

16.2 

5.3 

14.0 

20.5 

10.87 

.016 

.029 

R7-P7 

17.3 

10.0 

4.5 

7.0 

21.0 

12.43 

0.0 

0.0 

R8-P1 

399.8 

975 

175 

- 

110 

409.8 

.052 

.115 

R8-P2 

129 

245 

136.5 

235 

65.0 

152.3 

.016 

.046 

R8-P3 

83.3 

119.8 

22.5 

150 

- 

85.9 

.176 

.400 

R8-P4 

25.3 

49.0 

12.7 

41.5 

14.3 

29.4 

.087 

.152 

R8-P5 

20.0 

31.8 

9.8 

14.0 

8.0 

17.2 

.018 

.049 

R8-P6 

21.5 

14.9 

16.0 

18.3 

- 

17.8 

0.0 

0.0 

R8-P7 

11.8 

14.2 

9.2 

13.3 

22.5 

12.6 

.016 

.018 

R9-P1 

108.7 

110 

39.5 

51.5 

41.0 

70.97 

.026 

.026 

R9-P3 

26.1 

-- 

10.0 

15.0 

13.5 

20.40 

0.0 

0.0 

R9-P4 

43.4 

68.7 

24.0 

- 

23.5 

45.31 

.005 

.005 

R9-P5 

12.5 

7.8 

11.0 

-- 

6.0 

9.80 

0.0 

0.0 

R9-P6 

11.4 

9.3 

5.37 

6.5 

9.5 

7.72 

0.0 

0.0 

R9-P7 

5.6 

9.0 

10.3 

25.0 

5.0 

9.98 

0.0 

0.0 

R10-P1 

76.5 

133 

42.5 

31.0 

38.5 

66.3 

.032 

.097 

R10-P2 

43.3 

61.0 

14.5 

45.0 

22.5 

38.2 

•’.070 

.091 

R10-P3 

23.3 

28.8 

6.3 

20.8 

8.5 

18.9 

.013 

.022 

R10-P4 

22.8 

20.8 

9.3 

- 

16.0 

16.82 

.054 

.054 

R10-P5 

15.0 

23.9 

7.8 

10.0 

7.5 

15.0 

0.0 

0.0 

R10-P6 

11.4 

11.5 

10.8 

- 

10.0 

10.8 

.003 

.003 

R10-P7 

6.8 

9.2 

3 5 

11.0 

6.5 

7.54 

0.0 

0.0 

* — Located  on  Glacier  National  Park  lands. 


39 


Appendix  II-B 


TABULATION  OF  RADIAL  AND  CONTROL  DATA 
Second  Sampling 


Average  Fluoride  Content  I.I. 


Plot# 

Shrubs 

Conifers 
1969  1970 

Herbs 

Grasses 

Grand 

Ave 

Ave 
I.  I. 

High 
I.  I. 

Control  #1 

8.7 

8.5 

4.5 

10.0 

11.5 

8.67 

0.0 

0.0 

Control  #2 

6.8 

7.0 

5.8 

10.5 

5.5 

6.88 

0.0 

0.0 

Control  #3 

15.8 

11.3 

4.75 

6.5 

7.5 

7.91 

0.0 

0.0 

Control  #4 

10.9 

5.9 

5.2 

17.0 

17.0 

9.74 

0.0 

0.0 

Control  #5 

10.5 

7.8 

5.2 

- 

16.0 

8.50 

0.0 

0.0 

Control  #6 

5.7 

6.0 

4.8 

10.0 

12.5 

6.46 

0.0 

0.0 

Rl-Pl 

323 

338 

115 

310 

139 

258 

.079 

.086 

R1-P2 

140.5 

131.7 

38.9 

115 

102 

95.3 

.052 

.143 

R1-P3 

65.5 

40.7 

19.3 

32.0 

20.0 

40.9 

.003 

.003 

R1-P4 

43.3 

18.5 

12.8 

43.5 

20.5 

23.4 

.024 

.024 

R1-P5 

11.5 

9.0 

6.0 

- 

5.0 

8.60 

0.0 

0.0 

R1-P6 

13.8 

9.10 

6.2 

- 

- 

9.06 

0.0 

0.0 

R1-P7 

9.0 

4.5 

5.5 

-- 

5.0 

5.90 

0.0 

0.0 

R2-P1 

136 

189 

64.7 

61.5 

93.5 

111.0 

.063 

.093 

R2-P2 

147.5 

100.8 

26.8 

146 

44.5 

92.6 

.211 

.279 

R2-P3 

110.0 

124.7 

32.8 

104 

32.0 

85.3 

.093 

.104 

R2-P4 

29.1 

17.3 

8.5 

- 

18.5 

22.2 

0.0 

0.0 

R2-P5 

16.0 

16.0 

9.5 

14.5 

- 

13.6 

.018 

.032 

R2-P6 

9.0 

9.3 

8.5 

16.0 

8.8 

9.48 

0.0 

0.0 

R2-P7 

9.8 

8.5 

5.5 

8.8 

4.5 

7.84 

0.0 

0.0 

40 


APPENDIX  II-B,  Con’t 


Average  Fluoride  Content  1. 1. 


Plot# 

Shrubs 

Conifers 
1969  1970 

Herbs 

Grasses 

Grand 

Ave 

Ave 
I.  I. 

High 
I.  I. 

R3-P1 

1194 

488 

258 

794 

600 

754.7 

.281 

.348 

R3-P2 

475 

496.5 

367.8 

463 

101 

401.2 

.313 

.628 

R3-P3 

281.5 

294.5 

70.0 

137 

168 

199.6 

.156 

.313 

R3-P4 

130 

85.5 

23 

107 

68 

90.6 

.034 

.043 

R3-P5 

49.8 

42.8 

17.5 

36.5 

31.5 

33.9 

.014 

.025 

R3-P6 

15.0 

11.8 

7.5 

5.5 

12.5 

11.0 

.008 

.015 

R3-P7 

7.3 

12.5 

10.0 

7.5 

4.5 

8.2 

0.0 

0.0 

R4-P1 

925 

- 

-- 

1250 

469 

903.2 

- 

-- 

R4-P2 

1244 

- 

-- 

638 

205 

832.8 

- 

-- 

R4-P3 

900.5 

390.3 

87.5 

363 

385 

432.8 

.208 

.495 

R4-P4 

211.5 

286.3 

123.2 

375 

153 

215.8 

.119 

.301 

R4-P5 

47.5 

53.3 

22.2 

11.5 

20.0 

35.3 

.075 

.211 

*R4-P6 

32.5 

11.7 

9.3 

15.5 

-- 

17.5 

0.0 

0.0 

*R4-P7 

21.3 

11.0 

9.7 

23.5 

14.5 

15.3 

.007 

.007 

*R4-P8 

37.8 

22.3 

8.0 

13.5 

-- 

20.0 

.003 

.003 

*R4-P9 

14.3 

9.8 

6.3 

10.5 

51.5 

15.3 

0.0 

0.0 

*R4-P10 

10.5 

6.2 

6.1 

5.5 

4.3 

6.3 

.005 

.005 

R5-P2 

1300 

-- 

-- 

875 

200 

918.7 

-- 

-- 

R5-P3 

294.5 

537.5 

80.3 

-- 

508 

332.2 

.132 

.250 

R5-P4 

202.5 

228.7 

55 

111 

128 

160.0 

.063 

.114 

R5-P5 

59.5 

56.5 

23.3 

270 

51.0 

66.91 

.014 

.014 

R5-P6 

38.0 

35.0 

11.7 

59.5 

32.0 

30.3 

.003 

.003 

R5-P7 

39.0 

28.5 

10.0 

34.0 

19.5 

28.3 

0.0 

0.0 

*R5-P8 

73.0 

18.0 

13.0 

- 

23.5 

24.5 

0.0 

0.0 

*R5-P9 

69.0 

24.8 

14.2 

32.5 

22.0 

26.9 

.014 

.019 

*R5-P10 

12.8 

11.9 

10.2 

9.0 

15.5 

11.6 

0.0 

0.0 

R6-P1 

1433 

1728 

775 

2100 

469 

1339 

.150 

.150 

R6-P2 

1889 

- 

-- 

3000 

488 

1831 

-- 

- 

R6-P3 

169.5 

239.6 

44.7 

171 

117 

148 

.114 

.144 

R6-P4 

64.2 

140 

76.3 

113 

53.0 

83.8 

.182 

.291 

R6-P5 

67.3 

27.0 

10.3 

47.0 

27.5 

36.7 

.006 

.006 

R6-P6 

54.0 

32.5 

13.8 

14.0 

21.0 

32.2 

0.0 

0.0 

R6-P7 

14.8 

18.8 

9.8 

23.5 

27.5 

17.2 

0.0 

0.0 

*R6-P10 

20.5 

18.5 

9.3 

30.5 

154 

30.9 

0.0 

0.0 

R7-P1 

1509 

- 

- 

700 

375 

1120 

- 

- 

R7-P2 

969 

1825 

413 

56.0 

293 

754.2 

.289 

.567 

* — Located  on  Glacier  National  Park  lands. 


41 


APPENDIX  II-B,  Con’t 


Average  Fluoride  Content  I.  I. 


Plot# 

Shrubs 

Conifers 

1969  1970 

Herbs 

Grasses 

Grand 

Ave 

Ave 
I.  I. 

High 
1. 1. 

R7-P3 

154.5 

142.5 

31.3 

143 

160 

120.0 

.105 

.154 

R7-P4 

100.5 

104.7 

17.5 

— 

63.5 

76.7 

.064 

.064 

R7-P5 

47.3 

51.5 

20.5 

28.5 

16.5 

25.3 

.042 

.042 

R7-P6 

35.0 

37.8 

18.9 

25.0 

13.0 

26.2 

.004 

.005 

R7-P7 

23.0 

14.0 

10.2 

17.2 

7.5 

14.3 

.002 

.002 

R8-P1 

812.5 

906 

306 

750 

131 

619.7 

0.0 

0.0 

R8-P2 

475.5 

313 

209.5 

325 

70.0 

269.9  • 

0.0 

0.0 

R8-P3 

199.0 

167.0 

41.3 

250 

97.5 

145.2 

.042 

.067 

R8-P4 

48.5 

56.0 

55.3 

32.5 

— 

49.3 

0.0 

0.0 

R8-P5 

33.5 

28.1 

14.5 

31.5 

14.5 

24.1 

0.0 

0.0 

R8-P6 

26.3 

15.5 

8.8 

14.5 

42.5 

19.5 

0.0 

0.0 

R8-P7 

16.2 

14.0 

8.50 

— 

12.5 

12.7 

0.0 

0.0 

R9-P1 

251.5 

168 

76 

198 

85 

171.7 

0.0 

0.0 

R9-P2 

134.7 

— 

— 

113 

132 

129.8 

— 

— 

R9-P3 

45.0 

19.3 

12.3 

52.5 

35.0 

30.1 

0.0 

0.0 

R9-P4 

68.0 

41.5 

14.0 

35.8 

33.0 

39.0 

0.0 

0.0 

R9-P5 

9.0 

4.5 

4.75 

8.5 

6.0 

5.79 

0.0 

0.0 

R9-P6 

17.3 

4.7 

4.27 

14.0 

— 

9.48 

0.0 

0.0 

R9-P7 

10.5 

4.0 

6.03 

— 

5.5 

6.29 

0.0 

0.0 

R10-P1 

185.5 

140 

62.0 

200 

76.0 

141.5 

.030 

.030 

R10-P2 

107.7 

51.5 

23.5 

77.5 

72.5 

78.3 

0.0 

0.0 

R10-P3 

30.7 

23.0 

8.8 

26.0 

28.5 

24.6 

0.0 

0.0 

R10-P4 

41.8 

16.5 

15.5 

31.0 

24.0 

26.6 

0.0 

0.0 

R10-P5 

9.5 

20.8 

10.5 

33.8 

12.5 

17.41 

.004 

.004 

R10-P6 

— 

12.3 

5.0 

— 

11.0 

10.1 

0.0 

0.0 

R10-P7 

— 

4.7 

4.4 

7.0 

8.0 

5.74 

0.0 

0.0 

42 


AREA  POLLUTED  BY  FLUORIDES,  ALL  LANDS  STUDIED 


ci 

o 


H 


C/3 

o 

a 

o 

a3  c/3 
Oj  1—1 

<1  <u 

OJ 

£ 

-V 

a; 

CQ 


C/3 

a> 

S-l 

a 

< 


C/3 


o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

O 

00 

HP 

CM 

00 

O 

ZD 

hP 

ZDr 

00 

i — 1 

<M 

CO 

t> 

ZD 

03 

rH 

co" 

CD 

cT 

lo" 

CO 

LO 

LO 

hP 

1 — 1 

CM 

CD 


GO 


co 

00 


to- 


O 

CM 


03  rH 


V 

a> 

-V 

03 

OJ 

Vi 

a 

03 

oj 

v 

< 


C/3 

OJ 

V 

CJ 


< 


CD 

O 

o 

o 

CD 

O 

o 

o 

ZD 

00 

HP 

CM 

HP 

HP 

GO 

HP 

o 

CM 

l—l 

00 

O 

CT 

ZD 

co" 

HP 

cm" 

ocT 

03 

C-" 

i—i 

i — i 

C" 

CM 

ZD 

t-H 

CM 

rH 

i— H 

HP 

CM 

t-H 

00 

tH 

t-H 

CM 

T— H 

co 

13- 

o 

co 

t-H 

co 

(M 

tH 

1—1 

C/3 

CO 


TO 

o3 

O) 

T3 


3 

O 


C/3 

o 

a 

o 

03 


03 

V 

< 


C 

OJ 

03 

£ 

OJ 

DQ 


v 

OJ 

-v 

03 

03 

V 

o 

03 

03 

V 

< 


C/3 

OJ 

V 

03 

< 


C/3 


C/3 

03 

V 

OJ 


< 


o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

ZD 

CM 

ZD 

o 

(M 

al 

lO 

i— l 

o 

i—l 

oo" 

i—l 

oo" 

ZD 

lo" 

i — 1 

CM 

i—l 

00 

HP 

LO 

GO 

t-H 

T— 1 

HP 

CM 

O 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

00 

CM 

O 

HP 

HP 

CM 

CD 

M 

o 

<o 

ai 

r— 1 

cm" 

i-H 

co" 

i—i 

t- 

CD 

LO 

CM 

<N 

00 

O 

CD 

rH 

CO 

rH 

03 

oo 

CO 

rH 

C/3 

o 

a 

03  S 

CU  M 

< g 


OJ 

-V 

C/3 

>3 

CO 

"cd 

'S 

CC3 

Ptf 


Xi 

-h 


OJ 

PQ 


v 

OJ 

-V 

03 

03 

V 

a 

03 

OJ 

V 

< 


C/3 

OJ 

V 

o> 


. C/3 

O OJ 

co 


C/3 

03 

V 

OJ 

< 


C/3 

-D  CD 
O ■— ' 
C/2  S 


o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

CM 

CM 

CD 

00 

00 

HP 

HP 

OO 

C7> 

CM 

C Dr 

co 

CD 

o" 

o" 

Hp" 

co" 

c~" 

co" 

CO 

HP 

CM 

CO 

00 

CO 

03 

CM 

(N 

CD 

tH 

Hp 

CD 

CO 

LO 

t-H 

o 

O 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

00 

CD 

HP 

00 

o 

CM 

GO 

HP 

o 

03 

<0 

GO 

rH 

CD 

cT 

i—l 

rH 

cd" 

cm" 

LO" 

tH 

hP 

rH 

Hp 

1—1 

CM  ^ 

CM  I> 

CM  rH I 


CM  O 00  <M  i— I 

I>  CM 


O 

a 

o 

C/3 


LO 


O 

(M 


o o o 

CO  ZD  O 


O O 

o o 

CO  ZD 


CM  CO 


43 


The  area  Southwest  of  Columbia  Falls. 

Total  area  sustaining  greater  than  a given  level  of  fluoride,  p.p.m. 

Area  between  established  Isopols,  i.e.,  the  area  between  the  10  and  15  Isopols,  etc. 


Appendix  III-B 


AREA  POLLUTED  BY  FLUORIDES 
GLACIER  NATIONAL  PARK1 


Area 


Isopol  Area  Greater  Between  Isopols 


Sq. 

Sq. 

Miles 

Acres 

Miles 

Acres 

10 

112 

71,670 

40 

25,600 

15 

72 

46,080 

40 

25,600 

20 

32 

20,480 

17 

10,880 

30 

15 

9,600 

14.42 

9,229 

60 

.58 

371 

1 All  lands  studied  in  Glacier  National  Park  were  within  the  radial  system. 


44 


FLUORIDE  CONTENT  AND  INJURY  INDEX  VALUES 
FOR  SPECIAL  SAMPLES 


too 
X G 
c s 

O O, 

£ s 
w & 


too 

x .£ 

2 'a 

ix  £ 

a3 

C/D 


_ OD 

o a 

£ £ 
C/D  as 
CO 


Ph 

Pi 

qT 

X 

‘S 

o 

3 


x 

C/3 

.fcl 

C*H 


W) 

c 

LO 

o 

o 

q 

O 

q 

q 

o 

q 

o 

o 

o 

o 

lO 

lO 

o 

lO 

o 

CO 

T— t 

03 

O 

T— i 

03 

03 

CD 

i-i 

co 

LO 

CM 

rH 

Qh 

£ 

03 

C/D 

CM 

CM 

X 

c- 

X 

00 

03 

CM 

LO 
<- 1 

LO 

tH 

LO 

O 

CD 

CD 

CM 

rH 

oo 

CO 

x 

CM 

rH 

CO 

a/ 

sh 

03  (h  t3 

<1>  o Jx 
>H  O 
fa 


CO 

a; 

O 

D 

a 

co 


£ S 
a -a 

£ £ 
a g 
co  £ 


o 

o 


o o 
o o 


o o o 


O X 
X 1 — I 
CO  O 

6 o 


oo 

o 

o 

o 


o in  o 

co  co  co 

1“ \ CO  X 


0303000)00000303000)000300 

cococDcocococccocficocflcoco 


oiooooooooaio 

CDCDCDCDC'-C'-CDC'- 


d: 

V 

Sh 

C3 

fa 


D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

03  D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D D 

G 

G 

C 

G 

G 

£ G C 

G 

G 

G 

G 

C G 

pH 

pH 

c£ 

pH 

ph 

^ ph  ph 

Ph 

ph 

pH 

pH 

PH  PH 

03 

D 

D 

CS 

"5  D D 

D 

D 

03 

CS 

D D 

C/3 

C/3 

C/3 

^ X X 

C/3 

C/3 

o 

o 

0 

o 

o 

. ° ° 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O O 

Sh 

Sh 

a 

a 

Sh 

a,  a, 

a 

a 

Sh 

Sh 

a a 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

g D D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D D 

X 

X 

OlC 

tUO 

X 

5 GUO  CUD 

COD 

CUD 

X 

X 

CJD  CJD 

G 

G 

X 

x 

G 

Sh  XS  X 

X 

X 

G 

G 

X X 

0 

0 

o 

O 

o 

o o o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o o 

Ph 

Ph 

fa 

fa 

Ph 

2 fa  fa 

fa 

fa 

Ph 

Ph 

fa  fa 

<D 


Sh 

^H 


3 3 


«*H  <+H 


0 0^0 

Q Q J Q 


H * 

c/3 

o 

Sh 
0) 

&JD  fcUO  t3 

So  £ £ c 


C/3 

03 


O o 
Q Ph 


* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

rH 

CM 

CO 

X 

LO 

CD 

t> 

03 

fa 

03 

fa 

03 

X 

03 

-Q 

03 

X co  X 

LO 

CM 

CM 

CO 

CO 

LO 

LO 

CM 

CM 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

o 

03 

*-H 


<13 

Cj 

-Si 

o 

o 

<33 

S^ 

13 

2 


<33 

■C 


Cl) 

HC 

C 

o 

<13 

c 

o 

X 

</3 

a 

2 

X 

<13 

"a 

,c 

Sh 

3 


03 

CO 

03 


"a 

CD 

o 

-Si 

o 

Cj 

<13 

Sh 

CD 

2 


03 

fa 

£ 

jp 

ns 

O 


c<3 

fa 


03 

fa 

£ 

jo 

'o 

O 


Cl 

S 

eg 


45 


Samples  not  collected  or  processed. 


APPENDIX  IV,  Con’t. 


be 

fa 

G 

co 

00 

LO 

C" 

CD 

o 

LO 

05 

CD 

HP 

o 

o 

iH 

05 

CD 

G 

fa 

CO 

o 

o 

05 

o 

O 

rH 

, 

LO 

o 

i 

, 

t> 

CM 

, 

o 

o 

, 

, , 

o 

rH 

o 

o 

o 

05 

, 

05 

O 

r } 

a 

t-H 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

q 

1 

rH 

rH 

i 

1 

r- 1 

CO 

1 

o 

o 

1 

1 * 

o 

q 

o 

o 

1—1 

q 

1 

i—i 

w 

<D 

S 

6 

o 

d 

o 

o 

o 

o 

rH 

d 

d 

o 

o 

d 

o 

o 

o 

o 

d 

o 

CO 

G 

CO 

be 

c 

+-> 

c/3 

'a 

CM 

CM 

05 

l> 

05 

CO 

rH 

o 

CO 

rH 

05 

o 

CM 

CM 

iH 

o 

rH 

o 

00 

t> 

r_ 

G 

, 

o 

CM 

o 

T— 1 

o 

CM 

co 

CD 

, 

CM 

CM 

o 

05 

O 

LO 

, 

rH 

, 05 

O 

00 

o 

O 

o 

i—i 

o 

t> 

MH 

G 

c3 

* 

o 

i — 1 

o 

ID 

o 

q 

rH 

q 

1 

rH 

t> 

o 

rH 

CO 

CM 

1 

o 

’ ® 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

CM 

rH 

rH 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

d 

d 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

d 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

w> 


fa  £ 
G 


G 

P— H 

O 

y 

Qh 

c 

q 

o 

ID 

o 

o 

o 

o 

ID 

o 

LO 

o 

o 

05 

c 

03 

c n 

LO 

iD 

co 

05 

CM 

00 

LO 

o 

rH 

rH 

LO 

i— t 

hp 

HP 

CO 

00 

d 

CM 

rH 

LO 

CO 

co 

rH 

hP 

CM 

CO 

LO 

LO 

I HP 

O ! 

: 05 

00 

! CM 

00 

! i—i 

Hp 

i— 1 

LO 

t- 

rH 

CM 

: co 

rH 

rH 

rH 

LO 

rH 

HP 

CM 

rH 

i — i 

a 

Oh 

CD 

fa 

d 

o 

o 

a 


be 

G 


,jh  a 

fa  S 


c3 

C/2 


co 

q 

q 

o 

LO 

o 

q 

LO 

o 

o 

o 

ID 

oo 

o 

o 

o 

co 

CD 

rH 

o 

o 

hp 

00 

o 

LO 

o 

HP 

HP 

o 

CO 

CD 

CO 

00 

o 

CD 

CM 

CD 

05 

rH 

CD 

CD 

O 

HP 

CM 

CM 

CM 

rH 

05 

HP 

! CO 

CM 

HP 

o 

CD 

00 

! CD 

CO 

LO 

CM 

05 

rH 

05 

rH 

LO 

iD 

00 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

CO 

LO 

rH 

HP 

HP 

i— i 

1—1 

c3 

O) 

I* 


a; 

be 


fa 


05  O 03 
CO  t-  CD 


00500500050 

C-OC^Ot>t>OI> 


05 

co 


O 05  O O 05  00  o 

I>  CD  O I>  CD  CO  tr~ 


O O 05 
C-  t>  o 


O 05 

t>  o 


O 05  O 05 
I>  CO  t>  O 


0) 

05 

05 

05 

05 

0) 

05 

05 

05 

05 

05 

05  05 

G 

£ 

G 

G 

G 

G 

G 

G 

£ 

G 

G 

G £ 

ia 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

ia 

ia 

ia 

ia 

a ia 

C3 

03 

03 

05 

JD 

05 

05 

c n 

Sh 

Sh 

c3 

c3 

^05 

CD 

H 

H 

C/3 

C/5 

05 

05 

05 

05 

05  05 

05 

05 

in 

in 

m 

■— < 

G 

G 

G 

Hh 

<+H 

m 

m 

Hh 

«+fa 

<+H 

C/3 

G 

1— < 

»— • 

G 

G 

r— H f— H 

G 

G 

O 

H 

O 

H 

O 

H 

o 

a 

’o 

a 

a 

a 

fa 

-H 

C/3 

03 

C/3 

03 

O 

H 

O 

5h 

"o 

a 

d 

a 

a 

C/2 

C/3 

03 

C/3 

05 

C/3 

o3 

03 

H 

fa 

-H 

o 

a 

o 

a 

ia 

ia 

o o 
a a 

a 

ia 

05 

05 

05 

05 

05 

05 

o 

05 

05 

05 

05 

O 

o 

05 

05 

05 

05  05 

05 

05 

fa 

fa 

fa 

CUD 

bC 

-H> 

c 

too 

&JD 

fa 

fa 

CUD 

COD 

C/3 

&G 

tuo 

tJD 

G 

COD 

CUD 

fafa 

-H 

be  tOC 

_H5 

-H> 

c 

C 

G 

fa 

fa 

c3 

3 

7-> 

G 

G 

fa 

fa 

3 

3 

3 

G 

fa 

fa 

fa  fa 

o 

o 

o 

O 

O 

1c 

fa 

05 

o 

O 

o 

o 

O 

o 

O 

o 

O 

g 

05 

o 

o 

1c 

fa 

o o 

fa 

fa 

a 

a 

a 

fa 

fa 

£ 

£ 

u 

Q 

Q 

a 

a 

fa 

fa 

Q 

Q 

Q 

£ 

o 

fa 

fa 

£ 

fa  fa 

« 05 

a fa 

S S 


C3 

c n 


CD 


O 


i-l  CM  CO  HP 

CM  CM  CM  <M 


lo  CD  C- 

CM  CM  CM 


00  05  O rH 

(M  CM  CO  CO 


CM  CO 

co  co 


03 

05 


•3 


05 


C 

g 


0) 

fa 

G 

05 


H 


G 

G 

o 


46 


APPENDIX  IV,  Con’t. 


bB 


T3 

c 

o 

CD 

co 

o 

o 

o 

CD 

T“H 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

rH 

o 

C 

'fa 

c 

, 00 

T— 1 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CD 

O 

o 

o 

o , 

, , , , o 

o 

, o 

lO  , 

. o 

o 

O 

CJ 

1 

o 

o 

o 

q 

o 

i — i 

o 

o 

q 

o ... 

, , , , <-> 

o 

1 o 

O 1 

■ o 

o 

C/D 

c 

cb 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

d 

o 

o 

o 

o 

d 

o 

o 

d 

o 

o 

d 

o 

o 

o 

.Id 

fa 


bB 

C 

'fa 

£ 

cb 

CO 


lO 

LO 

co 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

rH 

o 

co 

o 

CO 

o 

H 

T— I 

o 

T— 1 

o 

o 

rH 

o 

co 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

bB 


CO 

G 

c 

o 

"fa 

q 

o 

LO) 

q 

o 

o 

o 

LO) 

q 

o 

o 

q 

o 

LO 

o 

o 

o 

LO) 

o 

g 

LO 

id 

co 

co 

rH 

CD 

co 

00 

LO 

C- 

lO 

03 

id  : : : 

: ! ! ! rH 

rH 

rH 

LO 

CD  ! 

! ci 

CO 

03 

CO 

cb 

CO 

<N 

LO 

CD 

CO 

fa 

fa 

rH 

CD 

. — i 

fa 

<M 

rH 

CO 

rH 

rH 

CO 

rH 

S 

fa 

fa 

cu 

fa 

o 

jg 

fa 


bB 

c 


co  -h 
H fa 


fa  s 


a 

co 


o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

q 

o 

o 

q 

o 

o 

q 

q 

q 

o 

LO 

T— 1 

03 

t-H 

rH 

03 

co 

UO 

tH 

id 

00 

CO 

CD 

LO 

rH 

t-H 

CD 

CO 

rH 

(M 

rH 

T 1 

(M 

tH 

CD 

<N 

CD 

Sh 

W) 

03 

, 03 

0) 

° O 

fa 

o o 

B-  t> 


<fa  O 
CD  C" 


03 

CD 


O 03  O 
C-  CO  C" 


03  O 03  o 
CD  t>  CD  O 


03 

CD 


O 03  O 03 
t>  CD  O CD 


O 03  o o 
I>  CD  t>  t> 


03  O O 03 
CD  I>  t>  CD 


O 03  O 03 
t>  CD  l>  CD 


03 

03 

03 

03 

03 

03 

G 

G 

c 

G 

G 

c 

fa 

fa 

fa 

fa 

fa 

fa 

^03 

03 

03 

03 

0) 

cb 

cb 

03 

0) 

cb 

cb 

03 

03 

C/3 

r— ' 

c 

g 

C/3 

C/3 

G 

G 

C/3 

C/3 

G 

G 

Specie 

■fa 

cb 

o 

fa 

o 

fa 

fa 

fa 

O 

Sh 

O 

Sh 

fa 

fa 

O 

Sh 

O 

Sh 

fa 

fa 

03 

bB 

03 

bB 

03 

-H> 

0) 

03 

fa 

03 

03 

03 

■+H 

0) 

-h> 

03 

03 

03 

03 

03 

■+H 

03 

■+■> 

-4-i 

03 

O 

03 

o 

fa 

fa 

G 

o 

G 

o 

fa 

fa 

C 

o 

G 

o 

fa 

fa 

fa 

fa 

£ 

£ 

fa 

fa 

£ 

£ 

fa 

fa 

£ 

£ 

03 

03  03 

03 

03  03 

0)  03 

03  03 

G 

G G 

G 

G G 

<D 

G G 

G G 

fa 

fa  fa 

fa 

fa  fa 

Oh 

fa  fa 

fa  fa 

^03 

03  03 

J03 

03  03 

CS 

Sh 

03  03 

co 

Sh 

m<* 

Sh 

Sh 

O)  03 

rH 

3 

«4H 

<+H 

«+H 

Hh 

o 

fa 

o o 
fa  fa 

d 

a 

o o 
fa  fa 

w 

c 

O O 
fa  fa 

dC 

fafa 

i 

C/3 

03 

l 

C/3 

03 

CO 

o3 

i 

C/3 

03 

O O 
fa  fa 

03 

03  03 

03 

03  03 

Q 

03  03 

o 

03  03 

bB 

bB  bB 

bB 

bB  bB 

tJD 

bB  bB 

tJj 

bJD 

&D 

tUD 

bB  bB 

03 

03  03 

03 

03  03 

03  03 

03 

3 

3 

3 

3 

03  03 

O 

O O 

O 

O O 

Sh 

O O 

a; 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O O 

fa 

fa  fa 

fa 

fa  fa 

O 

fa  fa 

U 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Q 

fa  fa 

^ 03 

fa  fa 

S £ 

cb  3 

CO  £ 


< 

< 

< 

* 

03 

*• 

* 

cb 

* 

G3 

* 

cb 

* 

fa 

cb 

q 

id 

GO 

o 

rH 

(M 

co 

fa 

rH 

rH 

00 

oo 

C30 

03 

0D  tH 

<M 

LO 

CO 

co 

CO 

CO 

fa 

fa 

fa 

fa 

rH 

rH 

t-H 

rH 

t-H 

t-H 

CO 

a 

0) 


3 


.£  fa 

3 £ 
o 


47 


APPENDIX  IV,  Con’t 


biD 
73  G 
G fa 

o a 

£ S 


bC 

c 


fa 


a 

£ 

cd 

CO 


Cfa 

Cl. 

aT 

'Sh 

o 

3 


Sh 

a3 

a> 

>h 


0) 

COD 

o ^ 
o 

fa 


C/3 

0/ 

'o 

a; 

a 

CO 


03  £ 

fafa 

s s 

03  3 
CO  £ 


o3 

a> 

Sh 

< 


o 

o 

o 

CM 

o 

o 

CM 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 1 

, o 

o 

o , 

. o 

o 

o , 

. o 

o 

o , 

. o 

o 

o 

q 

q 

o 

o 

o 

o 

■ q 

o 

O ’ 

• o 

o 

o 1 

1 9 

o 

o 1 

1 9 

o 

o 

d 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

d 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 03  o o 
O CM  o o 
q q o o 

o 'do 


tH 

o 

CO 

co 

o 

o 

LO 

o 

LO 

o 

o 

o 

LO 

c- 

o 

o 

o 

CM 

o 

o 

o 

o 

IO 

o 

, o 

o 

o 

o 

, o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

q 

o 

o 

1 °. 

o 

q 

o 

■ o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

q 

o 

q 

LO 

o 

00 

o 

q 

o 

LO 

CO 

LO 

T- 1 

d 

00 

rH 

o 

T— 1 

l> 

CM 

CM 

d 

CM 

00 

00 

r—H 

o 

i— i 

LO 

.“H 

t-H 

CM 

co 

d 


co 


OLOcoiooiouoouoLOiooqqoqin 

HHC'o6['NI>C5I>  co  n ^ i>  o 


q q 

uo  d 


O 03  O 03  O 03 

t>  CD  O OD  t>  o 


03 

03 

03 

03 

G 

G 

G 

G 

fa 

fa 

fa 

fa 

CO 

cd 

03 

03 

C/3 

in 

C/3 

C/3 

o 

O 

O 

o 

Sh 

Sh 

Sh 

Sh 

03 

03 

03 

03 

73 

73 

73 

73 

G 

G 

C 

G 

O 

O 

O 

O 

fa 

fa 

fa 

fa 

as  a> 

s s 

£ ifa 

a>  a; 

'o  'o 
a cl 

a;  as 
W)  cuo 
73  73 

o o 

fa  fa 


LO 

CO 


CO 


o 

CO 

o 

q 

LO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

LO 

d 

o 

o 

d 

rH 

rH 

CM 

T—l 

tH 

CM 

CM 

o o lo  o q o 
oo  lo  d oo  os  d 


00  LO  lO  UO  CO 
i>  03  i>  lo  d 


000030000030000030  000030 

Ot>t>OOl>C'-C-t>COt>l>I>l>tOI>  ooooo 


Sh 


03  03 


>> 

Sh 

Sh 


03  03 


>> 

Sh 

Sh 


03  03 


>> 

Sh 

Sh 


03  0) 


C/3 

cd 

Sh 

o 

03 

fa 

03 

03 

G 

ifa 

03 

G 

ifa 

03 

£l 

C/3 

cd 

Sh 

o 

03 

fa 

0) 

03 

G 

ifa 

03 

G 

fa 

03 

C/3 

cd 

Sh 

0 

03 

fa 

03 

03 

G 

ifa 

03 

G 

ifa 

0) 

jG 

C/3 

cd 

Sh 

0 

03 

fa 

03 

03 

G 

ifa 

03 

G 

ifa 

03 

£1 

03 

’> 

4J 

_-H> 

03 

03 

’> 

-H 

-H> 

03 

03 

’> 

-H> 

03 

03 

'> 

-H> 

-H 

03 

G 

Sh 

03 

CO 

ifa 

i£ 

Sh 

G 

Sh 

03 

co 

i£ 

ic 

Sh 

cd 

G 

Sh 

03 

CO 

i£ 

ic 

Sh 

cd 

G 

Sh 

03 

CO 

fa 

fa 

Sh 

cd 

ifa 

£ 

£ 

fa 

ifa 

£ 

£ 

fa 

ifa 

£ 

£ 

fa 

ifa 

£ 

£ 

fa 

i-H  (N  CO 


^ lO  00  t> 


00  03  O H 


CM  CO  ^ IO 


co 


6 

03 

Sh 

o 

U 


g 

03 

s 

‘C 

03 

a 

x 

H 


cn 

03 

Sh 

o 

fa 


48 


Hungry  Horse  13a*  Lodgepole  Pine  70  2.0 

Reservoir  13b*  Lodgepole  Pine  69  12.0 


APPENDIX  IV,  Con’t 


tic 


T3  G 
G JO 
O Cu 


O O O O O O 

O O O O O O 

o o o o o o 

d>  d d>  d>  d>  d> 


o 

o 

o 10 

d d 

CM 


CU 

cu 

oT 

T3 

'C 

o 

&4 


toe 


o o 
o o 
o o 

o o 


i i 

i i 


o o 
o o 
° 9 
o o 


LO  LO 

t>  d 


o o 
o o 
o o 

o o 


o LO 

^ 06 


o o 

O r— I 

o o 
o o 


LO  LO 

t>  o 


O CM 
O CO 
O O 

o o 


lo  o 

oo  ^ 

CM 


o o o o o 

d id  cm  lo  d 


q co  io 
d d r-5 


LO  LO 

t>  d 
CM 


O 02  O 02  O 02  o 
t>  CO  O CD  t>  <o  o 


02  O 02 
CO  t>  CO 


02 

02 

02 

02 

02 

02 

02 

02 

02 

02 

G 

c 

G 

C 

c 

G 

G 

G 

G 

G 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

02 

02 

02 

02 

02 

02 

0) 

02 

02 

02 

4-4 

44> 

+4 

-1-5 

4-5 

4-4 

4-4 

4-4 

+4 

4-4 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

02  02 
1 1 
w £ 


JO 

CM 


CO 


00 


c3 

02 

J-i 


< 


49 


Appendix  V 


REGRESSION  ANALYSES  OF  FLUORIDE 
ON  INJURY  INDEX' 


Shrubs 

Conifers 

1969 

1970 

n 

60 

130 

67 

Slope 

-.002318 

.0001297 

.0001038 

Y - Intercept 

2.461 

.122416 

.0692 

F - Ratio  for  Slope 

.5136 

10.9345 

.970 

Significance  of  F - ratio 

N.S.2 

H.S.3 

N.S. 

Correlation 

-.094 

.2805 

.1213 

Significance  of  Correlation 

N.S. 

H.S. 

N.S. 

1 Data  from  first  sampling  period  only 

2 N.S.  — Non  significant , 95  percent  level. 

2 H.S.  — Highly  significant,  99  percent  level. 

50 


Appendix  VI 


FLUORIDE  ACCUMULATION  LEVELS  IN  INSECTS 


Insect 

Date  Collected 

PPM*  Fluoride 

Pollinators: 

Bumblebee  — Bombus  sp. 

August  12,  1970 

406.0 

Bumblebee  — Bombus  sp. 

June  1,  1970 

194.0 

Sphinx  moth  — Hemaris  sp. 

June  1,  1970 

394.0 

Honey  bee  — Apis  mellifera 

June  1,  1970 

221.0 

Skipper  butterfly  — Erynnis 

August  12,  1970 

146.0 

Wood  nymph  butterfly  — Cercyonis  sp. 

August  12,  1970 

58.0 

Foliage  feeders: 

Weevils  — Mixed  curculionids 

June  1,  1970 

48.6 

Grasshoppers  — Melanoplus  sp. 

August  12,  1970 

31.0 

Larch  Casebearer  — Coleophora  laricella 

June  1,  1970 

25.5 

Cicadas  — Cicadidae 

June  1, 1970 

21.3 

Cambium  Feeders: 

Engraver  beetles  — Ips  sp. 
Flathead  beetle 

October  9,  1970 

52.5 

Mixed  buprestids 
Red  turpentine  beetle  — 

June  1,  1970 

20.0 

Dendroctonus  valens  LeConte 

June  1,  1970 

11.5 

Douglas-fir  beetle  — 

Dendroctonus  pseudotsugae  Hopk. 
Flatheaded  beetle  larvae  — 

October  9,  1970 

9.4 

Mixed  buprestids 

October  9,  1970 

8.5 

Predators: 

Ants 

June  1,  1970 

170.0 

Ostomids  — Temnochila  sp. 

June  1,  1970 

53.4 

Damsel  flies  — Argia  sp. 

June  1,  1970 

21.7 

Longlegged  fly  — Medeterus  sp. 

October  9,  1970 

10.2 

Ostomid  larvae 

October  9,  1970 

6.1 

Miscellaneous  Insects: 

Long  horned  beetles 

Mixed  Cerambycids 

August  12,  1970 

47.5 

Click  beetles 

Mixed  elaterids 

June  1,  1970 

36.0 

Black  Scavanger 

Cerambycid 

June  1,  1970 

18.8 

*PPM  = parts  per  million  by  dry  weight 

51 


APPENDIX  VI,  Con’t 


CONTROL  INSECT  SAMPLES 


Insect 

Date  Collected 

PPM*  Fluoride 

Larch  casebearer 

June  1, 1970 

16.5 

Bark  beetle  — Ips  sp. 

October  9,  1970 

11.5 

Honey  bees 

June  1,  1970 

10.5 

Damselflies 

June  1,  1970 

9.2 

Grasshoppers 

August  12,  1970 

7.5 

Bumblebees 

June  1,  1970 

7.5 

Barkbeetles  — Dendroctonus  ualens 

June  1,  1970 

4.8 

Flathead  beetles 

June  1,  1970 

3.5 

52 


Appendix  VII 


LARCH  CASEBEARER  PER  100  SPURS  SAMPLED 


Miles 


Radii 


plant 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Ave. 

1/4 

-- 

-- 

- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

- 

0 

-- 

-- 

0 

1/2 

-- 

0 

0 

- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

0 

14.4 

17.4 

6.4 

1 

33.4 

13.0 

0 

-- 

-- 

- 

-- 

- 

.2 

16.4 

12.6 

2 

15.8 

8.6 

- 

0 

-- 

-- 

- 

.2 

0 

8.0 

4.9 

4 

27.6 

1.4 

.75 

0 

-- 

0 

.4 

17.4 

-- 

1.2 

6.3 

8 

- 

- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

5.0 

- 

12.8 

8.9 

Ave. 

25.6 

5.6 

.25 

0 

0 

.4 

4.5 

4.9 

11.2 

Checks:  No.  1 - 8.6;  No.  2 = 0;  No.  3 = 0;  No.  4 = 27.6 


53 


U) 

a 

J 

Q 

a 

H 

£ 

W 

a 

o 

Ph 

a 

o 

Q 

O 

a 

o 

o 

CD 

PS 

W 

a 

ca 

H 

a 

< 

U 

co 

a 

a 

Q 

a 

a 

£ 

a 

g 

E 


IN 

IN 

rH 

00 

o 

1 

co 

HP 

rH 

Ave. 

[N 

1 

T— 1 

(M 

LO 

LO 

t-H 

HP 

o 

1 

i — 1 

IN 

<M 

<M 

CO 

CD 

1 

CD 

o 

1 

1 

1 

O 

CM 

rH 

in 

1 

l 

1 

1 

o 

03 

l 

l 

1 

1 

r-H 

o 

LO 

i— i 

CD 

1 

i 

1 

O 

1 

1 

1 

O 

i 

o 

o 

IN 

1 

l 

1 

i 

03 

03 

1 

l 

1 

O 

i 

o 

o 

CD 

1 

1 

1 

■ 

O 

1 

l 

1 

o 

i— 1 

o 

CO 

t> 

1 

1 

1 

00 

03 

1 

l 

1 

o 

<M 

o 

rH 

CD 

1 

l 

1 

O 

1 

1 

1 

CO 

o 

rH 

IN- 

1 

1 

1 

in 

03 

l 

1 

1 

1 

IN 

o 

00 

CD 

1 

1 

1 

1 

LO 

CM 

70 

1 

1 

i 

1 

1 

1 

T— 1 

o 

o 

CO 

CD 

03 

1 

1 

1 

o 

o 

03 

CD 

CD 

1 

1 

1 

r— 1 

CO 

<M 

03 

rH 

O 

1 

l 

1 

HP 

LO 

IN- 

1 

l 

1 

rH 

O 

00 

<M 

IN 

LO 

03 

, 

, 

1 

CO 

IN 

CO 

CD 

1 

1 

T— 1 

<M 

rH 

O 

1 

1 

t-H 

o 

O 

HP 

t> 

1 

1 

r— 1 

03 

1 

1 

1 

03 

o 

o 

CO 

CD 

1 

l 

1 

03 

CO 

O 

o 

<M 

o 

LO 

O 

1 

HP 

1 

HP 

IN 

1 — 1 

1 

O 

o 

00 

o 

IN 

CO 

03 

1 

h* 

CM 

(M 

1 

03 

CD 

1 

i — I 

<M 

1 

03 

r— 1 

O 

o 

o 

CD 

<M 

Hp 

O 

, 

<M 

IN 

1 

LO 

HP 

O 

o 

<M 

o 

00 

1- 1 

CM 

<M 

03 

1 

o 

<M 

CD 

1 

i— i 

* 

O 

1 

i 

o 

oo 

o 

rH 

(M 

IN 

1 

i 

CO 

rH 

rH 

* 

i-l 

03 

i 

T— 1 

LO 

o 

CD 

O 

CD 

J 

i 

LO 

<M 

(M 

W c 

4-s 

03  C 

O C 

G 

c3 

51 

<N 

03 

> 

§ <H  D< 

rH 

t-H 

r— H 

<M 

Hp 

oo 

c 

CO 

II 

a> 

> 

< 


nt< 

o 

r— I 
II 

CO 

* 

o 

o 


CM 


o 

o 


W3 

a 

CJ 

a; 


6 


<y  o> 
Lac  tic 

•2  -2 
'*■«»» 

o o 

a a 


03  © 
© IN 
03  03 

’-I  ’'H 


03  © 
CO  IN 

* * 


54 


m 


cn 

H 

a 

Q 

H 

W 

£ 

CO 

O 

a 

Q 

£ 

O 

a 

o 

o 

CD 

a 

a 

CO 

a 

a 

< 

u 

CO 

a 

a 

Q 

a 

a 

£ 

a 

£ 

HH 

a 


05 


00 


Q 

< 

a 


CD 


LO 


CO 


o 

T— 1 

t- 

o 

o 

o 

t> 

69 

m 

o 

t> 

o 

o 

CD 

CO 

<N 

co 

rH 

o 

1 

o 

in 

i 

o 

o 

t> 

1 

CO 

69 

<N 

c- 

i 

o 

o 

1 

1—1 

t— t 

o 

1 

o 

i 

i> 

1 

1 

i 

1 

! 

05 

1 

1 

o 

i 

1 

CD 

1 

1 

i 

1 

1 

O 

1 

1 

o 

i 

o 

1 

c- 

1 

1 

i 

1 

05 

1 

1 

CD 

i 

o 

1 

CD 

1 

1 

i 

1 

O 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 

1 

I> 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 

1 

05 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 

1 

CD 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 

1 

O 

1 

1 

1 

i 

t> 

1 

1 

1 

i 

! 

1 

05 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 

CD 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 

O 

1 

1 

1 

t> 

1 

1 

1 

1 

s 

1 

05 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 

CD 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

O 

1 

1 

1 

o 

1 

1 

1 

1 

! 

1 

05 

i 

05 

i 

CO 

CD 

i 

<N 

i 

o 

i 

rH 

o 

t- 

i 

s 

1 

! 

05 

i 

1 

<N 

o 

CD 

i 

! 

1 

S 

* 

o 

71 

1 

O 

1 1 
1 1 

i 

* 

05 

CD 

365 

3 

rH 

1 1 
1 1 

j 

plant 

rH 

1/2 

rH 

00 

t> 


05 

t> 


o 


o 


o 


CO 


1 

1 

o 

m 

1 

05 

> 

< 

1 

1 

— | 

o 

© 

=n= 

o 

a 

05 

05 

a 

O 


in 

CO 

CD 

X 

CO 

05 

05 

X 

U 

in 

i—i 

X 

05 

05 

X 

O 

•_*' 

05 

m 

I 

CO 

i 

o 

•S 

£ 

CO 

CD 

03 

CO 

00 

i—( 

03 

1—1 

i-i 

C/3 

II 

X 

03 

05* 

05 

CO 

05 

* 

> 

X 

< 

O 

55 


*70  = 1970  Foliage 


Appendix  X 


“REGRESSION  ANALYSIS  OF  PINE  NEEDLE  SCALES  ON  FLUORIDE  CONTENT” 

Y X 


Radius 

Plot  Number 

Number  of  Scales 

Fluoride  Content 

1 

3 

1 

40.7 

4 

55 

18.5 

5 

0 

9.0 

7 

26 

4.5 

2 

2 

1085 

100.8 

3 

4 

124.7 

4 

10 

17.3 

5 

0 

16.0 

7 

2 

8.5 

3 

2 

140 

496.5 

3 

220 

294.5 

4 

28 

85.5 

5 

0 

42.8 

4 

4 

99 

286.3 

5 

0 

53.3 

7 

0 

11.0 

5 

4 

0 

228.7 

5 

138 

56.5 

7 

272 

28.5 

6 

4 

10 

140 

5 

0 

27.0 

7 

9 

18.8 

7 

5 

57 

51.5 

7 

0 

14.0 

56 


APPENDIX  X,  Con’t 


Radius 

Plot  Number 

Y 

X 

Number  of  Scales 

Fluoride  Content 

8 

4 

0 

56.0 

5 

2 

28.1 

7 

0 

14.0 

9 

4 

0 

41.5 

7 

0 

4.0 

10 

5 

1 

20.8 

7 

0 

4.7 

Linear  Regression  Analysis 

Y = A+BX 
A = 42.036 
B = 0.365 

Correlation  Coefficient  = .201  N.S.1 
1 Nonsignificant 


57 


The  Forest  Service  of  the  U.S.  Department  of 
Agriculture  is  dedicated  to  the  principle  of 
multiple  use  management  of  the  Nation's  forest 
resources  for  sustained  yields  of  wood,  water, 
forage,  wildlife  and  recreation.  Through  forestry 
research,  cooperation  with  the  States  and  private 
forest  owners,  and  management  of  the  National 
Forests  and  National  Grasslands,  it  strives  — 
as  directed  by  Congress  — to  provide  increasingly 
greater  service  to  a growing  Nation.