ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STUDY
RIVER
R I E S
REGION VIII
DENVER, COLORADO
A WATER
UPPER CI
S E L E C T [
QUALITY
OF THE
ARK FORK
A N D
D T R I B U T A
SEPTEMBER
1972
-------
A WATER QUALITY STUDY
OF THE
UPPER CLARK FORK RIVER
AND
SELECTED TRIBUTARIES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
DENVER, COLORADO
SEPTEMBER 1972
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
I. Statement of Problem 1
II. Objectives 2
III. Approach 6
IV. Scope of Study 7
V. Authority 7
VI. Acknowledgements 7
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS 8
RECOMMENDATIONS 10
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 13
I. General 13
II. Hydrology 15
III. Water Uses 17
IV. Waste Sources 18
V. Water Quality Standards 19
STUDY DESIGN 20
I. Water Quality Evaluation 20
II. Biological Evaluation 20
A. Benthic Biota 20
B. Fish 21
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
RESULTS 22
I. Chemical Quality 22
A. Average Conditions 22
B. Seasonal Differences 26
C. Intermittent Waste Discharges 27
II. Biological Quality 32
A. Benthic 32
B. Fish ' 34
DISCUSSION 36
I. Comparison of Existing Conditions With Standards .... 36
A. Silver Bow Creek 36
B. Clark Fork River From Warm Springs Creek to the
Mouth of the Little Blackfoot River 36
C. Clark Fork River Below the Mouth of the Little
Blackfoot River 38
ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Map of the Upper Clark Fork Drainage Basin Showing
Water Quality Monitoring Stations 14
2. Variations in the Concentrations of Heavy Metals in
the Clark Fork River Downstream of the Anaconda
Company Discharge 24
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
I. State of Montana Water Pollution Control Council Water
Quality Criteria Applicable After Reasonable Opportunity
for Discharges to Mix with Receiving Waters as
Determined by the Montana Water Pollution Control
Council 3
II. Implementation Schedules for Upper Clark Fork Area 5
III. Flow Estimates for Clark Fork and Tributaries 16
IV. Average Water Quality for Mainstem Clark Fork Stations ... 23
V. Average Water Quality of Tributaries 25
VI. Average Water Quality Conditions for High and Low
Periods 28
VII. Water Quality Characteristics During Spills 30
VIII. Aquatic Organisms Summary Profile Upper Clark Fork
River, Summer-1970 33
iv
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
A. Copy of Study Request From State of Montana A1
B. Information on Sampling and Analytical Methods B1
C. Detailed Data on Benthic Biota CI
D. Montana Fish and Game Department Fisheries Division
D-l. Data on Fish Populations in the Upper Reaches
of the Clark Fork River Collected by the
Montana Fish and Game Department D1
D-2. Data on Fish Populations In Selected
Tributaries to the Upper Reaches of the
Clark Fork River D2
E. Copy of Letter From State of Montana El
v
-------
INTRODUCTION
I. Statement of Problem
The Clark Fork River in western Montana is the major stream in that
region of the State and is of primary importance to the area. The waters
are heavily utilized for recreational, agricultural, industrial, and
other uses at many points. Many of these uses impose waste loads on the
stream. The most significant of these, in terms of adverse impact on
water quality, has been the waste load from mining operations.
For the past eighty to one hundred years, wastes from the copper
mining, milling, and smelting operations in the Butte and Anaconda area
have been discharged to the Clark Fork River. In the past, these wastes
created conditions toxic to fish and other biological forms as far down-
stream as Missoula, a distance of one hundred miles. In more recent
years, operational improvements and waste treatment facilities installed
by the companies have greatly improved the quality of the stream. There
are still, however, significant water quality problems attributable to
the mining operations.
In 1967, the Montana Water Pollution Control Council, as part of
their continuing program of protecting and improving water quality, estab-
lished water quality standards for the surface waters of Montana. These
standards established beneficial uses to be protected but did not specify
numerical criteria for heavy metals and other associated contaminants.
For the Clark Fork River, the established beneficial uses are recreation
including swimming, growth and marginal propagation of salmonid fish,
1
-------
and agricultural and industrial water supplies in the reach from Warm
Springs Creek to the mouth of the Little Blackfoot River. In the reach
from the mouth of the Little Blackfoot River to the Idaho-Montana State
border, the uses are public water supply, recreation including swimmxng,
growth and propagation of salmonid fish and agricultural and industrial
water supplies. Applicable water quality standards for these reaches
are listed in Tables I and II.
The Montana State Department of Health and Environmental Sciences,
the agency responsible for administering the standards, soon recognized
the need to establish heavy metal standards criteria on the Clark Fork
River in order to protect the beneficial uses and establish the required
treatment levels for the mining operations near Butte and Anaconda. In
March, 1970, the Montana State Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences requested the Environmental Protection Agency (then the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration) to conduct bioassays or stream
studies to determine the allowable maximum concentrations for heavy
metals in the Clark Fork. A copy of the request is included in Appendix
A. This report documents the results of those studies.
II. Objectives
The specific objectives of this study were:
1. What are present water quality and biological conditions in the
Clark Fork River between Warm Springs and Drummond, Montana?
2
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Attachment to Table I
Footnotes:
1/ Classification C-D2. Hie quality of these waters shall be maintained suitable for bathing, swimming,
— and recreation; growth and marginal propagation of salmonid fish and associated aquatic life, waterfowl,
and furbearers; agricultural and industrial water supply. Therefore, "C-D2" equals "C", "D2"> "E"• and
"F" .
2/ Classification The quality of these waters shall be maintained suitable for drinking, culinary,
— and food processing purposes after adequate treatment equal to coagulation, sedimentation, filtration,
disinfection, and any additional treatment necessary to remove naturally present impurities; bathing,
swimming and recreation (see Note under "A-Open-D^ ; growth and propagation of salmonid fish and
associated aquatic life, waterfowl, and furbearers; agricultural and industrial water supply- Therefore,
"B—D^" equals "B", "C", "D^1, "E", and "F".
-------
U1
TABLE II
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES FOR UPPER CLARK FORK AREA
Construction Time
Schedule
City or Industry
Treatment Need
Eng.
Report
Arr. of
Financing
Const.
Plans
Start
Const.
Placed in
Operation
Butte Metropolitan
Sewer District
Secondary sewage treatment
C O
M P L E T
E D
Missoula
Secondary sewage treatment
7/1/69
1/1/70
7/1/70
1/1/71
7/1/72
Anaconda Copper Co.
Needs to be determined.U
Order issued by State Board of
Health for compliance with
standards.
(See
comment below)
* 1/ Adequate safeguards and procedures will be incorporated into the treatment system to protect the water quality
of the Clark Fork River below Warm Springs at all times. Immediate consideration shall be given to correcting:
a. Deficiencies of winter-time operation, spills due to wind action, temporary bypassing of wastes, or any
other cause of waste spills.
b. Disruption of normal operation by periodic labor disputes or any other causes. (These preventative
measures will be taken no later than July 1968.)
*NOTE: As a further step toward improving water quality in the Clark Fork River, the State of Montana in 1969
established a July, 1972, date for total water quality standards compliance by the Anaconda Copper
Company. By this date the Company is to complete the treatment facilities needed to provide adequate
treatment for all their wastes.
-------
2. What are the allowable concentrations of metals and other con-
stituents that will protect the established beneficial uses for the
Clark Fork River at Warm Springs, Montana?
III. Approach
Since the personnel and resources were not available to conduct
bioassay studies, it was decided that stream studies would be conducted
to determine the water quality in the Clark Fork River reaches at points
where the specified beneficial uses existed. The average heavy metal(s)
concentrations at those points would then be recommended as the allowable
average daily concentrations to be included in the water quality standards.
This method has both advantages and disadvantages as compared to the
bioassay studies. A major advantage is that it is almost impossible to
include all of the water quality variables in a laboratory study while
the condition of the biological community at any point in the stream is
indicative of the cumulative and long-term effects of variations in water
quality. Conversely, a major disadvantage is that heavy metal concentra-
tions and other water quality parameters in a stream do not remain constant
during any established period. Also, stream surveys are easily and
severly affected by extremes in natural conditions and accidental spills
or discharges; however, this survey was not so affected and the resultant
data are considered to be reliable for establishing water quality standards.
6
-------
IV. Scope of Study
The study involved extensive water quality sampling and biological
evaluations in the reach of the Clark Fork from Warm Springs to Drummond,
Montana, and in selected tributaries. The field work was conducted during
the period from May through November, 1970. Data from previous studies in
the area were also reviewed.
V. Authority
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, provides authority
for studies of this type.
VI. Acknowledgements
All field and laboratory work discussed in this report was accomplished
by personnel of the Pacific Northwest Region, Federal Water Quality Admin-
istration, now Region X, EPA. The cooperation of the Montana State
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, the Montana Department
of Fish and Game, and the Anaconda Corporation is appreciated.
7
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Analyses of the chemical and biological samples collected during the
survey, and of the 1969-1970 population data indicates that:
1. The Clark Fork River above Deer Lodge is severely polluted as
indicated by a deficient and non-balanced population of benthic organisms
and an almost non-existent fish population.
2. Populations of benthic organisms at and below Garrison are
generally representative of a healthy, well-balanced biological system
with significant numbers of many forms being present.
3. Fish populations in the Clark Fork gradually increase from
Dempsey downstream and below Drummond the stream supports significant
sportfishing activity.
4. Wastes discharge from the Anaconda Company settling ponds are
the principal cause of the high concentrations of most metals and other
constituents in the Clark Fork at Warm Springs. These high concentra-
tions gradually decrease downstream, approaching tributary water quality
in the Clark Fork River below Drummond. Also, these waste discharges
have caused the "cementing" of the river bottom from the Anaconda
Company settling ponds downstream to between Dempsey and Deer Lodge.
This cementing is caused by the precipitation of the gypsum and metalic
hydroxides in the settling pond discharges.
5. Chemical and biological conditions in the streams tributary to
the Clark Fork within the study area are indicative of high quality
water.
8
-------
6. Waste spills from the Anaconda Company settling ponds which
resulted in significant increases in metal concentrations in the re-
ceiving water were observed on several occasions.
7. The beneficial uses designated in the approved standards for
the Clark Fork River between the mouth of Warm Springs Creek and the
mouth of the Little Blackfoot River are supported by present average
water quality conditions at Garrison, Montana.
8. The beneficial uses designated in the approved standards for
the Clark Fork River below the mouth of the Little Blackfoot River are
supported by present average water quality conditions at Drummond,
Montana.
9. The lead concentrations found in the trout tissues from both
the mainstem of the Clark Fork River and the tributaries (Appendix D-2),
indicate a potential hazard to either health or fish propagation.
Therefore, further water quality analyses and bio assays on the Upper
Clark Fork and tributaries are necessary to determine the degree of the
hazard related to these lead concentrations and develop an appropriate
control strategy.
9
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. To protect the beneficial uses specified by the Montana Water Quality
Standards classification of the Clark Fork River, the following standards
are recommended:
a. For the reach of the Clark Fork from the mouth of Warm Springs
Creek, to the mouth of the Little Blackfoot River, which is presently
classified C-D2.
Average Maximum
Daily Instantaneous
Concentration Concentration
ug/1 ug/1
Total Copper 90 180
Dissolved Copper 30 40
Total Zinc 200 600
Dissolved Zinc 80 140
Total Iron 1,300 2,200
Dissolved Iron 150 160
Total Lead 100* 100*
Dissolved Lead 100* 100*
Total Cadmium 10* 10*
Total Arsenic 10 16
Total Mercury 1 1
* The levels specified above for lead and cadmium are
recommended as interim standards. Additional sampling
is necessary to establish the final levels for these
parameters.
10
-------
b. For the reach of the Clark Fork from below the mouth of Little
Blackfoot River to the Montana-Idaho State line, which is presently
classified B-D^.
Average Maximum
Daily Instantaneous
Concentrations Concentrations
ug/1 ug/1
Total Copper 50 90
Dissolved Copper 30 30
Total Zinc 100 200
Dissolved Zinc 70 80
Total Iron 300 1,300
Dissolved Iron 150 150
Total Lead 50* 50*
Dissolved Lead 50* 50*
Total Cadmium 10* 10
Total Arsenic 10 10
Total Mercury 1 1
* The levels specified above for lead and cadmium are
recommended as interim standards. Additional sampling
is necessary to establish the final levels for these
parameters.
2. In conjunction with the adoption of the standards recommended above,
it is recommended that the State of Montana initiate action to upgrade
the classification of the Clark Fork River reach from the mouth of Warm
Springs Creek to the mouth of the Little Blackfoot River from C-D2 to
C-Di.
11
-------
3. A joint Federal/State water quality survey to establish the maximum
allowable concentration of lead and cadmium in the Upper Clark Fork
River Basin, be scheduled for the period of January - December 1973.
This survey should include bio assays and toxicology studies sufficient
to develop final lead and cadmium standards for the Upper Clark Fork
River.
4. The survey requested by the State of Montana on the water quality
problems of the Silver Bow Creek area between Butte and Warm Springs
should be completed by the Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII,
by September 1972, so that the State of Montana can reclassify the
Silver Bow Creek area for other than industrial use.
12
-------
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
I. General
The Clark Fork River is located in the northern Rocky Mountain
physiographic province of western Montana. It begins in the granite
hills near Butte, flows generally northwest about 520 miles and termi-
nates in Lake Pend Oreille. From the headwaters to Warm Springs,
Montana, the stream is called Silver Bow Creek (see Figure 1).
The section of the Clark Fork River between Warm Springs and
Garrison, Montana, which is the principle area covered by this study,
flows through Deer Lodge Valley (a broad intermontane valley). This
north-south trending valley is six to ten miles wide and about 25 miles
long. It is bordered on the east by the Continental Divide and on the
west by the Flint Creek Range.
The Deer Lodge Valley is partially filled by a thick layer of well-
sorted silt, sand, gravel and clay. This fill has been eroded into
extensive terraces which border both sides of the valley below Warm
Springs, Montana. The broad floodplain of the Clark Fork is underlain
by a thin deposit of poorly sorted silt, sand and gravel alluvium. Bed-
rock forming the surrounding mountains and underlying the unconsolidated
valley fill is composed of sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic rocks.
The area is characterized by long, cold winters and low precipi-
tation. January is generally the coldest month, with the temperatures
averaging below freezing. Most of the precipitation occurs during the
13
-------
V *,
. 8500
r '
Drummond
RM417
6900
VENNER
RANCH 'BR.
LODGE
VALLEY
RM454
Deer 'Lodge
RM /&61
8592
SAMPLING
STATION
D^mpsey
RM4705
9036
• Water
a Biology
Warm Springs\- RM^84
Xnaconda Pond 3
Anaconda
Mill
BUTTE i
7900
' rtjTinfrsf,
i <*£--•*
6000
8300
0
< L.
5 Miles
J^.6418
V.
FIGURE 1. Map of the Upper Clark Drainage Basin
showing water quality monitoring stations.
14
-------
spring and summer months with June generally being the wettest month.
Strong winds are also common in the area.
II. Hydrology
Silver Bow Creek flows west from Butte through a narrow valley and
enters the southern end of Deer Lodge Valley where, after combining with
some other small creeks, it becomes the Clark Fork River. The Clark
Fork River then flows north for about 30 miles to the confluence with
the Little Blackfoot River at Garrison, Montana. The river then flows
northwesterly on through another narrow valley toward Missoula, Montana.
There are two major tributaries to the Clark Fork in the study area
below the Deer Lodge Valley. These are the Little Blackfoot River which
enters just upstream from Garrison, Montana, and Flint Creek which enters
just upstream from Drummond, Montana. Also, numerous tributaries to the
Clark Fork River originate in the Flint Ridge Range and flow eastward
into the Deer Lodge Valley. These streams include Lost, Modesty, Race-
track, Dempsey, Powell, Tincup, and Rock Creeks.
The available stream flow data for the Upper Clark Fork drainage
is meager. A general estimate of the average flow characteristics in
the mainstem is shown in Table III. The data in this table are estimates
based on some flow measurements and observations by experts in stream
flow measurement from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In general,
peakflows coincide with the spring runoff and low flows occur in the fall
and early winter.
15
-------
TABLE III
FLOW ESTIMATES FOR CLARK FORK AND TRIBUTARIES
Estimated Mean Monthly Flow - (1970), cfs
Station
May
June
July
August
September
October
Clark Fork - Greqson
250
300
110
50
45
50
Clark Fork - Opportunity
310
370
150
60
50
60
Willow Creek - 1-90
60
70
25
11
10
11
Mill Creek - 1-90
70
80
30
15
13
15
Warm Springs Creek - (mouth)
70
80
30
13
10
13
Clark Fork - Warm Sprinqs
450
500
300
200
150
200
Lost Creek - 1-90
150
200
100
50
40
50
Racetrack Creek - 1-90
100
125
25
10
9
10
Clark Fork - Dempsey
480
600
300
200
180
230
Clark Fork - Deer Lodge
500
650
350
225
200
250
Clark Fork - near Garrison
600
700
380
250
210
260
Little Blackfoot River - (mouth)
350
400
150
80
60
70
Clark Fork - near Garrison
1000
1400
550
300
250
325
Warm Springs Creek - Garrison
20
40
20
10
8
9
Gold Creek near Gold Creek
80
100
40
16
14
16
Brook Creek - 1-90
10
12
5
2
1.5
2
Clark Fork at Drummond
1750
1900
1200
500
450
650
Flint Creek - (mouth)
250
350
200
150
100
150
16
-------
In the Deer Lodge Valley reach the flow of the Clark Fork more
than doubles during high flow periods and quadruples during low flow
periods. The greater increase during the low flow period is principally
due to the discharge of ground water from the unconsolidated valley
alluvium.
III. Water Uses
The largest water user in the Upper Clark Fork River area is the
Anaconda Company operations at Butte, Montana, and at the copper smelter
located in Anaconda, Montana. A total of about 80 million gallons per
day (mgd) is used at the smelter primarily in the flotation type con-
centrators of which approximately 25 mgd is recycled process water and
55 mgd is make-up water from Warm Springs Creek and Georgetown Lake.
At Butte, Montana, 13-14 mgd is used for public water supply with
approximately 10 mgd supplied by transmountain diversion from the head-
waters of the Missouri River and the remainder supplied from storage on
the headwaters of Silver Bow Creek.
Present water quality limits other uses of the Clark Fork River
above Deer Lodge, Montana. Below this point there is a gradual increase
in recreational and other uses, primarily fishing. Below Garrison,
Montana, fishing use increases rapidly. The Montana Fish and Game Depart-
ment considers the Clark Fork River downstream from Drummond, Montana, as
one of the best trout streams in the State.
17
-------
IV. Waste Sources
There are three treated domestic wastes discharged into the Upper
Clark Fork River. Seven mgd of treated effluent are discharged from the
Butte, Montana, new secondary treatment plant to Silver Bow Creek. An
effluent flow of 0.2 mgd from the State Hospital treatment lagoon is
discharged to the Clark Fork River downstream of the county road bridge
at Warm Springs, Montana. At Deer Lodge, Montana, approximately 0.5 mgd
of effluent from the town lagoon is discharged to the Clark Fork River.
The municipal wastes from Anaconda, Montana, are discharged to the
Anaconda Company tailings ponds.
The largest industrial discharger in the area is the Anaconda
Company. At Butte, Montana, the copper precipitation process wastewater
flows range from 3,000 to 5,000 gpm with a pH of about 4 and an iron
concentration of more than 2,000 mg/1. Hie wastewater is discharged
into Silver Bow Creek for transport to the settling ponds near Warm
Springs, Montana, 24 miles downstream, for further treatment. The highly
acidic flows in Silver Bow Creek are mixed with lime and the alkaline
waste from the copper smelter at Anaconda, Montana, before reaching the
settling ponds. Dependent upon pH, the ferrous or ferric hydroxide is
precipitated in the settling ponds. The effluent from the settling
ponds is essentially a saturated solution of calcium sulfate (gypsum')
which contains varying amounts of total and dissolved metals. The
variations in effluent quality are caused by process fluctuations, poor
pond operation, intermittent bypassing of settling ponds, and spills or
short-circuiting in the ponds due to adverse wind or ice conditions.
18
-------
V. Water Quality Standards
The Montana State Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
adopted water quality standards in 1967 in accordance with provisions
of the Water Quality Act of 1965. These standards were formally approved
by the Federal Government on February 29, 1968. For the Clark Fork
River, these standards classified the reach from the mouth of the Warm
Springs Creek to the mouth of the Little Blackfoot River as C-D2 and
the reach from the mouth of the Little Blackfoot River to the Montana-
Idaho State line as B-D^.
These standards consist of specified water quality criteria designed
to protect water uses in the Upper Clark Fork River and an implementa-
tion plan which outlines treatment requirements and waste treatment
construction schedules for the cities of Butte and Missoula, Montana,
and also the Anaconda Copper Company at Butte and Anaconda, Montana.
The water quality standards criteria for the Upper Clark Fork
River are summarized in Table I and the applicable implementation
schedules are listed in Table II.
19
-------
STUDY DESIGN
I. Water Quality Evaluation
In order to determine present water quality in the upper reaches
of the Clark Fork River, nineteen sampling stations were established
as shown on Figure 1. In order to evaluate water quality during both
high and low flow periods, the survey was conducted from May through
November, 1970. During this period sampling trips were made approxi-
mately bi-weekly with mainstem stations sampled on every trip and the
tributary stations less often.
At each sampling station temperature, pH, conductivity, and
alkalinity were measured at the time of sampling. Additional samples
were collected for laboratory analyses including total hardness, sul-
fate, total mercury, total cadmium, and both total and dissolved con-
centrations of zinc, copper, and iron. Analyses for solids and other
metallic ions were also conducted.
Appendix B to this report contains a detailed description of the
station locations, sampling dates, and specific analytical methods.
II. Biological Evaluation
A. Benthic Biota. An assessment of the macroinvertebrate fishfood
organisms associated with the bottom was made at five stations on the
mainstream of the Clark Fork and on three tributaries as shown on
Figure 1. The biological data at these points were collected by two
20
-------
different sampling methods. Artificial substrates consisting of stone-
filled wire baskets were placed in the stream at each sampling point.
These samplers were initially installed on May 19, 1970, and the
organisms were collected on June 29, August 12, and September 16,
1970. In addition, standard bottom samples using a Surber sampler were
collected during the August 12, 1970, sampling trip. At each site,
four distinct samples were taken and composited. In all cases, the
organisms collected were preserved with 70 percent ethanol and sent to
the Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory for identification.
B. Fish. In order to provide a qualitative determination of fish
populations in portions of the mainstern of the Clark Fork River and
selected tributaries, the Montana State Fish and Game Department con-
ducted electrical shocking surveys during 1969 and 1970. The results of
these surveys are presented in Appendix D-l. In November, 1970, similar
investigations involving both EPA and Montana Fish and Game personnel were
conducted on seven Clark Fork tributaries. These were Flint, Warm
Springs (Powell County), Racetrack, Lost, Warm Springs (Deer Lodge
County), and Willow Creeks and Little Blackfoot River. At each location
qualitative evaluations were made on quantity, size, species, and general
condition of the fish (see Appendix D-2).
21
-------
RESULTS
I. Chemical Quality
A. Average Conditions
The general pattern of water quality in the upper Clark Fork
River is apparent from the data in Table IV and Figure 2. Table IV
lists the average water quality values measured at the six Clark
Fork River sampling stations and the overall average values for the
same parameters of the seven tributaries. Table V lists the average
water quality values for the individual tributaries. Locations for
all the stations indicated are shown on Figure 1. A complete summary
of the data for each sampling station is available through STORET.
Concentrations of most constituents in the Clark Fork River
are high at the upper end of the study area and gradually decrease
downstream. Dissolved copper, dissolved iron, total mercury, and
total cadmium concentrations remain essentially constant with the
latter two at very low concentrations. Alkalinity and pH increase in
the downstream direction.
As shown by the data in Tables IV and V, the water quality in
the tributaries is much better than in the Clark Fork River. The con-
centrations of most constituents in the tributaries are significantly
lower than at the Drummond, Montana, station which has the lowest
constituent concentrations of the Clark Fork stations. The difference
is particularly striking when the water quality of the tributaries is
compared with the water quality of the Clark Fork stations at the upper
end of the study area.
22
-------
to
u>
TABLE IV
AVERAGE WATER QUALITY FOR MAINSTEM CLARK FORK STATIONS
Parameter
1
Warm Springs
RM 483.7
Average
Dempsey Creek
RM 470.5
Average
Deer Lodge
RM 461.2
Average
! Tavenner Ranch Br.
RM 453.8
Average
Garrison
RM 444.5
Average
Drummond
RM 417.0
Average
Average For
Seven
Tributaries
PH
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.9
7.8
Total Alkalinity, mg/1
as CACO^
47
92
109
123
120
150
159
Total hardness, mg/1
1133
764
755
623
542
434
286
Sulfate, mg/1
1233
638
515
547
397
260
88
Total Copper, ug/1
200
130
185
143
91
51
37
Dissolved Copper, ug/1
42
38
41
47
32
34
27
Total Zinc, ug/1
810
333
584
286
173
119
50
Dissolved Zinc, ug/1
432
157
141
122
83
69
30
Total Iron, ug/1
1765
1280
2167
1367
1275
530
205
Dissolved Iron, ug/1
141
170
156
157
148
144
125
Total Mercury, ug/1
0.8
0.8
0.8
o
00
00
o
CO
o
1.0
Total Arsenic, ug/1
30
16
16
15
11
13
10. 3
Total Cadmium, ug/1
15
<10
< 10
< 10
<-10
< 10
< 10
-------
1
*
2000
1000
490 380 370 460 J5o 440 430 420 410
RTVER MILE FROM MOUTH
FIGURE 2. Variations in the concentrations of Heavy Metals in the Clark Fork River
downstream of the Anaconda Company discharge.
-------
tsj
(_n
TABLE V
AVERAGE WATER QUALITY OF TRIBUTARIES
Parameters
Lost
Creek
Average
Racetrack
Creek
Average
Dempsey
Creek
Average
Little Blackfoot
River
Average
Warm Springs Cr.
(Powell City)
Average
Brook
Creek
Average
Flint
Creek
Average
PH
8.1
7.4
7.6
7.4
8.1
8.2
7.9
Total Alkalinity, mg/1
as CaC03
173
89
158
121
201
205
164
Total hardness, mg/1
305
149
412
165
473
292
216
Sulfate, mg/1
96
14
—
22
266
101
29
Total Copper, ug/1
35
32
48
37
37
37
35
Dissolved Copper, ug/1
27
22
33
26
24
29
28
Total Zinc, ug/1
38
38
108
38
33
42
55
Dissolved Zinc, ug/1
20
18
42
28
30
31
43
Total Iron, ug/1
229
174
107
796i/
188
258
594^/
Dissolved Iron, ug/1
90
107
80
171
101
160
163
Total Mercury, ug/1
1.5
1.5
0.8
CO
*
o
0.7
0.9
1.0
Total Arsenic, ug/1
28
5
7.5
8.5
4.7
7.3
11
Total Cadmium, ug/1
<10
<10
<10
<10
< 10
< 10
<10
1/ Average includes two extremely high values obtained during high flow conditions. Average without these values
included would be 179 ug/1.
2/ Average includes two extremely high values obtained during high flow conditions. Average without these values
included would be 300 ug/1.
-------
Usually constituent concentrations in a given stream increase
in a downstream direction due to both natural and man-made causes. In
the Clark Fork River a converse situation exists because substantial
portions of the flow at Warm Springs are effluent from the Anaconda
Company settling ponds which contains significant quantities of both
dissolved and suspended contaminants; for example, note the excessively
high hardness and sulfate levels. The quality of the Clark Fork River
gradually improves downstream due to dilution by the tributaries. The
data indicates that the downstream decrease in heavy metals concentra-
tions probably continues below Drummond, the downstream limit of the
study.
During the course of the field investigations it was also noted
that from Warm Springs to somewhere between Dempsey and Deer Lodge the
bottom materials were "cemented" together. The condition was most
noticeable at Warm Springs and improved downstream. This condition
is due primarily to the high levels of calcium, sulfate, and metallic
ions in the discharge from the Anaconda Company settling ponds which
precipitate as gypsum and insoluble metallic hydroxides and coat the
bottom. Reduction in the concentrations of these constituents, both
due to precipitation and tributary dilutions, results in a gradual
improvement downstream.
B. Seasonal Differences
The seasonal high flow in the Clark Fork River is about four
times greater than the low flow. To evaluate the influence of flow
levels on water quality, the data were separated and averaged according
26
-------
to flow period as shown in Table VI. Analysis of the data shows the
concentrations of hardness, alkalinity, and dissolved metals are lower
during high flow period in the spring than during the low flow period
in late summer and fall. The values for pH were also lower during
the higher flows. Conversely, the concentrations of total iron, total
copper, and total zinc are highest during the maximum flow period which
indicates an increased concentration of suspended material.
C. Intermittent Waste Discharges
On six occasions water quality conditions indicative of spills
were observed. Red wateri/ discharges from the Anaconda settling ponds
were documented on October 6 and October 21, 1970. In both instances,
the red water was also observed at the Warm Springs station. A yellowish-
colored^/ discharge from the pond was documented on October 22, 1970.
On August 11, 1970, red water was observed and documented at Deer Lodge.
The water quality for all the mainstem Clark Fork stations and the
settling pond effluent on dates of spills are presented in Table VII.
Underlined values correspond to stations where red or yellow water was
observed.
1/ Red coloration is due to high concentrations of ferric hydroxide.
This is one of the waste constituents normally removed by the ponds.
"y Yellow coloration due to high concentrations of ferrous hydroxide.
27
-------
to
00
TABLE VI
AVERAGE WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS FOR HIGH AND LOW PERIODS
CF
at
CF
at
CF
at
CF at
Tavenner
CF
at
CF
at
Flow
Warm
Springs
Dempsey
Deer
Lodge
Ranch
Bridge
Garrison
Drummond
Parameter
Period
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
PH
H
6. 2
(5.9)1/
6.3
(6.1)
6.4
(6.0)
6.4
(6. 2)
6.3
(5.6)
___
L
7.7
(7.1)
7.7
(6.9)
7.7
(7.1)
7.8
(7.5)
8.0
7.7
8.0
7.7
Total Alkalinity,
H
41
48
71
95
85
125
104
190
99
150
mg/1 as CaC03
L
50
85
106
137
122
145
134
162
132
142
157
200
Total Hardness,
H
713
990
520
785
486
724
457
620
472
923
mg/1 as CaCO^
L
1270
1430
845
1080
845
1950
679
900
566
720
434
620
Sulfate, mg/1
H
L
1230
1450
637
800
515
675
547
600
397
420
260
300
Total Copper, ug/1
H
13 0
220
233
420
408
1200
215
360
113
160
L
23 5
1360
78
160
74
190
108
460
80
240
51
90
Dissolved Copper,
H
31
50
29
40
47
70
34
60
26
40
ug/1
L
47
70
42
60
39
60
53
190
34
60
36
50
Total Zinc, ug/1
H
420
720
487
960
1210
4700
488
1000
252
340
L
1000
4200
256
460
211
500
185
500
133
280
102
160
Dissolved Zinc,
H
278
580
115
170
127
230
112
220
65
130
ug/1
L
508
1400
178
280
150
240
127
230
93
170
71
140
"H" = High
"L" = Low
1/ { ) indicates minimum rather than maximums.
-------
ro
10
TABLE VI (CONTINUED)
AVERAGE WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS FOR HIGH AND LOW PERIODS
CF
at
CF
at
CF
at
CF at
Tavenner
CF
at
CF at
Flow
Warm
Springs
Dempsey
Deer
Lodge
Ranch
Bridge
Garrison
Drummond
Parameter
Period
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg Max
Total Iron, ug/1
H
1565
2800
3030
6800
5650
18000
3250
7200
3160
8400
L
1870
12500
410
1500
424
1800
425
2200
330
1500
288 800
Dissolved Iron,
H
118
160
156
220
188
320
173
280
138
180
—___
ug/1
L
154
300
176
500
141
300
149
400
153
520
143 300
-------
u>
o
TABLE VII
WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS DURING SPILLS
Settling Pond
CF at
CF at
CF at
CF at Tavenner
CF at
CF at
Parameter
Date
3 at Outfall
Warm Springs
Dempsey
Deer Lodge
Ranch Bridge
Garrison
Drummond
pH
7/14
.
5.9
6.1
6.2
6.5
6.2
8/11
8.6
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.8
7.7
10/6
8.6
7.5
7.7
7.7
7,6
7.8
8.0
10/7
8.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
8.2
8.2
8.2
10/21
9.3
7.7
8.0
8.0
8.2
8.0
7.8
10/22
8.8
7.1
7.9
7.9
8.0
8.3
8.3
Total Copper,
7/14
52
400
1200
205
22
mg/1
8/11
90
80
60
70
50
70
50
10/6
1300
380
60
70
460
60
50
10/7
880
130
100
80
80
70
60
10/21
19500
1360
80
70
50
70
70
10/22
220
160
70
30
40
30
40
Dissolved Copper,
7/14
mg/1
8/11
60
40
40
40
40
30
40
10/6
50
70
60
50
190
60
40
10/7
50
40
40
30
40
20
40
10/21
-—
60
40
20
30
40
40
10/22
40
40
30
20
170
30
30
Total Zinc, mg/1
7/14
280
960
4700
440
30
8/11
80
400
110
70
60
40
40
10/6
4600
1500
210
180
240
140
90
10/7
2800
440
280
140
120
100
10/21
67500
4200
310
170
160
130
140
10/22
660
1800
340
160
170
90
80
-------
20
90
110
40
80
350
300
300
150
40
300
200
300
50
TABLE VII (CONTINUED)
WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS DURING SPILLS
Settling Pond
3 at Outfall
CF at
Warm Springs
CF at
Dempsey
CF at
Deer Lodge
CF at Tavenner
Ranch Bridge
80
100
360
67500
50
120
21000
14000
300000
3100
120
300
600
263000
125
280
240
560
3 20
880
1400
450
160
3200
600
12500
1650
160
160
300
250
125
125
110
70
200
280
210
240
4250
3 50
400
400
520
180
3 00
400
125
100
110
60
140
150
18000
60
500
300
200
250
320
200
300
100
100
75
90
40
140
160
140
2100
140
400
200
200
200
280
100
400
100
175
75
-------
II. Biological Quality
A. Benthic
Table VIII presents a summary of benthic data for the eight bio-
logical sampling stations. The first number listed for each station
indicates the total number of organisms per square foot of bottom area
assuming two square feet for basket samplers and one square foot for
each Surber. (Preliminary field studies showed the organisms collected
in two Surbers to be equal in number to organisms collected in one basket.)
The next three numbers relate to the variety of taxa observed at each
station is self explanatory. The average number of taxa per square foot
was calculated by dividing the total number of taxa found at each station
by the total number of square feet from which they were collected. The
percent occurrence of taxa was calculated by dividing the total number
of different taxa found throughout the study area into the total number
of different taxa collected at each station. The last column in the Table
is a diversity index calculated using the following formula:
Index Number = S-l where S = number of taxa
Log N N = number of individuals
The detailed biological data for each station is presented in Appendix C.
For the stations on the Clark Fork River, the data in Table VIII
indicate an improvement in water quality with increasing distance down-
stream from the Warm Springs station; for example, between Warm Springs
and Garrison, Montana, the diversity index increased about one hundred-
forty-five percent and the average number of taxa increased five hundred
percent.
32
-------
TABLE VIII
AQUATIC ORGANISMS SUMMARY PROFILE
UPPER CLARK FORK RIVER
SUMMER - 1970
Station
Storet No.
Raver Mile
Average
Number
/sq.ft.
Total
Number
Taxa
Average
Number
Taxa/sq. ft.
Taxa
Percent
Occurrence
Diversity
Index
Warm Springs
293030
483.7
8
66
1.1
15
5.5
Dempsey Bridge
293031
470.6
897
1919
4.3
49
6.1
Deer Lodge
293007
461.2
715
20
4.5
51
6.6
W-T Bridge
293032
453.8
639
24
5.3
62
8.2
Garrison (Pat's)
293027
444.5
342
21
5.5
54
7.9
8.6
Willow Cr. (1-90)
293027
490.6
80
19
4.3
49
9
9.5
Warm Springs Creek
293029
483.5
96
21
4.3
54
10
10
Little Blackfoot
River (1-90)
293033
446.2
176
27
6.7
69
11.6
33
-------
The data for the average number of organisms/ft2 in the Clark
Fork River shows a significant increase between Warm Springs and Dempsey,
Montana. Below Dempsey, Montana, the number of total organisms gradually
decrease until at Garrison, Montana, there are less than half of the
numbers found at Dempsey. Examination of Appendix C shows that one or
two pollution tolerant forms constitute most of the total number of
organisms at Dempsey indicating that water quality is impaired to the
point where less tolerant organisms are inhibited. The availability of
carbon and nutrient material to support growth is also increased due to
the effluent from the state hospital lagoon at Warm Springs, Montana.
The Clark Fork River water quality progressively improves downstream and
the pollution sensitive forms increase in occurrence and number (see
Appendix C). The biological conditions at the Garrison, Montana, station
are generally representative of a well-balanced system with significant
numbers of many taxa being present.
The quality of the benthic community in the tributaries was con-
sistently high. The Little Blackfoot River supported the most diverse
population, but all the tributaries sampled had more diverse populations
than any of the Clark Fork River stations. This is consistent with
the higher water quality measured in the tributaries (Table V).
B. Fish
The 1969-1970 fish population studies conducted on the Clark Fork
River by the Montana Fish and Game Department show significant variations
34
-------
in numbers for various reaches. A copy of the April 1969 - March 1970
report of these studies is included as Appendix D. In a 2.2 mile reach
of the Clark Fork River near Warm Springs, Montana, (Figure 1), no fish
were found. In the Clark Fork River near Dempsey, Montana, populations
increased; however, fish were not found in many of the habitat niches
which would usually be occupied. In the reach of the Clark Fork River,
between Deer Lodge and Garrison, Montana, a further improvement in fish
populations was noted, and a sustaining fish population exists in the Clark
Fork River around Drummond, Montana. There is also an active sport fishery
in this portion of the stream. This assessment is further verified by
comments in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency from the
Montana Fish and Game Department (Appendix E).
Originally, another fish population study of the Clark Fork River
was planned for the fall of 1970. After the first study however, Fish
and Game Department biologists indicated that the data obtained, supported
by creel census data, adequately defined the condition of the upper main-
stem fish populations. Therefore, the 1970 fish sampling efforts were
concentrated on the tributaries.
With the exception of Willow Creek, all the tributary stations
sampled supported larger and healthier game fish populations than those
found in the upper reaches of the mainstem study area. A shocking survey
of Lost Creek revealed a good, naturally reproducing brown trout population.
Warm Springs Creek in Powell Countv also had a large population of game
fish (see Appendix D-2).
35
-------
DISCUSSION
I. Comparison of Existing Conditions With Standards
The first step toward developing changes in, or recommending addi-
tions to, existing water quality standards is to compare present
quality in the area of interest with the quality required to meet the
designated beneficial uses. In the following discussions the results
of the field evaluations are compared with the water quality standards
classification and designated beneficial uses for each reach of the
Clark Fork River.
A. Silver Bow Creek
Silver Bow Creek is the officially designated extension of the
Clark Fork River. The Montana Water Quality Standards classify Silver
Bow Creek from the confluence of Yankee Doodle and Blacktail Deer Creeks
to the mouth of Warm Springs Creek for industrial water use. At the
present time that is the sole use of this reach. The Anaconda Copper
Company has almost a total water right on the stream and uses it to
transport wastes from Butte to the settling ponds at Anaconda. The
Company is to remove these wastes from Silver Bow Creek by July, 1972,
at which time additional studies are warrented to establish new,
achievable beneficial uses.
B. Clark Fork River From Warm Springs Creek to the Mouth of the
Little Blackfoot River
Of the beneficial uses designated for this reach, the growth
and marginal propagation of salmonid fish and associated aquatic life
is the one which determines most of the quality criteria with the
36
-------
criteria for toxic or other deleterious substances and pH being most
important.
Previous discussions indicate that in the reach of the Clark
Fork River between the mouth of Warm Springs Creek and Deer Lodge,
Montana, the stream is biologically and chemically degraded. There is
almost a total lack of benthic biota at Warm Springs, Montana, and the
numbers and diversity of organisms at Dempsey and Deer Lodge, Montana,
are still not indicative of a healthy system. The fish population
studies indicate that no significant game fish population exists in this
reach of the river.
The degraded water quality conditions in Warm Springs Creek
and Deer Lodge reach are due to a combination of several factors. The
precipitation of gypsum and metallic hydroxides eliminates or greatly
reduces the availability of bottom gravels for fish spawning and benthic
habitat. Individually, the average concentrations of dissolved metals,
hardness, pH, etc., are probably not high enough to cause acute toxicity;
but, synergistically, they cause a very significant stress on the biological
population. This stress is magnified by the higher concentrations found
during spills. The overall adverse impact on the biota is evident.
From Deer Lodge, Montana, to the mouth of the Little Blackfoot
River, water quality conditions in the Clark Fork River are improved.
No significant bottom cementing occurs and populations of bottom organisms
show a greater diversity and are generally indicative of a healthy benthic
biota. Game fish increase in number, and between the Tavenner Ranch and
Garrison, Montana, a limited sport fishery exists.
37
-------
Based on the results of this survey, the water quality of the
Clark Pork River above Deer Lodge, Montana, does not support the growth
and marginal propagation of salmonid fish as required by the C-D2 water
quality standards classification and the criteria relating to "toxic
or deleterious substances" is being violated. Below Deer Lodge, Montana,
particularly in that portion of the stream between the Tavenner Ranch
and Garrison, Montana, the results indicate that the Clark Fork River
supports growth and marginal propagation of salmonids. Since the uses
associated with the C-D2 classification are being supported by the exist-
ing water quality at Garrison, Montana, the average concentration of
heavy metals measured at Garrison are recommended as the criteria for
the C-D2 classification of the Montana Water Quality Standards. However,
since there are seasonal variations and since the survey indicates that
the water quality at Deer Lodge, Montana, also appears to support the
designated beneficial uses, it is recommended that the average heavy
metals concentrations measured at Deer Lodge, Montana, be adopted as the
maximum allowable instantaneous peak concentrations for the C-D2
classification.
C. Clark Fork River Below the Mouth of the Little Blackfoot River
Of the beneficial uses designated for this reach, the most perti-
nent to this study is the growth and propagation of salmonid fish. Where
this designated use is supported by the water quality, the criterion
relating to toxic substances can be numerically established.
Conditions improve rapidly in the reach from the mouth of the
Little Blackfoot River to Drummond, Montana, the lower limit of the study
38
-------
area. There is a diverse, well-balanced community of benthic biota
just downstream of Garrison, Montana. Water quality improves progress-
ively downstream and at Drummond, Montana, approaches tributary quality.
The Clark Fork River in the vicinity of Drummond, Montana, is considered
to be one of the better sport fishing streams in Montana. Therefore,
the uses associated with the B-D-^ classification are being supported by
the existing water quality at Drummond, Montana, and the average heavy
metals concentrations measured at the Drummond, Montana, station are
recommended as the criteria for the B-D^ classification of the Montana
Water Quality Standards. Also, in recognition of seasonal variations
and the fact that the B-D-^ classification appears to be supported by the
water quality at Garrison, Montana, it is recommended that the average
heavy metals concentrations measured at Garrison, Montana, be adopted as
the maximum allowable instantaneous peak concentrations for the B-D^
classification.
39
-------
APPENDIX A
COPY OF STUDY REQUEST
FROM
STATE OF MONTANA
-------
jState department of |Healii]
jitaie of Montana
JOHN S ANDERSON M D
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
HELENA, MONTANA 59601
March 17, 1970
Mr. James Agee, Regional Director
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Room 501, Pittock Block
Portland, Oregon 97205
Dear Mr. Agee:
Mr. D. G. Willems of the Department of Health water pollution control
staff has had several discussions with members of your staff regarding
the need for field work in the Butte-Anaconda area. This work cannot
be accomplished by our staff because of our small budget. We feel the
following work is needed:
1. Bioassays or stream studies to determine the maximum limits
for heavy metals in the Clark Fork River.
2. A study to determine the probable water quality effects of
storm runoff in the Butte area, the effects of groundwater
discharge on surface water quality, and the probable water
quality of Silver Bow Creek if the mine-mill wastes are
diverted from it.
This information is needed before the design of additional treatment
facilities is started by the Anaconda Company, and we sincerely seek the
help of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in obtaining
the needed information as soon as possible.
JSA:DGW:sdd
-------
APPENDIX B
INFORMATION ON SAMPLING
AND
ANALYTICAL METHODS
-------
SAMPLE HANDLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
I. Sample Handling
A. Collection
At each river sampling station, three clean plastic containers
were filled (two, one-liter samples and one 500 milliliter sample). At
all stations this was accomplished by hand from shore. The containers
were filled directly from the river and sampling equipment was not used.
At Station 293036 the samples were taken directly from the decant tower.
B. Documentation
All sample containers were tagged at the time of filling. The
information recorded on the tags included project, date, time, station,
laboratory identification number, preservation, and depth (where
appropriate). The same information was recorded in a field book, along
with any observations and the results of the field analyses. The field
notes are presently located in the project files of the Technical
Assistance and Investigations Branch, Office of Technical Programs,
Water Quality Office, Environmental Protection Agency.
At the conclusion of the field survey, samples for laboratory
analyses were transported to the Pacific Northwest Laboratory by survey
personnel. At the laboratory the samples were logged in and then held
in a sample storage room until the analyses were performed.
C. Preservation
Preservation methods depend upon the analyses to be performed.
The laboratory analyses required for these samples were total hardness
and total and dissolved concentrations of zinc, iron, lead, and copper.
1
-------
The samples for total hardness did not require preservation. Those for
metals analyses were preserved by adding 25 milliliters of concentrated
nitric acid (HNO3) per liter of sample. In the case of the samples for
dissolved metals, the samples were filtered through a 0.45 micron membrane
filter prior to addition of the acid preservative. This filter size has
been established as the dividing line between dissolved and particulate
metals. The preservation measures used for these samples were specified
by the Chief Chemist, Consolidated Laboratory Services, Pacific Northwest
Water Laboratory (PNWL), located in Corvallis, Oregon.
II. Analytical Procedures
A. Field Analyses
Field determinations were made on all samples for the following
parameters: temperature, pH, alkalinity, and conductivity. The analytical
procedures used for these procedures are outlined below. If a standard
method was used, only the appropriate reference is cited.
1. Temperature. Either bucket or in situ temperatures were taken
with a standard mercury laboratory thermometer.
2. pH. The pH determinations were made using a Beckman Electromate
(Beckman Instruments, Inc.). Frequent checks on the calibration were made
using standard buffer solutions.
3. Alkalinity. Hie alkalinity analyses were conducted according
to the method specified in the 12th Edition,standard Methods for the Exam-
ination of Water and Wastewater, 1965. The endpoint for the titration
was determined with a pH meter. Distilled water for dilution was trans-
ported from the laboratory.
4. Conductivity. Conductivity determinations were made using a
Beckman Model RB-3-327 Conductivity Meter.
2
-------
B. Laboratory Analyses
Hie analyses conducted at the laboratory were total hardness,
total and dissolved metals. The methods used for these analyses are
outlined below:
1. Total Hardness. Hardness analyses were made using the EDTA
titration method specified in the 12th Edition of Standarrd Methods.
2. Metals. All metals analyses were conducted using the atomic
absorption methods outlined in FWPA Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes—November 1969. Where conductivity indicated low con-
centrations of dissolved constituents, the samples were concentrated by
evaporation prior to analysis.
3
-------
TABLE B-l
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING
Descri ption
Clark Fork River at bridge in Drummond, MT.
Clark Fork River-behind tavern approxi-
mately one mile downstream from
Garrison, MT.-sample near irrigation pump.
Clark Fork River at Williams and Tavenner
Ranch cutoff from Frontage Road below
Deer Lodge-sample downstream from bridge
Clark Fork River at Deer Lodge-sample just
above Milwaukie Avenue bridge
Clark Fork River at Dempsey Creek Bridge
just above old mouth of Dempsey Creek
Clark Fork River-approximately 1/4 mile
above mouth of Warm Springs Creek
Outfall of Anaconda Copper Co. settling
pond #3-sample from center decant tower
Flint Creek-at bridge on county road to
New Chicago, Montana approximately two
miles above mouth-sample upstream.
Gold Creek, about 1.5 miles south of Gold
Creek, Montana at point where creek
crosses road-sample on upstream side.
Brock Creek at 1-90 (U.S.-lO)-sample on
river side.
Warm Springs Creek below Garrison at
1-90 (U.S.-10) bridge-sample downstream
Little Blackfoot River at 1-90 (U.S.-10)
bridge-sample downstream
Racetrack Creek at 1=90 (U.S.-lO)-sample
between highway and railroad
Lost Creek at 1-90 (U.S.-lO)-sample
downstream side
STATIONS
Latitude-Longitude
Lat. 460 39- 42"
Long. 113° 08' 54"
Lat. 46° 52' 38"
Long. 113° 55' 53"
Lat. 46° 28' 25"
Long.112° 43' 40"
Lat. 46° 52' 38"
Long. 113° 55' 53"
Lat. 46° 18' 55"
Long.112° 44' 06"
Lat. 46° 11' 12"
Long. 112 46' 12"
Lat. 46° 111
Long. 112° 46'
Lat. 46° 37' 43"
Long. 113° 09' 54"
Lat. 46° 33' 45"
Long. 112 55' 34"
Lat. 46° 33 * 20"
Long. 112° 52' 00"
Lat. 46° 32' 25"
Long. 112° 50' 40"
Lat. 46° 31' 10"
Long. 112° 47' 32"
Lat. 46° 15' 57"
Long. 112° 44' 58"
Lat. 46° 13* 08"
Long. 112° 46' 25"
Storet Station No,
293023
293006
293032
293007
293031
293030
293036
293034
293022
293040
293039
293033
293041
293042
4
-------
Descri ption
Warm Springs Creek-approximately 1/4
mile above mouth of creek
Harm Springs Creek at bridge just above
Anaconda, Montana. Approximately 0.5
mile upstream from Fi.sh Hatchery-sample
upstream side.
Silver Bow Creek - just above bridge
where it crosses I-90 (U.S.-10) bridge.
Silver Bow Creek (Clark Fork River at
Ramsey - sample below railroad bridge.
Willow Creek-just above 1-90 (U.S.-10)
bridge.
Mill Creek-just above 1-90 (U.S.-10)
bridge. (Drain from tailing pond)
TABLE B-l (Continued)
Lati tude-Lonqi tude
Lat. 46° 11 ' 10"
Lona. 112 461
18'
Lat. 46° 08' 32"
Long. 112° 59' 00'
Lat. 46° 06* 33"
Long. 112° 48' 00'
Lat. 46° QO' 00"
Long. 112° 411 30"
Lat. 46° 06' 41"
Long. 112° 48' 00"
Lat. 46° 06' 53"
Long. 112° 48' 00'
Storet Station No.
293029
293025
293028
293035
293027
293026
5
-------
TABLE B-2
WATER QDALITY SAMPLING DATES FOR EACH STATION
STATION
STORET
STATION NO.
MAY
18 & 20
JUNE
29 & 30
JULY
14 & 15
AUGUST
11 & 13
AUGUST
26 & 27
SEPTEMBER OCTOBER OCTOBER
15 & 17 6 & 7 21 & 22
NOVEMBER
3 & 4
Clark Fork at Drummond 293023
Clark Fork Below Garrison 293006
Clark Fork at Williams & Tavennar
Ranch Bridge 293032
Clark Fork at Deer Lodge 293007
Clark Fork at Dempsey 293031
Clark Fork at Warm Springs 293030
Outfall of Anaconda Company
Settling Pond No. 3 293036
Flint Creek 293034
Gold Creek 293022
Brock Creek 293040
Warm Springs Creek (Powell County) 293039
Little Blackfoot River 293033
Racetrack Creek
Lost Creek
Warm Springs Creek (Deer Lodge
County) near mouth 293029
Warm Springs Creek (Deer Lodge
County) above Anaconda 293025
Silver Bow Creek at 1-90 Bridge 293028
Silver Bow Creek at Ramsey 293035
Willow Creek at 1-90 293027
Mill Creek at 1-90 293026
Dempsey Creek 293037
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
-------
APPENDIX C
DETAILED DATA ON BENTHIC BIOTA
-------
APPENDIX C
BIOLOGICAL DATA
Stn tions
Da t.e
Sampler CpTmon M.ime Tami ly
Or^nmsiriS
S"rave
Number
No. Forms
Tocal No.
pH Shack
STORET
U93030
6/29/70 Basket
8/12/70 Basket
Surber
(4)
9/16/70 Basket
Dempsey Cr.
Bridge
#293031
0
0
0
0
True Flies
Tendipedidae
Larvae
17
Simuliidaa
Pupae
1
Roundworms
Adult
1
Caddicflies
Hydrops>ch)dae
Larvae
7
True Flies
Tendipedidae
Larvae
22
Pupae
4
Rhagionidae
Larvae
1
Simuliidae
Larvae
10
Pupae
2
Stone Flies
Pteronarcidae
Nymph
1
Caddisflies
Hydropti Kdae
1
True Flies
Tendipedidae
Larvae
1
Pupae
1
Simuliidae
Larvae
6
Caddisflies
'Bracliycentridae
L«ti vae
5
Hydropsychidae
larvae
119
True Flies
Orthocladiidae
Larvae
1
TnrJ > t ¦>- -
- -w *
L.O if vie
3
Caddisflies
Brorhycentridae
Iarvae
14
Pupae
12
Hydropsychidae
Larvae
788
Pupae
10
Kydroptilidae
Larvae
58
Pupae
28
True Flies
Tendipedidae
Larvae
251
Pupae
47
Rhagicnidae
Larvae
19
Simuliidae
Larvae
115
Pupae
82
Tlpulidae
Larvae
2
Beerles
Dytiscidae
Larvae
2
Cyririidae
Larvae
2
Side S'Jirtver
Tali tridae
Adult
1
Earthworm
Adult
5
Roundworm
Adult
2
Water Mil?
Adult
7
Caddisflies
Brachyc ;r*:ridae
Larvae
23
Pupae
100
Hydropsychidae
Larvae
145
Pupae
25
Hydroptilidae
Larvae
71
Pupae
104
1
-------
APPENDIX C
BIOLOGICAL DATA
(Continued)
Organisms
Station
Date
Sampler Common Name Family
Stage
No. Forms
Number Total No.
Dcmpsey
Creek Bridge
#293031
(Continued)
8/12/70
(Cont1d)
Surber
(Cont'd)
9/16/70
Deer
Lodge
#293007
6/29/70 Basket
8/12/70
May Flies
Baetidae
Nymph
1
True Flies
Tendipedidae
Larvae
743
Pupae
319
Empididae
Pupae
9
Rhagionidae
Larvae
108
Simuliidae
Larvae
11
Pupae
10
Tipulidae
Larvae
6
Pupae
1
Beetles
Dy tiscidae
Larvae
4
Elmidae
Larvae
2
Side Swimmers
Talitridae
Adult
1
Earthworm
Adult
1
Water Mite
Adult
32
Caddisflies
Brachycentridae
Larvae
108
Pupae
A
Hydropsychidae
Larvae
2336
Hydroptilidae
Larvae
56
Pupae
8
Leptoceridae
Larvae
8
True Flies
Tendipedidae
Larvae
A0A
Pupae
20
Rhagionidae
Larvae
68
Siiuil-Liiuac
Larvae
122U
Pupae
1416
Tipulidae
Larvae
12
Beetles
Elmidae
Larvae
12
Earthworm
Adult
4
Water Mite
Adult
12
Roundworm
Adult
8
Caddisflies
Brachycentridae
Larvae
14
Pupae
1
Hydropsychidae
Larvae
192
Pupae
10
Hydroptilidae
Larvae
1
Pupae
4
Leptoceridae
Larvae
3
Rhyacophilidae
Pupae
1
True Flics
Tendipedidae
Larvae
8
Empididae
Larvae
1
Caddisflies
Brachycentridae
Larvae
6
Pupae
37
Hydropsychidae
Larvae
168
Pupae
2
Hydroptilidae
Larvae
616
Pupae
768
Stone Flies
Pteronarcidae
Nymph
8
True Flies
Tendipedidae
Larvae
880
Pupae
168
Rhagionidae
Larvae
40
Tipulidae
Larvae
8
Pupae
A
2
-------
APPENDIX C
BIOLOGICAL DATA
(Continued)
Organisms
Station
Date
Common Name
Family
Stage
Number
Larthworm
Adult
76
Water Mite
Adult
28
Roundworm
Adult
4
Caddisflies
Brachycentridae
Larvae
1
Pupae
14
Hydropsychidae
Larvae
137
Pupae
7
Hydroptilidae
Larvae
184
Pupae
407
True Flies
Tendipedidae
Larvae
968
Pupae
418
Erapididae
Larvae
1
Pupae
2
Rhagionidae
Larvae
77
Simuliidae
Larvae
17
Pupae
4
Tipulidae
Larvae
23
Pupae
2
Stone Flies
Pteronarcidae
Nymph
1
Beetles
Dytiscidae
Larvae
3
Elmidae
Larvae
2
Earthworm
Adult
8
Water Mite
Adult
25
SprJnprai 1
A_r[iiT_ £
1
Roundworm
Adult
7
Caddisflies .
Brachycentridae
Larvae
6
Pupae
5
Hydropsychidae
Larvae
174
Hydroptilidae
Larvae
2
Pupae
42
Leptoceridae
Larvae
17
True Flies
Tendipedidae
Larvae
764
Pupae
107
Rhagionidae
Larvae
90
Simuliidae
Larvae
20
Pupae
1
Stone Flies
Pteronarcidae
Nymph
1
May Flies
Baetidae
Nymph
3
Dragonflies
Aeshnidae
Nymph
1
Seed Shrimp
Adult
1
Earthworm
Adult
543
Water Mite
Adult
1
Caddisflies
Hydropsychidae
Larvae
47
Hydroptilidae
Larvae
298
Pupae
7
Limnephilidae
Larvae
17
Stone Flies
Pteronarcidae
Nymph
1
True Flies
Tendipedidae
Larvae
52
Pupae
7
Tipulidae
Larvae
6
Beetles
Dytiscidae
Larvae
2
No.Forms
Total No.
Deer Lodge
#293007
(Continued)
8/12/70 Basket
9/16/70
W-T Bridge
#293032
8/12/70 Basket
3
-------
rober
50
2
1
21
1
438
1
629
475
2
9
1
437
174
2
7
7
5
8
1
11
6
119
O
2
4
6
861
10
1
1
1
368
26
12
3
3
2
9
5
1
5
10
21
3
113
134
3
4
76
1
APPENDIX C
BIOLOGICAL DATA
(Continued)
Date
Sampler Common Name Family
Organisms
Stage
8/12/70 Basket
Earthworm
Water Mite
Roundworm
Jellyfish
Surber Caddisflies
Stone Flies
May Flies
True Flies
Beetles
Side Swimmer
Water Mite
Roundworm
Hydridae
Helicopsychidae
Hydropsychidae
Hydroptilidae
Chloroperlidae
Baetidae
Heptageniidae
Tendipedidae
Empididae
Rhagionidae
Simuliidae
Tipulidae
Dytiscidae
Talitridae
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Pupae
Larvae
Pupae
Larvae
Pupae
Nymph
Nymph
Nymph
Larvae
Pupae
Larvae
Larvae
Larvae
Pupae
Larvae
Pupae
Larvae
Adult
Adult
A J..1
/lUUJi c
Adult
9/16/70 Basket Caddisflies
Stone Flies
True Flies
Water Fleas
Earthworm
Snail
Moss Animals
Water Mite
Roundworm
>6/29/70 Basket Caddisflies
Brachycentridae
Helicopsychidae
Hydropsychidae
Hydroptilidae
Rhyacophilidae
Perlodidae
Pteronarcidae
Tendipedidae
Simuliidae
Tipulidae
Physidae
Brachycentridae
Helicopsychidae
Hydropsychidae
Hydroptilidae
Lepidos tomat i dae
Leptoceridae
Larvae
Larvae
Larvae
Pupae
Larvae
Nymph
Nymph
Larvae
Pupae
Larvae
Pupae
Larvae
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Larvae
Larvae
Larvae
Pupae
Larvae
Larvae
Pupae
Larvae
4
-------
APPENDIX C
BIOLOGICAL DATA
(Continued)
Station
Date
Sampler Common Name Family
Organisms
Stage
Number
Garrison
(Pat *s)
#293006
(Continued)
Surber
9/16/70 Basket
Stone Flies
Pteronarcidae
Nymph
4
Chloroperlidae
Nymph
1
Perlodidae
Nymph
3
May Flies
Baetidae
Nymph
2
Ephemerellidae
Nymph
10
True Flies
Orthocladiidae
Larvae
6
Tendipedidae
Larvae
3
Empididae
larvae
1
Beetles
Dytiscidae
Larvae
1
Elmidae
Larvae
1
Caddisflies
Brachycentridae
Larvae
2
Pupae
13
Helicopsychidae
Larvae
1
Hydropsychidae
Larvae
1391
Hydroptilidae
Larvae
452
Pupae
76
Leptoceridae
Larvae
1
Stone Flies
Pteronarcidae
Nymph
23
May Flies
Baetidae
Nymph
8
Ephemerellidae
Nymph
1
True Flies
Tendipedidae
Larvae
193
Pupae
19
Rhagionidae
Larvae
4
SI rnitl 11 dae
Larvae
9
Pupae
4
Tipulidae
Larvae
5
Beetles
Elmidae
Larvae
28
Earthworms
Adult
5
Water Mites
Adult
1
Jellyfish
Hydridae
Adult
'1
Caddisflies
Hydropsychidae
Nymph
239
Hydroptilidae
Nymph
20
Pupae
7
May Flies
Baetidae
Nymph
8
Eohemerellidae
Nymph
1
True Flies
Tendipedidae
Larvae
103
Pupae
24
Rhagionidae
Larvae
2
Simuliidae
Larvae
1
Tipulidae
Larvae
9
Pupae
2
Beetles
Elmidae
Larvae
6
Earthworms
Adult
4
Water Mites
Adult
3
Roundworm
Adult
4
Jellyfish
Hydridae
Adult
2
Caddisflies
Brachycentridae
Larvae
2
Hydropsychidae
Larvae
340
Hydroptilidae
Larvae
4
Pupae
23
Leptoceridae
Larvae
1
5
-------
iber
31
32
7
10
2
1
5
3
2
12
1
4
5
1
8
2
1
2
6
2
4
1
4
7
54
2
3
4
7
9
15
24
5
63
7
22
12
2
2
4
1
15
21
2
1
7
2
1
1
6
APPENDIX C
BIOLOGICAL DATA
(Continued)
Date
Sampler Common Name
Organisms
Family
Stage
Pteronarcidae
Nymph
Tendipedidae
Larvae
Pupae
Simuliidae
Larvae
Pupae
Tipulidae
Larvae
Elmidae
Larvae
Adult
Brachycentridae
Nymph
Hydropsychidae
Nymph
Pupae
Lepidostomatidae
Nymph
Pupae
Rhyacophilidae
Pupae
Pteronarcidae
Nymph
Perlidae
Nymph
Perlodidae
Nymph
Baetidae
Nymph
Epheraerellidae
Nymph
Heptageniidae
Nymph
Tipulidae
Larvae
Brachycentridae
Pupae
Glossosoraatidae
Larvae
Pupae
Hydropsychidae
Larvae
Hydroptilidae
Pupae
Limnephilidae
Larvae
Pupae
Perlodidae
Nymph
Pteronarcidae
Nymph
Baetidae
Nymph
Epheraerellidae
Nymph
Heptageniidae
Nymph
Tendipedidae
Larvae
Pupae
Simuliidae
Larvae
Pupae
Elmidae
Larvae
Adult
Adult
Brachycentridae
Nymph
Hydropsychidae
Nymph
Pupae
Limnephilidae
Nymph
Rhyacophilidae
Pupae
Perlodidae
Nymph
Tendipedidae
Larvae
Rhagionidae
Larvae
Tipulidae
Larvae
Ephemerellidae
Nymph
9/16/70 Basket Stone Flies
True Flies
. Beetles
Earthworm
6/29/70 Basket Caddisflies
Stone Flies
May Flies
True Flies
8/12/70 Surber Caddisflies
Stone Flies
May Flies
True Flies
Beetles
Earthworm
Roundworm
6/29/70 Basket Caddisflies
Stone Flies
True Flies
May Flies
6
-------
iber
2
5
1
18
4
1
3
1
1
34
53
75
1
43
2
9
59
14
2
22
72
5
1
13
4
5
19
8
1
1
53
1
1
3
46
3
11
1
8
22
20
3
1
2
1
1
5
17
21
3
2
2
2
APPENDIX C
BIOLOGICAL DATA
(Continued)
Conclusions
Date
Sampler Common Name Family
Stage
8/12/70 Basket
Caddisflies
Brachycentridae
Nymph
Stone Flies
Pteronarcidae
Nymph
May Flies
Baetidae
Nymph
True Flies
Tendipedidae
Larvae
Pupae
Tipulidae
Larvae
Spongue Flies
Sialidae
Larvae
Earthworm
Adult
Snail
Adult
Caddis£lies
Hydropsychidae
Nymph
Hydroptiladae
Nymph
Pupae
Limnephilidae
Nymph
Stone Flies
Pteronarcidae
Nymph
May Flies
Baetidae
Nymph
Ephemerellidae
Nymph
True Flies
Tendipedidae
Larvae
Pupae
Rhagionidae
Larvae
Tipulidae
Larvae
Beetles
Dy tiscidae
Larvae
Elmidae
Larvae
Side Swimmers
Talitridae
Fflrf"h*TOTTn
A J 1 «.
(kUU^t
Roundworm
Adult
Caddisflies .
Hydropsychidae
Nymph
Hydroptilidae
Nymph
Rhyacophilidae
Nymph
May Flies
Baetidae
Nymph
Ephemerellidae
Nymph
True Flies
Tendipedidae
Larvae
Pupae
Simuliidae
Pupae
Dragonflies
Aeshnidae
Nymph
Earthworm
Adult
Snails
Adult
Jellyfish
Hydridae
Adult
Moss Animals
Adult
Caddisflies
Brachycentridae
Nymph
Hydropsychidae
Nymph
Lepidostomatidae
Nymph
Pupae
Rhyacophilidae
Pupae
Stone Flies
Pteronarcidae
Nymph
Chloroperlidae
Nymph
Perlidae
Nymph
Perlodidae
Nymph
May Flies
Baetidae
Nymph
Ephemerellidae
Nymph
Leptophlebiidae
Nymph
True Flies
Tendipedidae
Larvae
Orthocladiidae
Larvae
Beetles
Elmidae
Larvae
7
-------
3
6
3
2
1
35
2
1
1
8
3
7
1
.38
18
25
12
10
1
31
8
16
1
17
5
1
65
5
A
58
3
17
30
13
3
3
23
.10
10
27
1
.16
5
2
83
6
1
8
APPENDIX C
BIOLOGICAL DATA
(Continued)
Conclusions
Date
Common Name
Family
Stage
Caddis flies
Brachycentridae
Numph
Pupae
Glossosomatidae
Nymph
Pupae
Hellcopsychidae
Pupae
Hydropsychidae
Larvae
Pupae
Hydroptilidae
Larvae
Pupae
Stone Flies
Chloroperlidae
Nymph
Perlidae
Nymph
Perlodidae
Nymph
Pteronarcidae
Nymph
May Flies
Baetidae
Nymph
Ephemerellidae
Nymph
Heptageniidae
Nymph
True Flies
Tendipedidae
Larvae
Pupae
Elmidae
Pupae
Simuliidae
Larvae
Pupae
Tipulidae
Larvae
Pupae
Beetles
Elmidae
Larvae
Eartnworras
Adult
Roundworms
Adult
Caddis flies '
Brachycentridae
Nymph
Glossosomatidae
Nymph
Hydropsychidae
Nymph
Hellcopsychidae
Nymph
Hydroptilidae
Pupae
Lepidostomatidae
Nymph
Leptoceridae
Nymph
Stone Flies
Chloroperlidae
Nymph
Perlidae
Nymph
Perlodidae
Nymph
Pteronarcidae
Nymph
May Flics
Ephemerellidae
Nymph
Heptageniidae
Nymph
Leptophlebiidae
Nymph
Tricorythidae
Nymph
True Flies
Tendipedidae
Larvae
Pupae
Tipulidae
Larvae
Beetles
Elmidae
Larvae
Earthworm
Adult
Clam
Sphaeriidae
Adult
Snail
Physidae
Adult
8
-------
APPENDIX D
MONTANA FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT
FISHERIES DIVISION
-------
APPENDIX D-l
DATA ON FISH POPULATIONS IN THE
UPPER REACHES OF THE CLARK FORK RIVER
COLLECTED BY THE
MONTANA FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT
-------
APPENDIX D-l
EXCERPTS FROM THE
MONTANA FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT
FISHERIES DIVISION
JOB PROGRESS REPORT
State: MONTANA
Project No.: F-12-R-16 Title: Western Montana Fishery Study
Job No.: I-a Title: Inventory of Waters of the Project
Area
Period Covered: April 1, 1969 to March 31, 1970
PROCEDURES
Standard methods were used to conduct lake and stream surveys.
Standard 125-foot, graduated mesh, nylon grill nets and electrofishing
equipment were used to sample fish populations. Survey information was
entered on standard Montana Fish and Game Department Lake and Stream
survey cards.
Abbreviations for fish species in this report are:
Rb
-
rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri Richardson
Ct
-
cutthroat trout, Salmo clarki Richardson
WSCt
-
westslope cutthroat trout, Salmo clarki Richardson
DV
-
dolly varden, Salvelinus malma Walbaum
Eb
-
brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis Mitchill
Gr
-
artic grayling, Thymallus arcticus
LL
-
brown trout, Salmo trutta Linnaeus
SS
-
coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch Walbaum
KOK
-
Kokanee, Oncorhynchus nerka Walbaum
Wf
-
mountain whitefish, Prosopium williamsoni Girard
F Su
-
longnose sucker, Catostomus catostomus Forster
C Su
-
largesc;ile sucker, Catostomus macrocheilus Girard
PS
-
pumpkinseed, Lepomis gibbosus Linnaeus
SQ
-
northern squawfish, Ptychocheilus oregonensis Richardson
RSS
—
redside shiner, Richardsonius balteatus Richardson
1
-------
FINDINGS - STREAMS
CLARK FORK RIVER
Section 2 (05-1456). Section 3 (06-1121). Section 4 (06-1140).
Eight (8) different sections of the river were shocked during the report
period. All sampling was done to enumerate fish populations in connection
with water pollution. Lower sections of the stream both above and below
Missoula, but particularly below, are difficult to sample because of the
deep, large water volume. Sections sampled and results obtained are
given below in ascending order upstream.
Pilot Survey - Gold Creek to Jens - Mark-Recapture Study. Population
estimate was made on a 4.3 mile section beginning at the county bridge
at the Town of Gold Creek and extending downstream. Numerous whitefish
were shocked along with brown trout. However, there were too many white-
fish to handle adequately and only brown trout were kept and used in the
estimate. One marking and one recapture run were made. Two each brook
and cutthroat trout were also caught.
M = 250
C = 281
R = 32
N = (MKL)(C+1) = (251)(282) = 70782 = 2,145
(R+l) 33 33
Variance = (pop.est)2 (C-R) = (2145)2 (249) = 1145655225 = 119488
(C+l) (R+2) (282) (34) 9588
Confidence interval @ 95% level = pop.est + 2 variance = 2145 + 2 119488
= 2145 + 2 x 346
= 2145 + 692
Lower Limit Point Upper Limit
C.L. .95 1453 2145 2837
This confidence interval is equal to + 32%
Estimated number of LL per mile = 2,145 = 499 or 106 LL per 1,000 feet
4.3
Average weight of 255 LL captured on marking run = .71 lbs.
Estimated total weight of LL in section = 1,523 lbs.
2
-------
The sample of 255 brown trout ranged in length from 5.7 inches to
21.6 inches and averaged 11.7 inches in total length.
Sex determination of brown trout was made using the anal fin as the
key characteristic (Grucky and Vladykov, 1968). A total of 492 brown
trout were sexed. Thirty two (32) percent were classified as males and
68 percent as females for a ratio of 1 male: 2.1 females.
Follow-up Survey - T8N R9W Sec 4 (SE 1/4). A 400-foot section upstream
from the Williams-Tavenner Ranch Bridge at the mouth of Mullan Creek.
Shocking was done from the bank and a block net was placed at the lower end
of the section, but failed to stay in place due to drifting filamentous
algae.
Only one brown trout was caught which was 16.5 inches and 1.54 pounds.
One longnose dace was observed.
Follow-up Survey - T8N R9W Sec 4, 9. Clark Fork veterinary clinic
to Williams-Tavenner Ranch Bridge, a distance of 1.1 miles. Mark-
Recapture Study.
Population estimates were made in the section. Estimates were made
on brown trout only for one marking, 1 recapture run; two markings, one
recapture run; and 3 markings, one recapture run. One estimate was made
for all species combined (whitefish, brown trout, and brook trout) as
follows:
1. All species combined (Wf, LL, Eb) - one marking, 1 recapture run:
M = 104 (40 LL, 67 Wf, 2 Eb)
C = 163
R = 9
N = (ttt-1) (C+l) = 1,722
R+l
Variance = (pop est)2 (C-R)
(C+l) (R+2)
C.L. = Pop est + 2 variance
= 1722 + 2 x 503 = 1722 + 1006
-------
2. LL only (all sizes combined) - one marking, one recapture run:
M = 38
C = 113 N = 542
R = 7
C.L. .95 = 542 + 348 (+64%)
3. LL only (all sizes combined) - two marking, one recapture run:
M = 38 + 112 = 150
C = 36 N = 559
R = 9
C.L. .95 = 559 + 288 (+52%)
4. LL only (all sizes combined) - three marking, one recapture run:
M = 38 + 112 + 36 = 186
C = 34 N = 1,636
R = 3
C.L. .95 = 1,636 + 1,376 (+84%)
Insufficient numbers of marked recaptures (3) were caught in the
Item 4 analysis to obtain a very reliable estimate. The best estimate is
probably in Item 3 since the most marked recaptures were caught. These
estimates probably could have been improved by making one or more
additional recapture runs.
The point estimate of 559 brown trout compares with a population of
362 brown trout estimated in August 1967 during the copper strike. Point
estimates and confidence limits for the two years are as follows:
Estimate
Year Lower Point Upper
1967 256 362 468 (+29%)
1969 271 559 847 (+52%)
The 1967 estimate is more accurate than the 1969 estimate and the
confidence limits overlap, indicating no significant difference in popu-
lation estimates between the two years.
Follow-up Survey - T6N R9W Sec 21 (NW 1/4). A 300-foot section
upstream from county road bridge near Race Track.
Shocking was conducted from the bank, a block net was placed across
the stream at lower boundary of section. No fish of any kind were caught
or observed.
4
-------
Pilot Survey - T6N R9W Sec 4, 9, 16; T7N R9W Sec 33. From county
bridge above Race Track Creek, to next county bridge downstream on Hares
Greenhouse Road. Length of section was 5.4 miles. No population esti-
mate was made. Sampling was done simply to obtain an idea of the
estent of the fish population. This section begins 8.7 miles downstream
from the Anaconda Company waste treatment ponds at Warmsprings. Shock-
ing results are given below.
Total Length
(Inches)
Species
Number
Range
Average
LL
124
2.8 - 21.6
10.9
Eb
2
6.9 - 8.3
7.6
Ct x Rb
1
10.6
10.6
RSS
59
-
-
FSu
6
-
-
Length-
frequency analysis
showed 6% of the brown
trout caught
between 2.0 - 5.9 inches, 64% between 6.0 - 12.9 inches, and 30% between
13.0 - 21.6 inches.
Pilot Survey - T5N R9W Sec 7, 18. County bridge near Anaconda
Company pH shack near Warmsprings downstream 2.2 miles to next county
bridge. Section below A.C.M. settling ponds at mouth of Warmsprings
Creek.
The sled boat shocker was used to sample the stream. No fish of any
kind were collected with the shocker. Five small (3.9 - 6.5") longnose
suckers were caught as they floated downstream. One small (4") sucker
was observed swimming away from shallow water, as was one small (1/2")
unidentified fry. One 6-inch dead and decomposing brown trout with tail
missing was also found, but its origin is unknown.
Physical habitat throughout this section is excellent and should
support fish. Physical habitat is apparently not the limiting factor in
fish production.
5
-------
APPENDIX D-2
DATA ON FISH POPULATIONS
IN SELECTED TRIBUTARIES TO THE
UPPER REACHES OF THE CLARK FORK RIVER
-------
APPENDIX D-2
EXCERPTS FROM THE
MONTANA FISH AND GAME DEPARTMENT
FISHERIES DIVISION
JOB PROGRESS REPORT
State: MONTANA
Project No.: F-12-R-16 Title: Western Montana Fishery Study
Job No. : I-a Title: Inventory of Waters of the Project
Area
Period Covered: April 1, 1969 to March 31, 1970
PROCEDURES
(See Appendix D-l)
FINDINGS " STREAMS
CLARK FORK RIVER
Lost Creek (06-3705) - Pilot Survey. A 400-foot section of the stream
one mile west of the Warmsprings State Hospital was shocked to check on a
fisherman's report that there were no fish in the stream and it looked
"dead." A good, naturally reproducing brown trout population was found.
The results are shown below.
Total Length
(Inches)
Species Number Range Average
LL 41 3.2-19.6 9.2
Eb 2 4.5 - 5.5 5.0
Wf 3 15.7 - 18.1 16.6
1
-------
iiovecber 10, 1970
A J- o !; a ii L l i\
1C: Dr. Donald I. Mount, Director, National Water Quality Laboratory
0SJ1 Con&don Blvd., Duluth, idnnusota 55604
'ihrouf,u. ur. r.ary L. O'tieal, Acting Chief, 1A&I Branch
FROM. 1\. A. Wagner, Biologist
SUBJLCT: Additioaal fish samples
For your records, on .
-------
Station
Samples
Tributary
itO •
»io.
Species
Sax
3ixc
Kemarks
Wana ipriuga Lr.
293029
IS
Krown
F
10 7/£
rat;«Egs iialf d«v.
(tear Lodge Co.)
13
flrovn
f
11
Half fatjeggs half
developed
2D
Brown
11.5
Spawned
21
Brown
f
11.5
Half fat-not spownad
22
divKn
9.25
Im&ature— not fat
7j&cetraci.
-------
OPTIONAL. FORM NO. 10
MAY 190 EDmON
CSA PPMR («| CFR) I0W11 f
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Memorandum
TO
Dr. Gary O'Neal, Chief, TA & I Branch
date: 9 January 1971
FROM : Director, National Water Quality Laboratory
subject: Analyses of Fish Tissues for Heavy Metals
On the attached sheet we have listed the concentrations of copper,
zinc, lead, and cadmium we have found in the ten samples analyzed
from the group you sent to us in late 1970. Our per cent recoveries
for some of the samples are listed also.
As I recall our .main purpose in doing these measurements was to see
if edible portions of fishes living in waters contaminated by mine
tailings might have unacceptably high metal concentrations for human
consumption. We believe that the concentrations of copper and zinc
found in these samples are within the normal range. The cadmium
concentrations are also normal, and we believe this is to be expected
because cadmium does not accumulate in muscle. Lead is the only metal
which appears to be unacceptably high based on the lead tolerances
used by the Food and Drug Administration for other types of food.
Since the samples were very small, the instrument response measured
was not large and there could be more error than desirable in these
analyses for lead.
I would recommend that you make arrangements for the Corvallis
lab to do additional lead analyses for you to better identify
whether there is a problem in this regard.
We will retain the rest of the samples until we hear from you
about their deposition.
f
-i —¦
^ ' v-
Donald I. Mount, Ph.D.
Attachment
cc: J. Bouck
E. Leonard
Buy U.S. Savmgs Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan
-------
RESULTS OF METAL ANALYSES OF TROUT TISSUES
*Copper *Zinc *Lead *Cadmium
Sample % % % %
ug/gm Recovery ug/gm Recovery ug/gm Recovery ug/gm Recovery
Flint Creek - #2
l.k
95.2
13.2
97-5
2.1
100.0
0.2
102.0
Little Blackfoot - #5
1.0
95-2
lU.3
91.2
3.7
Warm Springs - #19
Deer Lodge Co.
1.2
95.2
17.5
88.6
5.0
112.0
0.1
100.0
Warm Springs - #10
Povell Co.
1.1
10U.8
15. U
106.8
k .0
100.0
0.2
Lost Creek - #15
1.3
10U. 8
17.6
3.1
0.2
Willov Creek - #27
0.8
10U.8
15.5
U.O
0.1
Racetrack - #25
1.0
10H.8
lU.6
2.9
0.1
Clark Fork - Shipment #1
2.0
100.0
25.3
1.1
0.2
Clark Fork - Shipment #2
2.5
95.*+
13.8
3.5
0.2
Clark Fork - Shipment #3
3.8
95.^
lU.l
5.^
0.1
* These figures are based on
dry weights.
-------
APPENDIX E
COPY OF LETTER
FROM
STATE OF MONTANA
-------
SffiMT®
------- |