••
600/ l
.  03 I
vyEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Research
Laboratory
Duluth MN 55804
EPA-600/3-80-038
March 1980
           Research and Development
            Protection Agency
             Region 9

             UN 1
Environmental
Effects of Western
Coal Surface Mining

Part V
Age and Growth of
Walleyes and
Saugers in the
Tongue River
Reservoir, Montana
1975-77
 EJBD
 ARCHIVE
 EPA

-------
                RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology.  Elimination  of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:

      1.   Environmental  Health Effects Research
      2.   Environmental  Protection Technology
      3.   Ecological Research
      4.   Environmental  Monitoring
      5.   Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
      6.   Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
      7.   Interagency  Energy-Environment Research and Development
      8.   "Special" Reports
      9.   Miscellaneous Reports

This report has been assigned to the ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH series. This series
describes research on the effects of pollution on humans, plant and animal spe-
cies, and  materials. Problems are assessed for their long- and short-term influ-
ences. Investigations include formation, transport, and pathway studies to deter-
mine the fate of pollutants and their effects. This work provides the technical basis
for setting standards to minimize undesirable changes in living organisms in the
aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric environments.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service. Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                                            EPA-600/3-80-038
                                                            March 1980
2
                ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF WESTERN COAL SURFACE MltiJtyM
               PART V - AGE AND GROWTH OF WALLEYES AND SAUGERS IN THE
                     TONGUE RIVER RESERVOIR, MONTANA, 1975-77
                                        by

                      Victor L.  Riggs and Richard W. Gregory
                         Cooperative Fishery Research Unit
                            Montana State University
                              Bozeman, Montana 59717
                                Grant No0  R803950
                                  Project Officer
                                  Donald I. Mount
                         Environmental Research Laboratory
                              Duluth, Minnesota 55804


                         us EPA          .            Repository Material
                                SSS11"        permanent Collection
>                   Mailcode 3404T
                  1301 Constitution Ave NW
                    Washington DC 20004
                        202-566-0556
                         ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
                        OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
                       U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                              DULUTH, MINNESOTA 55804

-------
                                  DISCLAIMER

     This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Research Laboratory-
Duluth, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention
of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
                                      ii

-------
                                    FOREWORD

     As additional surface mining for coal in Western U.S.  occurs, the
potential disruption of surface waters or their degradation is of increasing
importance.  This study was completed to identify discernible impacts on
walleye and sauger populations in southeastern Montana as a result of strip
mining of coal.

     No measurable impacts were found although the dilution volume into
which the drainage emptied was relatively large.  This study provides a
background against which future evaluations can be assessed.
                                       J. David Yount
                                       Deputy Director
                                     m

-------
                                  ABSTRACT

     A study was conducted between 1975-1977 on the populations of walleye
(Stizostedion vitreum) and sauger (Stizostedion canadense) in the Tongue River
Reservoir, in southeastern Montana.   The Tongue River Reservoir is the recipi-
ent of mine water effluents from the Decker Mine, the largest surface coal
mine in the western United States.  The objective of the study was to deter-
mine possible impacts of the mine on the walleye and sauger populations in
the reservoir, and to provide data against which future comparisons can be
made.  These species were chosen because they are two of the most important
game fishes in the reservoir.

     The age and growth of 640 walleyes and 546 saugers were determined from
collections made in gill nets, trap nets, and by electrofishing.   The 1973
sauger year class and the 1972 walleye year class dominated the catches
during the three years of the study.  The movements of tagged fish in late
March and early April 1977 strongly suggested that walleyes spawned in the
Tongue River, upstream from the reservoir.  The growth rates for both
species were excellent for a northern latitude reservoir, indicating no
noticeable effect by surface coal mine operations at the time of the study.
                                     IV

-------
                                  CONTENTS
                                                                         Page
Foreword	   in
Abstract	    iv
Figures	    vi
Tables	vii
Acknowledgments  	    ix
  I  Introduction  	     1
 II  Conclusions 	     4
III  Recommendations 	     5
 IV  Description of Study Area	     6
  V  Materials and Methods 	    14
 VI  Results and Discussion	    16
     A.  Sauger Population Characteristics  	    16
     B.  Walleye Population Characteristics   	    26
     C.  Movement of Tagged Walleyes  	    37
     D.  Tag Loss	    43
     E.  Deviation from  Lee's Phenomenon  	    43
VII  Potential Impacts of Surface  Coal Mining  	    45
References	    51

-------
                                   FIGURES
Number                                                                  Page
  1  Map of Montana showing location of study area 	    2
  2  Study area, showing locations of present and proposed surface
     coal mining areas 	    7
  3  Discharge rates of the Tongue River near Decker, Montana  	    9
  4  Water level elevations above sea level for the Tongue River
     Reservoir	   10
  5  Water storage history of the Tongue River Reservoir 	   11
  6  Length-scale relation of saugers from the Tongue River Reservoir  .   18
  7  Growth in length of saugers from the Tongue River Reservoir 	   21
  8  Length-weight relation of saugers from the Tongue River Reservoir .   23
  9  Growth in weight of saugers from the Tongue River Reservoir ....   25
 10  Length-scale relation of walleyes from the Tongue River Reservoir .   28
 11  Growth in length of walleyes from the Tongue River Reservoir  ...   33
 12  Growth curves for male and female walleyes collected in the Tongue
     River Reservoir and Tongue River study areas in 1977  	   34
 13  Length-weight relation of walleyes from the Tongue River
     Reservoir	38
 14  Growth in weight of walleyes from the Tongue River Reservoir  ...   39
 15  Tagging  locations in the Tongue River Reservoir of five adult
     male walleyes recaptured in the Tongue River   	  41
 16  Recapture  locations in the Tongue River Reservoir of six adult
     male walleyes previously captured in the Tongue River 	  42
                                      vi

-------
                                   TABLES

Number

  1  Morphometric data of the Tongue River Reservoir at spillway
     elevation .............................    8

  2  Species of fishes present in the Tongue River Reservoir,
     1975-1977 .............................   13

  3  Lengths and weights of saugers from the Tongue River Reservoir
     in each age class at time of capture  ...............   17

  4  Back calculated  lengths of saugers from the Tongue River
     Reservoir, 1975-1977  .......................   19

  5  Calculated lengths of saugers of different ages from various
     waters   ..............................   22

  6  Estimated weight- to- length relation for saugers from the Tongue
     River  Reservoir  ..........................   24

  7  Lengths  and weights of walleyes  from the Tongue River Reservoir
     in each  age class at time of  capture   ...............   27

  8  Back calculated  lengths of walleyes from the Tongue River
     Reservoir, 1975-1977   .......................   29

  9  Back calculated  lengths of male  and female walleyes collected
     from the Tongue  River  Reservoir, 1977  ...............   30

  10  Back calculated  lengths of male  and female walleyes collected
     from the Tongue  River,  1977  ....................   31

  11   Lengths  and weights  of young-of-the-year walleyes from the
     Tongue River  Reservoir, September  1976  ..............   35

  12  Calculated  lengths  of  walleyes of  different  ages  from various
     waters  ..............................   36

  13   Estimated weight- to- length  relation for walleyes  from the
      Tongue River Reservoir  ......................  40
  14  Averages and ranges of some chemical  and physical  parameters
      of the Tongue River Reservoir, November 1975 to November 1976 ...   46
                                    vii

-------
                                   TABLES

Number                                                                  Page

 15  Average values of selected parameters measured in the Decker
     Mine discharge water and in the Tongue River above and below
     the mine discharge, June 1975 to November 1976	48
                                     viii

-------
                               ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

     The authors thank those who assisted in this study:   Dalton E.
Burkhalter, who assisted in the computer analysis of data; Allen A.  Elser
and the Montana Department of Fish and Game, who provided field assistance
and equipment; and Russell R. Penkal, Janet Amestoy, and Stephen Leathe,
who aided in the field work.  The Decker Coal Company provided research
station facilities.

     This research was funded in part by the Montana Department of Fish and
Game, and by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research
Laboratory - Duluth, Research Grant No. R803950, awarded to Natural  Resource
Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, and Fisheries Bioassay
Laboratory, Montana State University.

-------
                                  SECTION I

                                INTRODUCTION


     The Tongue River watershed, including the Tongue River Reservoir,  lies
in the Fort Union Coal Basin, an area that encompasses a large portion  of
eastern Montana (Figure 1) as well as parts of northern Wyoming and western
North Dakota.  The Fort Union Basin, and other coal deposits in the northern
Great Plains, contain nearly half of the nation's known coal reserves.   To
meet the nation's growing energy demands, surface coal mining in the Fort
Union Basin is rapidly increasing.

     The largest surface coal mine in the Tongue River area is the Decker
Mine, located on the  southwest shore of the Tongue River Reservoir in east-
ern Montana, just north of the Wyoming border.  The Decker Mine began opera-
tion in 1972, and is  currently being expanded to the southeastern shore of
the Reservoir; permit application has been made for expansion northward
along the western shore.  As the mine expands, and production increases, the
Decker Mine  complex  is projected to be the largest surface coal mine in the
world. In addition to the Decker Mine, other mines are  located in the Tongue
River watershed, farther up  river in Wyoming.  Resource development plans
also call for construction of mine-mouth coal-fired power plants in that
same region.

     Historically, water from the Tongue River has been used  for agricultur-
al purposes  and the  raising  of  livestock.   In 1939 an  earthfill dam was com-
pleted on the Tongue River,  forming  a  reservoir  for  flood control and  irriga-
tion water  storage.   In recent years the reservoir has  also become an
important recreation area.

     The potential  impacts from coal mining  and  proposed coal combustion
facilities  on  the Tongue  River  system  are  largely  unknown.  To provide  a
basis  for measuring  that  impact,  a  variety of  studies  have  been undertaken
by the Montana Cooperative Fishery  Research  Unit,  U.S.  Fish and Wildlife
Service, on the  present status  of the  aquatic  biota  of the  river and reser-
voir.  The  research  reported here is the result  of a study  conducted between
1975  and 1977  on  the populations  of walleye  (Stizostedion  vitreum)  and
sauger (S.  canadense) in  the Tongue River  Reservoir.   These are two of the
most  important sport fishes  in  the  reservoir,  and  are highly  sought by
fishermen  because of their  large  size  and  the excellent quality and flavor
of  their  flesh.   The immediate  objective of the  present research was to
study the  populations,  age  and  growth,  and life  histories  of  the walleyes
and  saugers in the Reservoir,  and to see what discernable  impact,  if any,
present coal mining operations  might be having on  these fishes.  The longer


                                      1

-------
 I—
I
    s

              ^
                    M
                      Heleno
                     Bozeman i
N
                                            Packer.   . _jv
                                                          -Tongue River Reservoir
                                 ^71 Fort  Union  CooTRegion
Figure 1.   Map of Montana showing  location of study area.

-------
range objective is to provide information against which comparisons can be
made in the future as mining operations in the Tongue River watershed in-
crease.

     Additional studies on the aquatic biota of the Tongue River and Reser-
voir will be reported separately.  These include reports on the microbiolog-
ical community within the Decker Mine settling pond (Turbak et al.  In press),
the limnology of the Tongue River Reservoir (Whalen 1979), and the distribu-
tion and behavior of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) and largemouth
bass (M. salmoides) in the reservoir (Penkal and Gregory, in press).  Infor-
mation from these and the present study will be of value in formulating
recommendations for institution of appropriate safeguards to protect aquatic
life as mining and combustion operations expand in this region of the coun-
try with relatively little water and a fragile environment.

-------
                                 SECTION II

                                 CONCLUSIONS
1.    Growth of both the walleye and sauger In the Tongue River Reservoir was
     excellent for a northern body of water.   Characteristics of the popula-
     tions were:   (a) the greatest increment of growth in length for both
     species occurred during the first year of life and the greatest weight
     increment during the third year; (b) annulus formation of both species
     occurred primarily in June; (c) saugers collected were up to seven
     years old and walleyes up to 11 years; (d) female walleyes of all  age
     groups collected were significantly larger than males; (e) the 1972
     walleye year class and the 1973 sauger year class were predominant
     during the three years of this study, representing from 37 to 56 per-
     cent and 29 to 45 percent of the catch, respectively; the 1973 walleye
     year class was noticeably weak.

2.    Tag and recapture studies demonstrated that some sexually mature wall-
     eyes migrate from the reservoir into the Tongue River in the spring,
     presumably to spawn.  Male and female walleyes captured in the river
     were slightly larger than fish of the same age class collected in the
     reservoir.  The tag and recapture studies did not yield sufficient data
     for comparable conclusions for saugers.   The significance of the river
     as a spawning habitat and the resultant contribution to reservoir
     populations of walleyes and saugers has not been determined.

3.    Based on the data collected, there is no apparent evidence that the
     presence of surface mining activities adjacent to the reservoir, or the
     addition of the mine discharge water after mixing with the Tongue River
     water source to the reservoir, is affecting the growth, reproduction,
     survival, or movements of walleyes or saugers within the reservoir.

-------
                                 SECTION III

                               RECOMMENDATIONS


     Further monitoring of walleye and sauger populations in the Tongue
River and Reservoir and concurrent water chemistry studies will  be necessary
to determine if increased mining activities and associated human population
increases adversely affect these fish populations.

     Information that will be critical for determining potential effects
include:  (a) the future trends in growth, abundance, distribution, and age
structure of sport fishes; (b) the influence of human population increases
on fishing pressure and sport fish harvest; (c) the importance of the Tongue
River as a spawning area; (d) the food and habitat requirements of each
species at various life stages; (e) water quality data, including nutrients,
temperature, salinity, and concentrations of trace metals, on the mine
discharges and the receiving waters; (f) data on trace metal accumulation in
fish tissues.

-------
                                 SECTION IV

                          DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
     The Tongue River Reservoir (Figure 2) is located in Big Horn County in
southeastern Montana, 23 km north of Sheridan, Wyoming.   It is the only
major impoundment on the Tongue River.   The river originates on the eastern
slopes of the Big Horn Mountains of Wyoming and flows in a northeast direc-
tion for 105 river kilometers until reaching the reservoir.  The drainage
area above the reservoir is 4584 km2 [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1976].
The river continues for 271 km beyond the reservoir to its confluence with
the Yellowstone River at Miles City, Montana.

     The reservoir was created for irrigation and flood control purposes,
and the earthfill dam (27.7 m high) was completed in 1939.  At spillway
level (1043 m above sea level) the reservoir floods an area of about 1415 ha
(USGS and Montana Department of State Lands 1977).  At storage capacity the
reservoir has a maximum length of 12.5 km, a maximum width of 1.4 km, and an
average depth of 6.1 m (Garrison et al. 1975).  The surface area is 1277 ha,
the length of shoreline at spillway elevation is 60 km, and the shoreline
development index is 4.74 (Penkal 1977).  The shoreline development index is
the ratio of the length of the shoreline to the length of the circumference
of a circle having the same area as the lake (Hutchinson 1957).  The initial
storage capacity of the reservoir was estimated at about 8939 ha-m in May
1939 (Dendy and Champion 1973); by 1948, sedimentation had decreased the
capacity to about 8557 ha-m.   Assuming similar rates of sedimentation, the
1975 capacity was estimated to be about 7398 ha-m (USGS and Montana Depart-
ment of State Lands 1977).  Selected morphometric characteristics of the
Tongue River Reservoir are listed in Table 1.

     Peak runoff in the river usually occurs during late May and early June,
but 1975 was an exceptional year; runoff persisted from early May to mid-
July (Figure 3).  The high runoff in 1975, coupled with an extensive late
summer draw-down, resulted in a reservoir fluctuation of about 8 m (Figure
4).  Water levels in 1976 and 1977, when fluctuations were 5 m and 6 m, were
closer to normal.  The greater water level fluctuation in 1975 is apparent
from the water storage history of the reservoir (Figure 5).  Annual water
level fluctuations prevent the development of shoreline and emergent vegeta-
tion.

     The river study section was approximately 3.1 river kilometers long and
contained areas of gravel substrate which appeared suitable for walleye and
sauger spawning.  During the study period the ice cover broke up on April
23, 1975; April 3, 1976; and April 6, 1977.

-------
                     TONGUE  RIVER

                      RESERVOIR
Figure 2.   Study area, showing locations of present and proposed surface
           coal mining areas.  [Numbers designate water sampling stations
           of Whalen (1979) discussed in section VII]

-------
    TABLE 1.   MORPHOMETRIC DATA OF THE TONGUE RIVER RESERVOIR AT SPILLWAY
                     ELEVATION (1043 m ABOVE SEA LEVEL).
Maximum depth (m)-7                                              18.0
Mean depth (m)-7                                                  6.1
Depth of outlet (m)-7                                            15.2
Maximum length (km)-7                                            12.5
Maximum breadth (km)-7                                            1.4
Mean breadth (km)-7                                               1.1
Surface area (ha)-7                                            1277
Volume (ha-m)-7                                                7398
Length of shoreline (km)-                                        60
Index for shoreline development-                                  4.74

^Garrison et aL 1975.
-7USGS and Montana Department of State Lands 1977.
-7Penkal 1977.
                                     8

-------
          25
          20
          15
      o
      o
      o
      uu

      O  10-
      Of.  lvr
      

      O
                1975


                1976


                1977
            JAN FEB  MAR  APR   MAY   JUN  JUL  AUO  SEP  OCT  NOV  DEC



                                   MONTH
Figure 3.  Discharge  rates  of the Tongue River near Decker, Montana (USGS

           1976, 1977,  and  1978).

-------
    1O44


    1043


    1042


    1041


    1O4Oi
<  1039-
    103&


    1037


    1036


    103&
               JAN"  FEB MAR ' APR ' MAY  JUN " JUL '  AUG  SEP   OCT ' NOV  DEC

                                           MONTH
       Figure 4.  Water level elevations above sea level  for the Tongue River Reservoir.
                 (Montana Department of Natural Resources, unpublished data)

-------
      O
      O
      O
      O
      <
      oc
      O
                1956 57 58 59 *> 61 62 63 04 «5 60 67 68 09 70 71 77 73 74 75 70 77


                                         YEAR
Figure 5.  vtoter storage  history  of  the  Tongue  River Reservoir.
           (Montana Department of Natural  Resources, unpublished data).
                                     11

-------
     A warmwater fisheries program was implemented at the reservoir in 1963.
Prior to this time, rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) had been planted,  but
their numbers remained low, and populations of rough fish, remaining from a
rehabilitation project in 1957, increased.   The warmwater species planted
included northern pike (Esox lucius), channel  catfish (Ictalurus punctatus),
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and walleye.   White crappie (Pomoxis
annularis) and black crappie (Pomoxis"nigromaculatus) were present prior to
the 1957 rehabilitation and were abundant at the time of our study (Penkal
1977).  Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) first appeared in 1972 and
are believed to have entered the reservoir as  a result of overflow from
stripmine ponds near Sheridan,  Wyoming (Elser  1975).   Saugers first appeared
in the reservoir in 1973 and are believed to stem from a planting by the
Wyoming Game and Fish Department in the Tongue River near the Montana-
Wyoming border in 1967 (Elser et al. 1977). Walleye fry were planted as
follows:  1965—750,000; 1966—100,000; 1967—197,700; 1968—601,200;  and
1969—92,500.  Of the warmwater fishes present in the reservoir, only
northern pike are not self-sustaining.  A list of the species present is
given in Table 2.
                                    12

-------
      TABLE 2.  SPECIES OF FISHES PRESENT IN THE TONGUE RIVER RESERVOIR,
                                  1975-1977
    Common name
    Scientific name
Trouts
  Rainbow trout
  Brown trout

Minnows and carps
  Carp
  Goldfish
  Golden shiner
  Flathead chub

Suckers
  River carpsucker
  Shorthead redhorse
  Longnose sucker
  White sucker

Catfishes
  Black bullhead
  Yellow bullhead
  Channel catfish
  Stonecat

Sunfishes
  Rock bass
  Green sunfish
  Pumpkinseed
  Smallmouth bass
  Largemouth bass
  White crappie
  Black crappie

Pikes
  Northern pike

Perches
  Yellow perch
  Sauger
  Walleye
Salmonidae
  Sal mo gairdneri
  S.  trutta

Cyprinidae
  Cyprinus carpio
  Carassius auratus
  NotemigoTius crysoleucas
  Hybopsis gracilis

Catostomidae
  Carpi odes carpio
  Moxostonii macrolepidotum
  Catostomus catostomus
  C.  commersoivf

Ictaluridae
  Ictalurus melas
  I.
  1.
     natal is
  _  punctatus
  Noturus flavus

Centrarchidae
  Ambloplites rupestris
  Lepomis cyanellus
  L. gibbosus
  Micropterus dolomieui
  M. salmoides
  Pomoxis annularis
  £. nigromaculatus

Esocidae
  Esox lucius

Percidae
  Perca flavescens
  Stizostedion canadense
  S. vitreum
                                     13

-------
                                  SECTION V

                            MATERIALS AND METHODS
     Walleyes and saugers were captured at numerous locations throughout the
reservoir with trap nets and gill nets in 1975, 1976, and 1977.   The fishes
were widely distributed, and at any location on any given occasion no more
than 20 individuals were captured; most frequently the numbers were five or
less.  During September 1976 electrofishing proved successful for collecting
young-of-the-year walleyes and 2- and 3-year-old saugers.  In addition,
fishes were sampled in the river study section during spring 1977 by elec-
trofishing.  Electrofishing was conducted in the reservoir at night and in
the river during the day.  Direct current was used in both waters.  The
shocking gear consisted of a modified Smith Root Model VI electrofishing
boat (Penkal 1977), a model VP-10 Coffelt variable voltage pulsator, and a
230-volt, 4000-watt, AC generator.  Total lengths were measured to the
nearest millimeter and weights to the nearest 10 grams.  Fish were tagged
with Floy FD-67 anchor tags in 1975 and 1976, and Floy FD-68B anchor tags in
1977.  A right pelvic clip was used in 1976 and a left pelvic clip in 1977
as a precaution in the event of tag loss.  Sex was determined by manually
expressing eggs or milt from ripe fish or by dissection.

     Scale samples for age and growth determination were taken from the
fish's left side, just posterior to the pectoral fin.  Cellulose acetate
impressions were examined with a scale projector at a magnification of 66X.
Total scale radius and radius at each annul us were measured from the center
of the focus to the median anterior margin.  The anterior edge of the scale
was considered the annulua for the period January 1 until the beginning of
spring growth.

     The length-scale radius relations for walleyes and saugers in the
Tongue River Reservoir is curvilinear.  The equation best describing this
relation is:


                                   L = aSb

     or                    log L = log a + b log S

where L = length, S = scale radius, and a and b are constants determined by
linear regression, using logarithms of the length and scale radius values.
The method of back calculation is that described by Hile (1941).

     Weights were estimated by using the relation described by the equation
of Ricker (1975):


                                    14

-------
                                   W= aLb

     or                    log W = log a + b log L

where W = weight, L = length, and a and b are constants determined by linear
regression based on logarithms of the length and weight values.

     A modified Schnabel population estimate (formula 3.17 in Ricker 1975)
was computed for walleyes in the river study section for spring 1977.

     A comparison of the ratio of tagged fish to untagged fin-clipped fish
in the population at the time of capture to the same ratio at the time of
recapture was used to determine tag loss.  Statistical analyses were con-
ducted according to procedures described in Snedecor and Cochran (1967).
Linear regressions were derived using the method of least squares.
                                     15

-------
                                 SECTION VI

                           RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A.  SAUCER POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

     Age and growth

          The growth rate of saugers varied considerably (Table 3).   In some
     age groups certain individuals were over 50% longer and 200% heavier
     than others.  Some fish reached 457 mm at age 3, while others not until
     age 7.

          The 1973 sauger year class was dominant in the three collection
     years, making up 29.1% of the catch in 1975, 27.4% in 1976, and 43.8%
     in 1977.  The ages of saugers collected ranged from one to seven; only
     two age 7 fish were taken.  The largest sauger taken was 591 mm long
     and weighed 2660 g.  The largest sauger ever reported from the Tongue
     River Reservoir weighed 3266 g; it was taken by an angler in 1975 and
     was still the state record in 1977.


     Annul us formation

          Annul us formation occurred during June in 1975 and 1976.  In 1975
     it was 67% complete by June 19 and complete by July 11.  In 1976 it was
     80% complete on June 29 and complete by July 5.  Nelson (1969) reported
     that in saugers 3 years old and older in Lewis and Clark Lake, South
     Dakota, annuli began forming in mid-June and were complete by early
     July; Carlander (1950) reported May and early-June as the time of
     annul us formation in saugers from Lake of the Woods, Minnesota.


     Growth in length

          The relation between body length and scale radius (Figure 6) was
     based on 546 saugers, 141 to 631 mm long.  The assumption was made that
     no significant differences existed in the relation from one year to the
     next, and therefore the data for all three years were combined.

          The average back calculated lengths at each age increased when
     calculations were made from progressively older fish (Table 4).  This
     observation is unlike Lee's phenomenon, where the average calculated
     length at each age class usually decreases when the calculations are
     made from progressively older fish.

                                     16

-------
TABLE 3.  LENGTHS AND WEIGHTS OF SAUGERS FROM THE TONGUE RIVER RESERVOIR
                  IN EACH AGE CLASS AT TIME OF CAPTURE

Age
class

1
2
3
4
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Number

6
23
17
12
21

6
101
107
76
65
37
1

0
0
4
32
26
10
1
length
Mean

215
315
423
481
537

258
305
387
462
501
547
613

--
—
378
453
495
536
587
(mm)
Range
1975
141-265
265-404
362-464
420-540
458-631
1976
197-293
216-365
293-578
347-530
427-591
465-595

1977
—
—
327-425
394-562
404-527
449-587


Number

5
15
15
8
12

6
100
107
76
65
37
1

0
0
4
32
26
10
1
Weight
Mean

88
277
677
915
1352

135
216
473
860
1163
1497
2100

—
--
435
797
1104
1443
1610
(g)
Range

60- 120
140- 560
400- 870
600-1150
1020-1750

60- 180
50- 440
170-1870
350-1350
720-2660
862-2210


—
--
300- 530
394-1040
840-1240
740-1900

                                   17

-------
         7001
         600
                    100      200     300     400     5OO
                          SCALE RADIUS (MM)X66
Figure 6.   Length-scale relation of saugers from the Tongue River
           Reservoir.
                                18

-------
TABLE 4.  BACK CALCULATED LENGTHS OF SAUGERS FROM THE TONGUE RIVER
                       RESERVOIR, 1975-1977

Age Num^er
group f.sh
1 12
2 124
3 129
4 120
5 112
6 47
7 2
Grand average
calculated length
Grand average
incremental length
Sum of grand
average increments
Total length at the end of
1
146
164
175
186
194
195
156
180
180
180
2

270
310
324
330
337
340
311
130
310
345


372
400 445
409 460 496
421 479 518
429 495 546
396 457 503
73 50 37
383 433 470
each year
6 7





541
573 591
543 591
23 18
493 511
                                19

-------
   Growth curves for saugers, based on the grand average calculated
lengths and on the sums of the grand average increments of length,
differed (Figure 7); this difference can be attributed to the greater
calculated lengths of the older fish.  The summation of the grand
average increments is probably the most representative of the growth of
saugers because it avoids the irregularities caused by the successive
elimination of fish of the older age groups.  This curve should repre-
sent the average growth that saugers might have if the opposite effect
of Lee's phenomenon were not present.  The rationale for this data
treatment is discussed in a later section.  The greatest average annual
increment for saugers occurred during the first year of life and de-
creased steadily thereafter.

   The back calculated lengths of the saugers from the Tongue River
Reservoir are greater than those reported for other Montana waters
(Table 5).  The only exception is the 1948 Fort Peck Reservoir study
(Peters 1964) in which average lengths equaled those at age 6, and
surpassed those at age 7 in the present study.   Saugers grew faster in
the Tongue River Reservoir than in the Garrison Reservoir, North
Dakota, Lake Winnebago, Wisconsin, and Lake of the Woods, Minnesota,
except that the length of saugers at age 6 in the Garrison Reservoir
surpassed that of saugers in all other studies.  The lengths of saugers
from Lewis and Clark Lake were greater than those in the present study,
and the lengths of saugers from Lake Oahe were greater at all ages
except age 1.


Growth in weight

   A length-weight relationship (Figure 8) was derived from the
measurement of 521 saugers captured from 1975 through 1977.   In the
length-weight relationship formula (W = aL ), the constant b equals 3.0
if growth is isometric (Ricker 1975).  When b is greater or less than
3.0, growth is allometric.  Values greater than 3.0 indicate weight
increasing faster than the length and values less than 3.0 indicate
length increasing faster than weight.  In a normal fish population b
usually ranges between 2.5 and 4.0 (LeCren 1951).   The value of b for
the Tongue River Reservoir sauger (b = 3.23) falls within this range,
and indicates allometric growth.

   The predicted weights of fish at ages 1 through 7 were obtained by
applying the length-weight equation to the summed grand average incre-
ments at successive annuli (Table 6, Figure 9).  Although the greatest
annual length increment occurred during the first year of life, the
greatest annual  weight increment did not occur until age 3.   The
average weight increment was nearly constant for ages 2 through 5 but
declined at ages 6 and 7.
                                    20

-------
     600-1
                                   GRAND AVERAGE
                                   CALCULATED LENGTHS
                                        GRAND AVERAGE  SUMMED
                                                   INCREMENTS
                            AVERAGE ANNUAL  INCREMENTS
                                34567

                                YEAR OF LIFE
Figure 7.   Growth in length of  saugers  from the Tongue River Reservoir.
                                 21

-------
                  TABLE 5.  CALCULATED LENGTHS OF SAUCERS OF DIFFERENT AGES FROM VARIOUS WATERS
ro
ro

Local i ty
Tongue River Reserv.
(present study)
Ft. Peck Reserv. , MT ,
1948 (Peters 1964)-'
Ft. Peck Reserv. , MTa/
1949 (Peters 1964)-'
Marias River, MT /
1961 (Peters 1964)^'
Garrison Reserv. , ND
(Carufel 1963)-7
Lake Winnebago, WI
(Priegal 1969)-7
Lake of the Woods, MN
Number
of fish
546
124
134
16
%«b/
m-
222 f^7
784 m
957 f
883
Average calculated total lengths at end of year (mm)
1
180
130
122
112
122
127
125
135
126
2
310
224
244
203
216
224
241
252
185
3
383
297
325
282
292
318
307
310
235
4
433
363
389
335
358
399
335
338
276
5
470
429
371
384
447
467
356
358
313
6789
493 511
493 521
488
465
587
376 389 401
378 391 401
337 362 359 385
10







383
       (Carlander 1950)-

     Lewis and Clark Lake
       (Nelson 1969)

     Lake Oahe, ND, SD
       (Nelson 1974)
1112


 506
188   324   404   466   514   560   596   626
158   311   401   464   517   551   589   594   612
     - Total length in inches converted to total length in mm.

     - m = male, f = female.

     - Standard length in inches converted to total length in mm (Total length - Standard length ratio of
       1.159 derived by Carlander 1950).

-------
       35001
       30OO-
       25OO-
       2OOO-
    X
    o
        1500-
       1OOO-
        5OO-
              w =

              r =
.00000203 L

.942
                             3.2317
                   1OO    2O 0    3OO     4OO     5OO    6OO     7OO

                            TOTAL  LENGTH (MM)
Figure 8.  Length-weight relation  of saugers  from the Tongue River
          Reservoir.
                                  23

-------
            TABLE 6.  ESTIMATED WEIGHT-TO-LENGTH RELATION FOR SAUCERS FROM THE TONGUE RIVER RESERVOIR
                                    (LENGTH IN MILLIMETERS, WEIGHT IN GRAMS)
ro

Length
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
Weight
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.9
1.1
1.5
1.9
2.3
2.9
3.5
4.2
5.0
5.9
6.9
8.0
9.3
10.6
12.1
13.8
15.6
17.5
Length
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
Weight
19.6
21.9
24.3
27.0
29.8
32.8
36.0
39.4
43.1
47.0
51.1
55.4
60.0
64.9
70.0
75.4
81.1
87.1
93.4
99.9
107
114
122
129
138
146
115
165
Length
285
290
295
300
305
310
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
350
355
360
365
370
375
380
385
390
395
400
405
410
415
420
Weight
174
184
195
206
217
229
241
253
266
280
294
308
323
338
354
371
387
405
423
441
460
471
500
521
542
564
587
610
Length
425
430
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
490
495
500
505
510
515
520
525
530
535
540
545
550
555
560
Weight
634
658
683
709
735
762
790
818
847
877
908
939
971
1000
1040
1070
1110
1140
1180
1220
1250
1290
1330
1370
1420
1460
1500
1550
Length
565
570
575
580
585
590
595
600
605
610
615
620
625
630
635
640
645
650
655
660
665
670
675
680
685
690
695
700
Weight
1590
1640
1680
1730
1780
1830
1880
1930
1980
2040
2090
2150
2200
2260
2320
2380
2440
2500
2560
2630
2690
2760
2830
2890
2960
3030
3110
3180

-------
       125O
      1OOO
   CD   730-
   O

   UJ
        5OO-
        25O
                                    3       4

                                  YEAR OF LIFE
Figure 9.   Growth  in weight of saugers from the  Tongue River Reservoir.
           (Dashed line represents average annual weight increments).
                                     25

-------
B.  WALLEYE POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

Age and growth

     The growth rates of individual walleyes varied considerably (Table 7).
For example, certain individuals in the 1973 age-3 group were over 100%
longer and 280% heavier than others of the same group.   Some individuals
reached 457 mm during their third year of life and others not until their
fifth year.

     The 1972 walleye year class dominated the catch in the three years of
the study; it constituted 56% of the catch in the reservoir in 1975, 37% in
1976, and 52% in 1977.  Of the walleyes captured in the river study area
during the spring spawning migration of 1977, the 1972 year class was also
dominant (37% of the catch).  The 1973 year class was noticeably weak; its
greatest contribution was in 1976 when it represented 11% of the reservoir
catch.  It contributed only 5% to the reservoir catch in 1975 and 2% in
1977, and none were collected in the river in 1977.

     During the study age-0 to -11 walleyes were collected, but age groups
7-11 were poorly represented.  No walleyes under age 3 were collected in
1977.  The largest walleye captured was 787 mm in length and weighed 5556 g.


Annul us formation

     Annul us formation in 1976 was 22% complete by June 9 and complete by
June 20.  Too few walleyes were collected in May and June of 1975 to deter-
mine time of annul us  formation, and no fish were collected after May in
1977.
Growth in length

     Measurements of 640 walleyes 173 to 787 mm long were used to derive the
length scale relationship (Figure 10).  This relation was applied to the
combined data for the years 1975, 1976, and 1977, and to the reservoir
male-female groups and the river male-female groups for 1977.

     The tendency for greater average calculated lengths at younger ages
when calculated from older fish is evident in the back calculated lengths
from the combined walleye data (Table 8).  This trend breaks down with the
inclusion of the 10- and 11-year-old fish; however, each of these age groups
are represented by only one individual.  The presence or absence of the
trend is difficult to determine when considering the back calculated lengths
for the reservoir and river male-female data (Tables 9 and 10).  The age
groups 1-4 are either poorly represented or not represented at all in the
1977 male and female samples, and it is in these age classes where the trend
was most evident.
                                    26

-------
TABLE 7.  LENGTHS AND WEIGHTS OF WALLEYES FROM THE TONGUE RIVER RESERVOIR
                  IN EACH AGE CLASS AT TIME OF'CAPTURE
Age
class

I
2
3
4
5
6
7

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

1
2
3
4
~
5
6
V
7
/
8
9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total length (mm)
Number

20
7
84
31
7
5
4

64
9
60
27
93
36
12
6
4
4
__
1

--
25
3
80
30
5
7
4

—
5
28
9
18
9
6
1
Mean

267
355
431
485
572
584
646

190
215
327
443
490
539
589
632
682
735
--
787

—
408
479
525
555
616
658
704

—
385
510
569
589
625
669
640
Range
1975
231-317
300-430
317-500
422-629
542-601
502-665
612-709
1976
159-216
173-313
194-412
386-507
411-578
445-615
531-635
582-704
604-891
700-762
—
--
1977-Reservoir
—
362-440
475-484
398-595
477-621
593-657
590-699
661-751
1977-River
—
319-415
415-575
530-604
560-632
595-675
610-755
•• ~
Weight (g)
Number

19
7
70
27
7
5
4

64
9
60
25
90
35
12
5
4
4
"~ *~
1

--
25
3
80
30
5
7
4

--
5
28
9
18
9
6
1
Mean

173
396
783
1147
1919
2050
2709

59
101
320
817
1139
1508
2051
2306
2645
4608
™ ™
5556

--
724
1010
1433
1730
2306
2687
3928

--
682
1286
1707
1969
2442
3058
2680
Range

90- 300
300- 600
340-1260
700-2980
1580-2410
1360-3280
1542-3760

30- 90
40- 300
130- 500
400-1380
550-2080
880-2630
1360-3050
1640-3100
2240-3720
3690-5556
--
""

--
420-1740
930-1130
680-2080
1070-2600
2090-2790
1890-3290
2480-5330

—
490- 720
840-2070
1350-2020
1570-2750
2170-3100
2360-4090

                                     27

-------
         7001
         600
         soo
         4OO
      o
      z
      <

      o
         300-
         2OO-
         1OO
                      100       200       3dO       400

                         SCALE RADIUS (MM)X66
Figure 10.   Length-scale relation of walleyes  from the Tongue River

           Reservoir.
                                 28

-------
    TABLE 8.  BACK CALCULATED LENGTHS OF WALLEYES FROM THE TONGUE RIVER
                           RESERVOIR, 1975-1977
 Age
class
Number
of fish
        Total length at the end of each year
                                                          8
                                                          10    11
  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

 10

 11
   29

   67

  141

  127

  151

   56

   33

   20

   14

    1

    1
213

231  304

242  336  406

246  352  430  479

256  366  445  493  525

257  376  457  509  542  558

263  393  476  534  566  598  606

258  391  484  540  583  604  631  647

259  399  482  557  603  637  662  679   694

219  346  434  497  534  578  599  622   628   640

260  378  453  530  587  641  673  706   733   754   771
Grand average
  calculated length   247  353  437  499  542  583  625  661  692  697  771
Grand average
  incremental length  247  102   77   51
                                 34   24   17   18   15    17    16
Sum of grand
  average increments  247  349  426  477  511  535  552  570  585  602  618
                                     29

-------
TABLE 9.  BACK CALCULATED LENGTHS OF MALE AND FEMALE WALLEYES COLLECTED
                 FROM THE TONGUE RIVER RESERVOIR, 1977

Age Number
class of fish
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Grand average
calculated
Grand average
incremental
0
0
0
0
5
4
3
0
35
27
17
8
3
1
2
1
2
2
length
length
Sum of grand
average increments
Sex
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
Total length
1
—
--
247
267
249
252
266
260
257
268
263
239
310
237
263
253
266
253
266
253
266
2


329
347
375
355
378
363
375
397
399
382
441
375
405
359
378
106
112
359
378
3


329
413
440
433
461
440
453
480
493
463
549
444
494
435
459
76
82
435
459
at the end
4



479
479
514
490
507
529
556
520
610
515
581
487
520
49
56
484
515
5




505
553
520
543
566
597
551
651
569
631
516
559
29
39
513
554
of each year (mm)
6





542
565
594
627
527
671
606
680
553
598
24
27
537
581
7






609
657
601
688
631
707
613
690
20
26
557
606
8







615
699
651
725
633
717
17
16
574
622
9








665
743
665
743
13
17
587
639
                                  30

-------
 TABLE 10.   BACK CALCULATED LENGTHS OF MALE AND FEMALE WALLEYES  COLLECTED
                        FROM THE TONGUE RIVER, 1977
Age
class
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Number
of fish
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
25
3
9
0
17
1
8
1
4
2
1
n
Sex
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
c
Total
1
_ _
--
__
--
250
--
__
--
251
256
268


269
270
260
272
242
279
219

2


__
—
323
--
__
--
358
380
393


391
406
394
405
396
409
346

length at
3




385
--
__
--
440
454
476


471
498
477
521
465
501
434

4








480
521
520


524
551
517
579
525
574
497

the end of each year (mm)
5 6 7 8 9 10








504
558
550 569


550 571 585
582 609 629
565 586 606 621
609 633 648 660
562 593 613 633 644
637 665 686 702 714
642 578 599 622 628 640

Grand average
M
  calculated length  F

Grand average        M
  incremental length F

Sum of grand         M
  average increments F
258  374  454  505  535  576  595  625  641  640
267  396  483  549  591  643  662  688  714   —
      258  117   80   46   29   22   17   17   10
      267  129   88   66   43   27   19   15   12
                                              12
      258  374  454  500  529  551  568  585  595  607
      267  396  483  549  591  618  638  652  664   —
                                     31

-------
     The general growth curve for walleyes derived from the grand average
calculated lengths differs greatly from that derived from the summed incre-
ments of length (Figure 11).   The summed increments of length are believed
to be more representative of the growth of walleyes because of the occur-
rence of a reverse Lee's phenomenon in the back calculated lengths.   The
greatest annual length increments occurred at age 1 and then decreased to a
nearly constant level at ages 7 through 11.

     Separate growth curves based on the summed increments of length for
male and female walleyes collected in the reservoir and river in 1977
(Figure 12) showed the growth of females to be faster than that of males at
all ages.   This relation has been reported by others (Mraz 1968; Stroud
1949; and Tucker and Taub 1970), but some investigators have shown the
opposite trend for 1- and 2-year-old walleyes (Lewis 1970, Nelson 1974, and
Wolfert 1977).  At the end of the first year of life, females captured in
the reservoir had a 12-mm advantage over the males and by age 9 this advan-
tage had increased to 52 mm.   For the river sample, the females had a 9-mm
advantage at age 1 which increased to 68 mm at age 9.  The curve for females
from the river is based on only nine fish and may not be representative of
the females that spawn in the river.

     The calculated lengths of walleyes of both sexes captured in the river
were greater than those captured in the reservoir.  This difference never
exceeded 19 mm for males at any given age, or 38 mm for females.


Young-of-the-year

     A total of 64 young-of-the-year walleyes were collected between Septem-
ber 1 and September 16, 1976 (Table 11).  These fish averaged 190 mm in
length and ranged from 159 to 216 mm.  Priegal (1970) reported lengths of
young-of-the-year walleyes on September 1 for the years 1959 through 1967 to
range from 83 to 148 mm in Lake Winnebago, Wisconsin.  Young-of-the-year
walleyes from Oneida Lake, New York, ranged from 111 to 156 mm on September
1 for the years 1956 through 1961 (Forney 1966).   Wolfert (1977) reported
average lengths of 185 mm at the end of August and 230 mm by the end of
September for young-of-the-year walleyes in western Lake Erie.

     Lengths of walleyes from the Tongue River Reservoir were greater than
those reported for other Montana reservoirs with two exceptions:  Hauser
Lake, in which lengths were greater at ages 3 and 4, and Nelson Reservoir,
in which lengths were greater at age 6 (Table 12).  Walleyes from the Tongue
River Reservoir grow faster than walleyes from Lake of the Woods, Minnesota,
and Lake Gogebic, Michigan, but slower than walleyes from Norris Reservoir,
Tennessee, and Canton Reservoir, Oklahoma.  Walleyes from Clear Lake, Iowa,
showed slower growth rates than walleyes from the Tongue River Reservoir at
ages 1 through 6, but faster at ages 7 through 11.  Walleyes from Lake Oahe
were longer at all ages except age 1.  An earlier spawning season and a
longer growing season are factors contributing to the better growth in the
Tennessee and Oklahoma reservoirs.
                                     32

-------
        7001

       600J
                                      GRAND AVERAGE  SUMMED
                                                 INCREMENTS
                      CALCULATED  LENGTHS  /
                                 AVERAGE ANNUAL INCREMENTS
               "l    2   3   4    5   6   7    8   9   10  11
                             YEAR OF LIFE
Figure 11.   Growth in length of walleyes from the Tongue  River Reservoir.
                                33

-------
                                              RIVER FEMALE

                                                      X

                                                  / X" RIVER MALE
RESERVOIR FEMALE,.

         X
            RESERVOIR MALE
                                                R VER FEMALE.-
                    RIVER MALE
                           ^>
                           RESERVOIR MALE
                                           RESERVOIR FEMALE
            123456789     123456789
                                   YEAR OF  LIFE
Figure  12.   Growth  curves for male  and female walleyes collected in the
             Tongue  River Reservoir  and Tongue River study areas  in 1977.
                                       34

-------
   TABLE 11.  LENGTHS AND WEIGHTS OF YOUNG-OF-THE-YEAR WALLEYES FROM THE
                  TONGUE RIVER RESERVOIR, SEPTEMBER 1976
Date
1
2
4
10
12
13
14
15
16
Number
of fish
4
18
3
2
3
2
8
7
17
Average
length
171
178
177
196
198
202
198
195
198
Range of
lengths (mm)
159-184
168-190
169-189
193-199
196-201
199-204
179-216
189-201
180-209
Average
weight (g)
35
56
40
55
70
70
65
63
66
Range of
weights
30-50
30-70
30-50
50-60
60-70
60-80
50-90
60-70
60-80
Totals
64
190
159-216
59
30-90
                                    35

-------
                        TABLE 12.  CALCULATED LENGTHS OF WALLEYES OF DIFFERENT AGES FROM VARIOUS WATERS
o>
Locality
Tongue River Res.
(present study)
Nelson Res. , MT /
1959 (Peters 1964F/
Lake Oahe, ND, SD
(Nelson 1974)
Clear Lake, IA
(Car lander and./
Whitney 1961)*'
Lake of the Woods , MN
(Carlander 1945)5'
Morris Res. , TN
(Stroud 1949)^
Lake Gogeblc, MI,
(Esclweyer 1950 Fx
Canton Res. ,,OK
(Lewis 1970)*7
KUlen Res., MT .,
1960 (Peters 1964P/
Frenchman Res. , MR,
1958 (Peters 1964P'
Hauser Lake, MT ./
1961 (Peters 1964)2'
Number
of fish
640

71

757

3079


2898
1146

519

870

18

34

9

Average calculated total lengths at end of year
1
247

94

213

178


163
262

117

310

79

185

168

2
349

193

351

287


235
417

239

427

170

338

325

3
426

269

445

373


293
475

307

495

305

401

429

4
477

345

522

434


342
506

361

554

406

460

526

56789
511 535 552 570 585

470 650

569 603 633 678

480 526 559 605 643


378 424 464 507 549
528 533 561 633

401 437 457 478 495

607 650 704

447

450



(mm)
10 11
602 618





686 699


577 607


508









             -'Total  length 1n Inches  converted to  total  length  in millimeters.
             b/Standard length 1n Inches  converted  to  total  length in millimeters,  (Total length- standard length
             ~ ratio  of 1.159 derived  by  Carlander  1945).

-------
Growth in weight

     The walleye length-weight relation (Figure 13) is based on a combined
sample of 616 fish.  The value of the constant b, from the length-weight
formula, is 3.16.  This value indicates allometric growth, where the in-
crease in weight occurs faster than the increase in length and falls within
the range of normal values established by LeCren (1951).

     The predicted weight at ages 1 through 11 were obtained by applying the
length-weight equation to the summed grand average increments of length at
annulus (Figure 14).  The yearly weight increments increased until age 3,
declined steadily until age 7, and remained fairly constant thereafter.
     The predicted weights for walleyes for each 5 mm length interval
listed in Table 13.
are
Population estimate in the Tongue River

     A population estimate of male walleyes in the river study section was
made in spring 1977.  Electrofishing in the river was conducted on March 26,
28, and 31, and April I and 4, 1977 to determine if walleyes and saugers
were spawning in the river.  Increased river discharge and the accompanying
increase in turbidity made electrofishing impossible beyond April 4 and no
direct evidence of spawning could be obtained.  On the five dates of elec-
trofishing two saugers and 86 walleyes were captured.  Of the 86 walleyes,
80 were ripe males, 30 of which (38%) were recaptured during the sampling
period.  This resulted in a male recapture rate of 37.5%.  Using the Chapman
method of population estimation (Ricker 1975) it was determined that 129
male walleyes (95% confidence limits:  86-251) were present in or passing
through the river study section from March 26 to April 4.  None of the six
females was recaptured.
C.  MOVEMENT OF TAGGED WALLEYES

     Movement data were obtained for 11 walleyes, all of which were males.
Four of these (No. 1-4 in Figure 15) captured in the reservoir in fall 1976
were recaptured in the river study area in spring 1977, 8.5 to 15 km from
the points of release.  Another walleye (No. 5 in Figure 15) was captured in
the summer channel of the river in spring 1976 and recaptured in the river
study section in spring 1977.

     Of the 80 male walleyes tagged in the river study area during spring
1977, six were later recaptured in the reservoir (Figure 16).  Of these six,
three were recaptured twice and their movements from the first point of
recapture to the second point of recapture are indicated by arrows in the
figure.
                                    37

-------
     35OO1
            W

            r
.000003507 L

.945
                           3.1608
     3OOO-
     25OO-
     2OOO-
  x
  o
     1300
     10OO-
      50O-
                1OO     2OO    3OO     4OO    5OO     6OO    ZOO


                          TOTAL LENGTH (MM)
Figure 13.  Length-weight  relation  of walleyes from the Tongue River

           Reservoir.
                                38

-------
       25OO-
       2OOO-
   O
       13OO-
   O
   LU
       1OOO
        5OO
                     234    567    891O11

                              YEAR OF LIFE
Figure 14.   Growth  in weight of walleyes from the  Tongue River Reservoir.
            (Dashed line represents average annual  weight increments.)
                                   39

-------
TABLE 13.  ESTIMATED WEIGHT-TO-LENGTH RELATION FOR WALLEYES FROM THE TONGUE RIVER RESERVOIR
                          (LENGTH IN MILLIMETERS, WEIGHT IN GRAMS)

Length
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
Weight
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.1
1.5
1.9
2.4
3.0
3.6
4.4
5.3
6.3
7.4
8.6
9.9
11.4
13.1
14.9
16.9
19.0
21.3
Length
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
Weight
23.8
26.5
29.4
32.5
35.8
39.3
43.1
47.1
51.4
55.9
50.7
65.8
71.1
76.7
82.7
88.9
95.4
102
110
117
125
133
142
151
160
170
180
191
Length
285
290
295
300
305
310
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
350
355
360
365
370
375
380
385
390
395
400
405
410
415
420
Weight
202
213
225
237
250
263
276
291
305
320
336
352
369
386
403
422
440
460
480
500
521
543
565
588
612
636
661
686
Length
425
430
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
490
495
500
505
510
515
520
525
530
535
540
545
550
555
560
Weight
712
739
767
795
824
854
884
915
947
979
1010
1050
1080
1120
1150
1190
1230
1270
1310
1350
1390
1430
1470
1520
1560
1610
1660
1700
Length
565
570
575
580
585
590
595
600
605
610
615
620
625
630
635
640
645
650
655
660
665
670
675
680
685
690
695
700
Weight
1750
1800
1850
1900
1960
2010
2060
2120
2180
2230
2290
2350
2410
2470
2530
2600
2660
2730
2800
2860
2930
3000
3070
3150
3220
3300
3370
3450

-------
Fish
 No.

 1
 2
 •
 -
 5
 Date
Tagged
(1976)

 10/21
 11/5
 11/6
 10/28
  4/10
   Date
Recaptured
  (1977)

   3/28
   3/28
   4/1
   4/4
   4/4
                                                           N
Figure 15.  Tagging  locations  in the Tongue  River  Reservoir of five adult
            male walleyes  recaptured in  the  Tongue River.
                                     -.

-------
Fish
 No.
 1
 :
 3
 4
 5
 6
 Date
Tagged
(1977)

 3/28
 3/28
 3/28
 4/3
 3/28
 3/28
   Date
Recaptured
  (1977)

4/8,  4/13
4/13, 4/17
   4/23
4/25, 4/29
   4/26
   4/26
                                                              -
Figure 16.  Recapture locations in the Tongue River Reservoir of six
            adult male walleyes previously captured in the Tongue
            River.  (Arrows indicate movement of fish recaptured
            twice.)

-------
     The tag return data suggest that walleyes in the reservoir may use the
Tongue River for spawning.   However, the portion of the reservoir population
that uses the river and the extent of their upstream migration can be
determined only through further research.

     Whether saugers in the reservoir use the river for spawning has yet to
be determined.   Since only ripe males and spent females were collected it
appears that most saugers had spawned before the start of sampling on March
23, 1977.


D.  TAG LOSS

          During summer 1976, 168 saugers and 76 walleyes were tagged and
     fin-clipped to measure the extent of tag loss.  During spring 1977, 46
     saugers and 184 walleyes were similarly marked.  Floy FD-67 anchor tags
     were used in 1976 and Floy FD-68B anchor tags  in 1977.  Tags in both
     years were placed behind the spiny  dorsal fin.

          Tags were lost from one of four (25%) saugers recaptured during
     the summer of 1976.  No tag loss occurred for  the six saugers tagged in
     summer 1976 and recaptured in spring 1977, nor for the two saugers
     recaptured in spring 1977.

          Only one fin-clipped walleye was  recaptured during 1976 and  it had
     retained its tag.  However, of six  walleyes recaptured in spring  1977,
     four (67%) had lost tags.  During spring 1977  only one of 55 walleyes
     recaptured had lost its tag.

          Much of the tag loss was attributable to  the vinyl tubing  slipping
     off of the anchor portion of the tag.  Use of  the Floy FD-68B tag,
     which  incorporates a plastic bulb on the end of the  anchor,  reduced
     this kind of tag loss.


E.  DEVIATION FROM  LEE'S PHENOMENON

          The greater calculated  lengths at younger ages,  when successively
     older  fish were  used  in making growth  calculations,  is evident  for both
     walleyes and saugers  in the  Tongue  River Reservoir.   The presence of
     this phenomenon  could  be  caused  by  some  naturally occurring  factor, or
     by  sampling bias.   If  non-random  sampling were the problem,  one of two
     conditions existed:   (1)  a  sampling technique  which  would have  a ten-
     dency  towards  capturing the  smaller fish  in  the younger  age  classes,  or
      (2) a  tendency  towards  capturing  the larger  fish  of  the  older  age
     classes.  Because  of  the  variety  of sampling  techniques  used (gill
     nets,  trap nets,  and  electrofishing),  non-random  sampling  is not a
      likely explanation.   When Carlander and  Whitney  (1961) reported a
      similar  occurrence in  the back calculated  lengths  for walleyes  in Clear
      Lake,  Iowa,  they felt  that missed annuli  on  a few of the  older fish may
                                      43

-------
have been responsible.  It is possible that missed annuli contributed to the
occurrence of the phenomenon in walleyes and saugers in the Tongue River
Reservoir.

     Selective mortality, bearing more heavily on the smaller fish of each
age class, thus leaving the larger fish of each successive age class to be
sampled for age and growth, would also explain the apparent decrease in
growth rates observed.  Predation has been shown to be selective toward
slower-growing walleyes during the first year (Chevalier 1973), but such
predation before the first annuli formed would have no effect on the back
calculated lengths.  The continuation of such size selective predation into
the second and later years of life may be possible (Ricker 1975), but it
probably does not continue throughout all of the age groups.  When the
phenomenon was observed in the calculated lengths for walleyes in Canton
Reservoir, Oklahoma, Lewis (1970) believed that the growth reduction may
have reflected the stabilization of an increasing walleye population to the
pre-existing forage fish population.  The oldest walleyes taken during the
Tongue River Reservoir study were age 11 and the oldest saugers were age 7.
Because the ages of these fishes date back to the earliest known existence
of the two species in the reservoir, the apparent decrease in growth rates
may have been a result of an increase in numbers of these two species,
thereby increasing inter- and intra-specific competition.  If so, later
monitoring of these populations in the reservoir will be required for veri-
fication.
                                     44

-------
                                 SECTION VII

                  POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF SURFACE COAL MINING


     Surface run-off water in the immediate vicinity of the Decker mine,  and
subsurface water resulting from disturbing the aquifer, are collected within
the Mine in a sedimentation pond system.  The sedimentation pond water is
reused for dust control and for irrigation onto reclaimed mine spoils; ex-
cess water is pumped onto the flood plain of the Tongue River at the upper
end of the Reservoir.

     Turbak et al.  (In Press) have studied the quality of the settling pond
water, including the heavy metals arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and
selenium, and data are reported for the mine effluent water for five dates
from July 1976 to April 1977.  Concentrations ranged from 1.1 to 1.9
ug/liter for arsenic and <1 to <5 for cadmium, both of these below the
criteria published by EPA (1977).  Reported concentrations for lead were
<0.01 to <0.1 mg/liter and for selenium were <0.3 to 0.5 ng/liter.  No
specific numerical criteria for these two metals have been provided by EPA
(1977), although it  is recommended that acceptable concentrations be based
on 96-hr LC50 values for sensitive resident aquatic species.  The reported
concentrations for mercury, 0.11 to 0.87 ug/liter, are in excess of the EPA
(1977) criterion of  0.05 ug/liter, however these criteria are for receiving
waters, not the discharge itself.

     Additional data on mercury concentrations in the mine effluent between
October 1975 and August 1976 have been  reported by Phillips (1978); based on
reported analyses performed by the Montana Department of Health and Environ-
mental Sciences, mercury concentrations ranged between 1.2 and 335 ug/liter.
Phillips also reported concentrations of mercury in the Tongue River  below
the mine effluent at this same time as  ranging from <0.2 to 2.3 ug/liter.

     The most extensive data available  on the water chemistry of  the  Tongue
River  in the region  of the Decker Mine  have been reported  by Whalen  (1979),
who studied  the  chemical  limnology of the reservoir.  Whalen has  considered
the potential  impact on the  river  and reservoir of the mine discharge, and
has extrapolated  from  his data to  consider  also the  impact from the proposed
expanded mine  areas.   Water  chemistry from  Whalen  are  presented in Tables 14
and 15.  Whalen  has  calculated the average  annual  discharge of  the mine  to
be less  than 0.1 percent  of  the  Tongue  River  flow  at point of receipt.   On
the basis  of the values  obtained from the  chemical  parameters measured both
in the receiving water and  present mine discharge,  Whalen  has concluded  that
the  impact of  the mine water discharge  on  the Tongue  River is and will be
negligible for those parameters  measured,  with the caveat that  an unusually


                                     45

-------
Table 14.   Averages and ranges (in parenthesis) of some chemical and
           physical parameters of the Tongue River Reservoir, November
           1975 to November 1976.-'
Parameter
1 i
Ca (meq/£)
Mg (meq/£)
Na (meq/£)
K+ (meq/£)
Total alkalinity (meq/£ CaC03)
S04= (meq/£)
Cl" (meq/£)
Si02 (mg/£)
NH3-N (pg/£)
NOj-N (|jg/A)
N02-N (Mg/£)
PO^-P (pg/£)
Total -P (pg/£)
Station I-7
Reservoir
Above Dam
2.86
(1.26-3.80)
2.99
(0.96-4.29)
1.25
(0.34-1.92)
0.10
(0.04-0.16)
3.70
(1.92-4.70)
3.44
(0.81-5.18)
0.08
(0.03-0.12)
5.6
(1.4-11.8)
24
(0-236)
27
(0-204)
3
(0-20)
10
(0-100)
40
(16-144)
Station 2
Mid-Reservoir
2.79
(1.30-4.31)
2.91
(0.84-4.59)
1.23
(0.29-22.7)
0.10
(0.04-0.16)
3.59
(1.68-5.62)
3.35
(0.66-6.24)
0.08
(0.03-0.13)
5.7
(1.1-10.0)
18
(0-142)
26
(0-187)
3
(0-10)
8
(0-77)
41
(10-109)
Station 3
Reservoir
Upper region
2.81
(1.09-3.63)
2.99
(0.79-3.81)
1.26
(0.28-2.02)
0.10
(0.03-0.13)
3.69
(1.56-4.71)
3.37
(0.54-5.27)
0.08
(0.03-0.12)
6.8
(2.5-13.0)
21
(0-220)
27
(0-47)
3
(0-10)
12
(0-27)
71
(37-260)
                                     46

-------
Table 14.   Continued.
Parameter
Spec. cond. (|jmhos/cm @25 C)
pH
Turbidity (JTU)
Temperature (C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/£)
Station I-7
Reservoir
Above Dam
660
(246-929)
8.4
(7.5-8.9)
7.3
(1.9-24)
10.6
(1.2-23.5)
8.5
(0.2-13.4)
Station 2
Mid-Reservoir
645
(221-1032)
8.5
(7.5-9.0)
8.6
(1.3-32)
10.9
(1.2-23.8)
9.3
(0.8-19.6)
Station 3
Reservoir
Upper region
654
(197-948)
8.4
(7.9-9.0)
20.3
(5.5-62)
11.4
(1.2-23.9)
10.1
(2.5-17.6)

§/From Whalen (1979).
-Station locations shown in Figure 2.
                                     47

-------
Table 15.   Average values of selected parameters measured in the Decker
           Mine discharge water and In the Tongue River above and below
           the mine discharge, June 1975 to November 1976,, (All parameters
           expressed as mg/liter unless otherwise noted.)-

Parameter
PH
Dissolved oxygen
Spec. Cond. (umhos/cm @ 25 C)
Turbidity (JTU)
Temperature (C)
Organic carbon
C03
HC03
Total alkalinity (as CaC03)
S102
Fe
Cl
F
so4
Ca
Mg
Na
K
N02-N (ug/2)
N03~N (ug/£)
Tongue River
above mine
8.6
10.1
693
15
14.7
4.9
4
238
202
7.4
0.028
2.8
0.33
166.4
61.2
37.8
30.5
3.9
3
31
Mine discharge
8.5
9.8
1498
18
14.9
5.2
12
597
509
13.0
0.021
6.8
1.22
295.1
33.1
42.4
253.3
7.7
37
287
Tongue River
below mine
8.4
9.8
696
14
14.7
5.0
4
240
203
7.4
0.024
2.7
0.33
166.4
61.0
37.8
30.4
3.9
3
30
                                     48

-------
Table 15.  Continued.
                                 Tongue River                   Tongue River
Parameter                         above mine    Mine discharge   below mine
NH3-N (ug/£)                        16              282             16

Total Kjehldahl nitrogen (ug/£)    326              674            333

P04-P (ug/A)                        20                 6             18

Total -P (ug/£)                      62                38             60

Sodium absorption  ration (SAR)        0.78              6.88           0.78


§/From Whalen  (1979).
                                      49

-------
dry water year could alter his prediction.  It should be noted that Whalen
did not report concentrations of heavy metals.

     The present study has concerned itself with the movement, age and
growth, and life histories of walleyes and saugers in the Tongue River
Reservoir.  Any effect on these fishes as a result of altered water chem-
istry within the reservoir is not apparent from the results of the study.
Fishes from the reservoir do move into the river above the reservoir, but
the extent of this movement and whether this movement is affected by the
mine discharge is not known, and warrants further study.  With the intensi-
fication of coal mining planned for this area, we believe that additional
information is needed to plan for adequate safeguards to protect the aquatic
biota of the Tongue River drainage system.  Information is now available
which will provide baseline data against which data from future studies may
be compared.

     It is of particular concern, in our judgment, to assess the importance
of the Tongue River above the reservoir relative to use by walleye and
sauger for spawning migrations.  If reproduction by these species makes a
substantial annual contribution to reservoir populations, any alterations in
water quality and spring flow regimes could significantly affect the
standing crop available to sport fishermen.   Such alterations could include
abnormal spring temperatures, reduced flow volumes, dewatering, increased
salinity, and heavy metal loading.  Any of these factors, singly or in
combination, could reduce recruitment of walleye and sauger in the Tongue
River Reservoir downstream due to loss of migratory cues, improper condi-
tions for egg deposition and incubation, and downstream transport of larval
fishes.

     An incremental increase in recreational use of the river and reservoir
will undoubtedly result from expanded mining or coal conversion operations.
These waters are currently subject to light fishing pressure but a human
population influx could alter use patterns and fishing intensity.

     In summary, we believe the following aspects should be studied in some
detail in the near future:

      1.  Changes in water quality of the river and reservoir (salinity,
          temperature, nutrient loading, heavy metal loading).

      2.  Changes in water quantity (dewatering for offstream storage and
          use, and resultant reductions in reservoir storage levels).

      3.  Changes in fishing pressure and recreational use (including con-
          flicts among various user types).
                                    50

-------
                                 REFERENCES

Carlander, K. D.  1945.  Age, growth, sexual maturity, and population fluc-
     tuations of the yellow pike-perch, Stizostedion vitreum vitreum
     (Mitchill), with reference to the commercial fisheries, Lake of the
     Woods, Minnesota.  Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 73(43):90-107.

Carlander, K. D.  1950.  Growth rate studies of sauger, Stizostedion
     canadense canadense (Smith) and yellow perch,  Perca flavescens
     (Mitchill) from Lake of the Woods, Minnesota.  Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
     79(49):30-42.

Carlander, K. D., and R. R. Whitney.  1961.  Age and growth of walleyes in
     Clear Lake, Iowa, 1935-1957.  Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 90(2):130-138.

Carufel, L. H.  1963.  Life history of sauger in Garrison Reservoir.  J.
     Wild!. Manage. 27(3):450-456.

Chevalier, J. R.  1973.  Cannibalism as a factor in first year survival of
     walleye in Oneida Lake.  Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 102(4):739-744.

Dendy, F. E.  , and W. A. Champion.  1973.  Summary of reservoir sediment
     deposition surveys made in the United States through 1970.  U.S. Agri-
     cultural Research Service Misc. Publ. No. 1266.  82 p.

Elser, A. A.   1975.  Fish distribution of the Tongue River Reservoir as
     related to major habitat areas, instream flow  needs and proposed coal
     development, p. 1-24.  In Old West Regional Commission Annual  Report.
     Project No. 10470022.  (Mimeo).

Elser, A. A., R. C. McFarland, and D. Schwehr.  1977.  The effect of altered
     stream flow on fish of the Yellowstone and Tongue Rivers, Montana.  Old
     West Regional Commission Tech. Rep. No. 9, Yellowstone impact  study.

Eschmeyer, P. H.  1950.  The life history of the walleye, Stizostedion
     vitreum vitreum (Mitchill),  in Michigan.  Michigan Department  of Con-
     servation, Inst. Fish. Res.  Bull. 3.  99 p.

Forney, J. L.  1966.  Factors affecting first-year  growth of walleyes in
     Oneida Lake, New York.  N.Y. Fish Game J. 13(2):146-167.

Garrison, P.  J. , S. C. Whalen, and R. W. Gregory.   1975.  Limnology of the
     Tongue River Reservoir:  Existing and potential impact of coal strip
     mining.   First progress report.  Montana Cooperative Fishery Research
     Unit, Montana State University, Bozeman.  32 p.


                                    51

-------
Hlle, R.   1941.  Age and growth of the rock bass, Ambloolites rupestris
     (Rafinesque), in Nebish Lake, Wisconsin.  Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci. Arts
     Lett. 33:189-337.

Hutchinson, G. E.  1957.  A treatise on limnology.  Volume I—Geography,
     physics, and chemistry.  John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.  1015 p.

LeCren, E. D.  1951.  The length-weight relationship and seasonal cycle in
     gonad weight and condition in perch, Perca fluviatilis, J. Anim. Ecol.
     20(2):201-219.

Lewis, S. A.  1970.  Age and growth of walleye, Stizostedion vitreum vitreum
     (Mitchill), in Canton Reservoir, Oklahoma.   Proc. Okla. Acad. ScT
     50:84-86.

Mraz, D.   1968.  Recruitment, growth, exploitation and management of wall-
     eyes in a southeastern Wisconsin lake.  Wis. Dep. Nat. Res., Res. Bull.
     40.   38 p.

Nelson, W. R.  1969.  Biological characteristics  of the sauger population  in
     Lewis and Clark Lake.  U.S. Bureau of Sport  Fisheries and Wildlife
     Tech. Pap. 21.  11 p.

Nelson, W. R.  1974.  Age, growth, and maturity of thirteen species of fish
     from Lake Oahe during the early years of  impoundment, 1963-68.  U.S.
     Fish and Wildlife Service Tech. Pap. 77.  29 p.

Penkal, R. F.  1977.  Black bass populations of the Tongue River Reservoir,
     Montana.  M.S. Thesis.  Montana State Univ., Bozeman.  Ill p.

Peters, J. C.  1964.  Age and growth studies and  analysis of bottom samples
     in connection with pollution studies.  Montana Department of Fish and
     Game.  D. J. Completion Report, Project F-23-R-6, Jobs I & II.  75 p.

Phillips, G. R.  1978.  The potential for long-term mercury contamination  of
     the Tongue River Reservoir resulting from surface coal mining.  Montana
     Coop. Fish. Res. Unit, Final Report to Western Energy & Land Use Team,
     U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Cont. No. 14-16-0008-2117.  53 p.
     (mineo).

Priegal, G. R.  1969.  The Lake Winnebago sauger:  Age, growth, reproduc-
     tion, food habits and early life history.  Wis. Dep. Nat. Res. Tech.
     Bull. 43.  63 p.

Priegal, G. R.  1970.  Reproduction and early  life history of the walleye  in
     the Lake Winnebago region.  Wis. Dep. Nat. Res. Tech. Bull. 45.  105  p.

Ricker, W. E.  1975.  Computation and interpretation of biological statis-
     tics of fish populations.  Bulletin 191.  Department of the Environ-
     ment, Fisheries and Marine Service, Ottawa,  Canada.  382 p.
                                     52

-------
Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran.  1967.  Statistical methods.  Iowa State
     Univ. Press, Ames.  593 p.

Stroud, R. H.  1949.  Growth of Norn's Reservoir walleye during the first
     twelve years of impoundment.  J. Wild!. Manage. 13(2): 157-177.

Tucker, T. R. , and S. H. Taub.  1970.  Age and growth of the walleye
     Stizostedion vitreum vitreum, in Hoover Reservoir, Ohio.  Ohio J. Sci.
     70(5):314-318.

Turbak, S., G. J. Olson, and G. A. McFeters.  Environmental effects of
     western coal surface mining.  Part IV - Chemical and microbial investi-
     gations of a surface coal mine  settling pond.  Office of Research and
     Development, U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Re-
     search Laboratory-Duluth, (In Press).

United States Geological Survey.  1976.  Water resources data for Montana,
     water year 1975.   USGS Water Data Rep. MT-75-1.  604 p.

United States Geological Survey.  1977.  Water resources data for Montana,
     water year 1976.   USGS Water Data Rep. MT-76-1.  766 p.

United States Geological Survey.  1978.  Water resources data for Montana,
     water year 1977.   USGS Water Data Rep. MT-77-1.  751 p.

United States Geological Survey and  Montana Department of State  Lands.
     1977.  Proposed plan of mining  and reclamation:  East Decker and north
     extension mines,  Decker Coal Company, Big Horn County, Montana.  Final
     Environmental  Impact Statement.  Vol  1.  871  p.

Whalen,  S.  C.  and  S. A.  Leathe.   1976.  Limnology  of the Tongue  River
     Reservoir:  Existing and  potential impacts of coal strip mining.  3rd
     Progress  Report submitted to Decker  Coal Company of Sheridan, Wyoming,
     October 1976.   64 p.

Whalen,  S.  C.  1979.   The chemical  limnology and  limnetic primary production
     of  the Tongue  River Reservoir,  Montana.  M.S. Thesis, Department of
     Biology,  Montana  State University, Bozeman,  MT.  205 p.

Wolfert,  D.  R.   1977.   Age and growth of  the walleye  in Lake  Erie,  1963-
     1968.   Trans.  Am.  Fish.  Soc.  106(6):569-577.
                                      53

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
  REPORT NO.
  EPA-600/3-80-038
                             2.
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
«. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
 Environmental Effects of Western  Coal  Surface Hining
 Part V - Age and Growth of Walleyes and Saugers in the
 Tongue River Reservoir, Montana,  1975-77
                                                           5. REPORT DATE
               March 1980 issuing  date
             6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7r.AUTHORtS)  ...        _ .
Victor L.  Riggs and Richard W.  Gregory
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Cooperative Fishery Research Unit
Montana State University
Bozeman,  Montana 59717
                                                            10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
             11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                  R803950
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME, AND ADDRESS     „ ,
Environmental  Research Laboratory  -  Duluth, Minnesota
Office  of Research and Development
U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
Duluth, Minnesota 55804
             13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED

                 Final	
             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                 EPA/600/03
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
A study  was conducted between  1975-1977 on the populations  of walleye (Stizostedion
vitreum) and sauger (Stizostedion  canadense) in the Tongue  River Reservoir, in south-
eastern  Montana.  The Tongue River Reservoir is the recipient of mine water effluents
from  the Decker Mine, the  largest  surface coal mine in  the  western United States.  The
objective of the study was to  determine possible impacts  of the mine on the walleye
and sauger populations in  the  reservoir, and to provide data against which future com-
parisons can be made.  These species were chosen because  they are two of the most impor-
tant  game fishes in the reservoir.   The age and growth  of 640 walleyes and 546 saugers
were  determined from collections made in gill nets, trap  nets, and by electrofishing.
The 1973 sauger year class and the 1972 walleye year class  dominated the catches during
the three years of the study.   The movements of taqned  fish in late March and early
April  1977 strongly suggested  that walleyes spawned in  the  Tongue River, upstream from
the reservoir.   The growth rates for both species were  excellent for a northern latitude
reservoir, indicating no noticeable effect by surface coal  mine operations at the time
of the study.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                           c. COSATI Field/Group
Toxicity
Pollution
Coal  mining effects
Fish  growth
Energy development
Strip mining
Coal mining

Baseline studies
68D
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT


     RELEASE  TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)

 UNCLASSIFIED
                                                                          21. NO. OF PAGES
   64
2O. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)

 UNCLASSIFIED
                           22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R*v. 4-77)   PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
                                             54
                  * US 60VEWIMFHT HUNTING OFFICE. 1980 -657-146/5626

-------