The recommendations regarding nutrient loading are too 

 short, too brief, and do not go far enough. The action 

 plan should be far more specific in detailing the avail- 

 able range of alternatives for controlling and/or limiting 

 nutrient loading to the river. The plan should spell out 

 specific alternatives that are possible now, such as 

 detergent regulations, land use planning, septic tank 

 rules, wastewater treatment technologies, land use 

 practices, etc. 



Response: Nutrients and eutrophication have been 

 identified as the highest-priority issue in the lower 

 Clark Fork Basin. Funding has been actively sought 

 through the Clean Water Act-Section 525 for better 

 information on this topic. As you have indicated in your 

 written comments, "the purpose of these studies is to tell 

 us what to do to lessen the problem." It is necessary to 

 complete the studies before recommending control 

 strategies. See also the response on page A-45 to the 

 Clark Fork Coalition's written comments regarding this 

 issue . 



The plan recommends more studies to document DO and 

 temperature phenomena in the river. There is already 

 evidence of frequent violations of state DO standards, 

 which is further justification for holding the line on 

 nutrient loading. In light of these violations, it is a 

 serious omission that the report does not address a plan 

 to reduce these violations. Solutions should be 

 identified. 



Response: Work group members suggested additional 

 dissolved oxygen and temperature data would be helpful 

 in assessing water quality problems. 



The diurnal decline of dissolved oxygen values in some 

 parts of the river is attributed to algae respiration. 

 Low streamflows during the past few years have exacerbated 

 this problem. All efforts to reduce algae growths should 

 help to reduce the dissolved oxygen problem. See response 

 to the previous conunent. 



The perception in the state water plan meetings was that 

 water rights would be "taken". The report should clarify 

 that the suggested ways of dealing with water rights would 

 be voluntary. There would have to be a willing seller 

 and a willing buyer. 



Response: The final report has been modified to reflect 

 this policy. See page 4-22 and the recommendations on 

 page 5-31. 



A-9 



