Expert opinions regarding injuries to aquatic resources, Clark Fork River Basin, MT

332 Pages·1995·6.9 MB·English

by  Hagler Bailly Consulting, Inc

S Hauler Bailly
363*738 Consulting
H2eoic Expert opinions
1995 regarding injuries
to aquatic
resourcest Clark
Fork River Basin, STATE OF MONTANA
NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE PROGRAM
EXPERT REBUTTAL OPINIONS REGARDING
INJURIES TO AQUATIC RESOURCES
CLARK FORK RIVER BASIN, MT
OCTOBER 1995
MONTANASTATELIBRARY
S363736H2eoic1995C.1
AUG5- 1999 E.pe.op,„,o„,,ega-d,ng,„,.nes,.p
3 0864 00096623 7
JUL ^ 3 2:07
(D
Expert Opinions regarding
Injuries to Aquatic Resources,
Clark Fork River Basin, MT
Preparedfor:
State ofMontana
Natural Resource Damage Litigation Program
Prepared by:
Hagler Bailly Consulting, Inc
P Drawer O
Boulder, CO 80306-1906
[phone]
October 18, 1995

Expert Opinions regarding
Injuries to Aquatic Resources,
Clark Fork River Basin, MT
Preparedfor:
State ofMontana
Natural Resource Damage Litigation Program
Prepared by:
Hagler Bailly Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Drawer O
Boulder, CO 80306-1906
[phone]
TestifyingExperts:
Dr. Joshua Lipton (all Chapters, excluding
appendices)
Mr. Doug Beltman (Chapters 2^and 3)
Dr. Harold Bergman, U. Wyoming
(Chapter 5)
October 18, 1995

Expert Opinions regarding
Injuries to Aquatic Resources,
MT
Clark ForkRiver Basin,
Preparedfor:
State ofMontana
Natural ResourceDamageLitigatioflProgram
Pr^ared by:
HaglefBailly Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Drawer
Boulder, CO 80306-1906
[phone]
TestifyingExperts:
Dr. JoshuaLipton (all Chapters, excluding
appendices)
Mr. DougBcltman (Chapters2 and 3)
Dr. HaroldBergman, U. Wyoming
/ (Ch^CT 5)
October 18. 1W5

Contents
List ofTables
List ofFigures
List ofAcronyms
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Sediment Resources
2.1 ARCO Contends that Analysis ofFine-Grained Sediments by the State
Misrepresents Conditions in the Clark Fork River 2-1
2.2 Natural Mineralization in Sediment Baseline 2-4
2.3 Sediments: Conclusions 2-7
Chapter 3 Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Chapter 4 Surface Water
4.1 Absent Historical and Ongoing Releases ofHazardous Substances, Butte
Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges to Silver Bow Creek would not
Discharge Deleterious Levels ofAmmonia or BOD 4-1
4.2 ARCO Contends that Montana Total Recoverable and EPA Total Recoverable
AnaKlical Methods Yield Similar Results 4-1
Chapter 5 Fisheries: Determination ofInjur>'
5.1 ARCO Contends that Failure to Consider the Role ofDissolved Organic
Carbon in Toxicity Testing Biased the Results ofTesting 5-1
5.2 Water-Effects Ratio (WER) Testing Performed by ARCO was Flawed ... 5-5
5.3 Food-chain Testing Performed by ARCO Demonstrates that Exposure to
Hazardous Metals in Diets causes Growth Reduction Injuries in Trout . . 5-11
5.4 Observed Reductions in Trout Populations are not Attributable to Placer
Mining in the Clark Fork River 5-11
5.5 ARCO Asserts that Hardness Concentrations used in the State's Toxicit}'
Tests were not Representative ofthose Found in the Clark Fork River 5-12
. .
5.6 Additional Behavior Avoidance Testing Performed by the State Confirms that
Trout Prefer Uncontaminated Water Typical ofTributaries to Contaminated
Clark Fork River Water. Testing also Confirmed that Copper and Zinc are the
Cause ofBehavioral Avoidance Injuries to Trout 5-12
5.7 Total Recoverable Metals Criteria are More Appropriate than Dissolved Criteria
for the Clark Fork River System 5-12
RCG/Hagler Bailly
Contents page ii
5.8 It is Inappropriate to Compare the Results ofFood-chain Studies Performed by
ARCO using Artificial Laboratory Diets and Food-chain Studies Performed for
the State using Natural Diets from the Clark Fork River 5-13
Chapter 6 Fisheries: Quantification ofInjury
6.1 ARCO Contends that the State did not Consider the Effects of
Channelization in Quantifying Differences between Trout Populations in
the Clark Fork River and in Reference Sites 6-1
6.2 ARCO Contends that Elevated Water Temperatures in the Clark Fork
River Cause Trout Population Declines Relative to Reference Streams . . . 6-3
6.3 ARCO Asserts that the State's Fish Population Sampling was Biased
because ofMethodological Deficiencies 6-4
6.4 ARCO Asserts that the Clark Fork River and Reference Sites Differ in
Terms ofLand Use 6-4
6.5 Trout Population Reductions: Evaluation ofCausality 6-5
Chapter 7 Literature Cited
Appendix A: Response to ARCO's Reports Concerning the State ofMontana's Injury
Assessment for the upper Clark Fork River Basin
Appendix B: Evaluation ofthe Chronic Toxicity ofClark Fork River Invertebrates to
Rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss)
Appendix C: Cutthroat Trout Avoidance ofIndividual Metals Under Conditions
Characteristic ofthe Clark Fork River at Rock Creek, Montana
Appendix D: Comments on ARCO's Reports concerning the State ofMontana's Injury
Assessment for the Clark Fork River - Chapman
Appendix E: Comments on ARCO's Reports Concerning the State ofMontana's Injury
Assessment for the Clark Fork River: Evaluation ofSnorkel Methods
Appendix F: Response to ARCO's Reports Concerning the State ofMontana's Injury
Assessment ofthe upper Clark Fork River Basin - Jensen
Appendix G: Response to Thomas C. Ginn's Expert Report on Surface Water
Resources, Page 19, Point No. 2 - Brand
Appendix H: Comments on Issues Related to the Use ofDissolved Metal vs Total
Recoverable Metal in Setting and Determining Compliance with Montana
Water Quality Standards
Appendix I: A Comparison ofMetals Digestion by Cutthroat Trout Between Three
Diets Contaminated under Natural Conditions and a Forth Diet
Contaminated under Laboratory Conditions
RCG/Hagler Bailly