Tailings in the riparian zones are continually 

 resuspended into the river. We should begin by 

 eliminating the sources near Butte, and then carry on down 

 through the Deer Lodge Valley. 



Growth of trout in Clark Fork compares favorably with 

 other rivers - there is no reason other than toxic metals 

 for the poor fish populations (numbers of tributaries are 

 similar, etc.) Our fishery studies do not always show the 

 subtle effects of some metals (e.g., cadmium). 



The next most important recommendation for fisheries in 

 the Clark Fork (after heavy metals) is renovation of the 

 Warm Springs Ponds. If we had an efficient, operating 

 settling pond system at Warm Springs that would 

 effectively stop the downstream migration of toxics from 

 the Ramsay area and the Colorado Tailings, wouldn't it be 

 essentially a demonstration that toxics are having an 

 effect on the river if we started to see improvements 

 below the pH shacks? I think it would. 



Mike McLane, DNRC - Missoula 



• There are already some provisions in Montana law to buy, 

 sell, and exchange water rights. It is not clear if an 

 exchange can occur from a consumptive to a nonconsumptive 

 use. 



• With an instream flow, when moving from a consumptive to a 

 ^ nonconsumptive right, the point of diversion and the 



?iftrf protected reach would have to be specified. 



Phil Tarangeau, Clark Fork Coalition 



• Super fund is going to eliminate acutely toxic conditions. 

 At least that is the procedure that has been identified 

 (institutionalized) to deal with those problems. 



• The procedure is supposed to be the identification of the 

 lfc?»y degree of cleanup required, then the evaluation of the 

 •jf-,j£^xnost cost-effective means of achieving that degree of 



cleanup. In the recent past, EPA has reversed that 

 process. It has found a cheap means of preventing the 

 y I migration of a hazard, and then identified that as the 

 f; I most cost-effective means of achieving the remedy. 



A-15 



