ACM Smelter and Refinery EPA ID No.: MTD093291599

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

ACM Smelter and Refinery EPA ID No.: MTD093291599 HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD--REVIEW COVER SHEET Name of Site: ACM Smelter and Refinery EPA ID No.: MTD093291599 Contact Persons Site Investigation: URS Operating Services for EPA (303) 296-3523 1099 18th Street Suite 710 Denver, Colorado 80202 Documentation Record: Gwen Christiansen (303) 312-6463 NPL Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mail Code: 8EPR-B Denver, Colorado 80202 Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored Ground Water Migration Pathway Based on lack of analytical data supporting a release to the aquifers and on the fact that the ground water is not used as a drinking water source, the ground water pathway will not be scored as part of this Hazard Ranking System (HRS) package. Air Migration Pathway Documentation of investigations from over 100 years ago conducted by the Boston and Montana Consolidated Copper and Silver Mining Company (Boston & Montana) and later by Anaconda Copper Mining Company (ACM) indicates that the operators of the smelter and refinery were aware that a significant amount of contamination was being emitted by the stack. Topsoil samples were collected and analyzed by the Boston & Montana laboratory in 1904 and 1905. Company chemists concluded that over 40 pounds of arsenic trioxide (As203) had been deposited per acre up to a distance of 6.24 miles to the northeast of the stack (Ref.32, p. 2). Samples collected from different locations in 1905 confirmed the aerial deposition of contaminates from the stack (Ref. 47, p. 2). Internal ACM company correspondence from November 1951 indicated that the amount of arsenic leaving the stack per twenty-four hours in the early 1950s was approximately 15.04 pounds (Ref. 33). The EPA chooses not to score the Air Migration Pathway at this time; however the EPA is interested in this potential pathway and may choose to pursue it further at a later date. HRS Documentation Record ACM Smelter and Refinery March 2010 MTD093291599 HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD Name of Site: ACM Smelter and Refinery Date Prepared: March 2010 EPA Region: Region 8 Street Address of Site: River Road North, 1 mile East of 15th Street City, County, State: Black Eagle, Cascade County, Montana 59414 *General Location in the State: The ACM Smelter and Refinery and the community of Black Eagle are located on the north bank of the Missouri River, north of Great Falls, Montana (Ref. 3; Ref. 4). Topographic Map: Northwest Great Falls, Montana 1994 and Northeast Great Falls, Montana Latitude: 47°31’ 42.97” North Longitude: 111° 14’ 47.28” West (Ref. 3; Ref. 4) The location of the reference point at the East Ditch Dump near the south boundary of the former smelter facility close to the Missouri River. Scores Ground Water Pathway 0.00 Surface Water Pathway 100.00 Soil Exposure Pathway 78.30 Air Pathway 0.00 HRS SITE SCORE 63.50 *The street address, coordinates, and contaminant locations presented in this HRS documentation record identify the general area the site is located. They represent one or more locations EPA considers to be part of the site based on the screening information EPA used to evaluate the site for NPL listing. EPA lists national priorities among the known “releases or threatened releases” of hazardous substances; thus, the focus is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. A site is defined as where a hazardous substance has been “deposited, stored, placed or otherwise come to be located.” Generally, HRS scoring and the subsequent listing of a release merely represent the initial determination that a certain area may need to be addressed under CERCLA. Accordingly, EPA contemplates that the preliminary description of facility boundaries at the time of scoring will be refined as more information is developed as to where the contamination has come to be located. HRS Documentation Record ACM Smelter and Refinery March 2010 - 1 - MTD093291599 WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE S S2 1. Ground water Migration Pathway Score (Sgw) NS NS (from Table 3-1, line 13) 2a. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component 100 (from Table 4-1, line 30) 2b. Ground water to Surface Water Migration Component NS (from Table 4-25, line 28) 2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (Ssw) 100 10,000.00 Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the pathway score. 3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (Ss) 78.30 6,130.89 (from Table 5-1, line 22) 4. Air Migration Pathway Score (Sa) (from Table 6-1, line 12) NS NS 2 2 2 2 5. Total of Sgw + Ssw + Ss + Sa 16,130.89 6. HRS Site Score Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take the square root 63.50 NS = Not Scored HRS Documentation Record ACM Smelter and Refinery March 2010 - 2 - MTD093291599 SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE SHEET Maximum Value Factor Categories and Factors Value Assigned Drinking Water Threat Likelihood of Release: 1. Observed Release 550 550 2. Potential to Release by Overland Flow: 2a. Containment 10 NS 2b. Runoff 25 NS 2c. Distance to Surface Water 25 NS 2d. Potential to Release by Overland Flow (lines 2a[2b+2c]) 500 NS 3. Potential to Release by Flood: 3a. Containment (Flood) 10 NS 3b. Flood Frequency 50 NS 3c. Potential to Release by Flood (lines 3a×b) 500 NS 4. Potential to Release (lines 2d+3c, subject to a maximum of 500) 500 NS 5. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 4) 550 550 Waste Characteristics: 6. Toxicity/Persistence (a) NS 7. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) NS 8. Waste Characteristics 100 NS Targets: 9. Nearest Intake 50 NS 10. Population 10a. Level I Concentrations (b) NS 10b. Level II Concentrations (b) NS 10c. Potential Contamination (b) NS 10d. Population (lines 10a+10b+10c) (b) NS 11. Resources 5 NS 12. Targets (lines 9+10d+11) (b) NS Drinking Water Threat Score: 13. Drinking Water Threat Score ([lines 5×8×12]/82,500, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 NS Human Food Chain Threat Likelihood of Release: 14. Likelihood of Release (same value as line 5) 550 550 Waste Characteristics: 15. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation (a) 500,000,000 16. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 100 17. Waste Characteristics 1,000 320 HRS Documentation Record ACM Smelter and Refinery March 2010 - 3 - MTD093291599 SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE SHEET Maximum Value Factor Categories and Factors Value Assigned Targets: 18. Food Chain Individual 50 45 19. Population 0 19a. Level I Concentrations (b) 19b. Level II Concentrations (b) 0.03 19c. Potential Human Food Chain Contamination (b) 0.000003 19d. Population (lines 19a+19b+19c) (b) 0.030003 20. Targets (lines 18+19d) (b) 45.030003 Human Food Chain Threat Score: 21. Human Food Chain Threat Score ([lines 14×17×20]/82,500, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 96.06 Environmental Threat Likelihood of Release: 22. Likelihood of Release (same value as line 5) 550 550 Waste Characteristics: 23. Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation (a) 500,000,000 24. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 100 25. Waste Characteristics 1,000 320 Targets: 26. Sensitive Environments 26a. Level I Concentrations (b) 0 26b. Level II Concentrations (b) 25 26c. Potential Contamination (b) 0 26d. Sensitive Environments (lines 26a+26b+26c) (b) 25 27. Targets (value from line 26d) (b) 25 Environmental Threat Score: 28. Environmental Threat Score ( [lines 22×25×27]/82,500, subject to a maximum of 60) 60 53.33 Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component Score for a Watershed 29. Watershed Score (lines 13+21+28, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 100 Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component Score c 30. Component Score (Sof) (highest score from line 29 for all watersheds evaluated, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 100 NS = Not Scored. (a) = Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category (b) = Maximum value not applicable (c) = Do not round to the nearest integer HRS Documentation Record ACM Smelter and Refinery March 2010 - 4 - MTD093291599 TABLE 5-1 SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY SCORE SHEET Factor Categories and Factors Maximum Value Value Assigned RESIDENT POPULATION THREAT Likelihood of Exposure 1. Likelihood of Exposure 550 550 Waste Characteristics 2. Toxicity (a) 10,000 3. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) 10 4. Waste Characteristics 100 18 Targets 5. Resident Individual 50 50 6. Resident Population 6a. Level I Concentrations (b) 192.8 6b. Level II Concentrations (b) 409.7 6c. Resident Population (b) (lines 6a + 6b) 602.5 7. Workers 15 0 8. Resources 5 0 9. Terrestrial Sensitive Environments (c) 0 10. Targets (b) 652.5 (lines 5 + 6c + 7 + 8 + 9) Resident Population Threat Score 11. Resident Population Threat (lines 1 x 4 x 10) (b) 6,459,750 HRS Documentation Record ACM Smelter and Refinery March 2010 - 5 - MTD093291599 TABLE 5-1 SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY SCORE SHEET Factor Categories and Factors Maximum Value Value Assigned NEARBY POPULATION THREAT Likelihood of Exposure 12. Attractiveness/Accessibility 100 NS 13. Area of Contamination 100 NS 14. Likelihood of Exposure 500 NS Waste Characteristics 15. Toxicity (a) NS 16. Hazardous Waste Quantity (a) NS 17. Waste Characteristics 100 NS Targets 18. Nearby Individual 1 NS 19. Population Within 1 Mile (b) NS 20. Targets (lines 18 + 19) Nearby Population Threat Score 21. Nearby Population Threat (lines 14 x 17 x 20) (b) NS SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY SCORE Soil Exposure Pathway Scored 22. (Ss), (lines [11 + 21] ÷ 82,500 78.3 subject to a maximum of 100) HRS Documentation Record ACM Smelter and Refinery March 2010 - 6 - MTD093291599 REFERENCES Ref. No. Description of the Reference 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Hazard Ranking System; Final Rule, December 14, 1990, 55 FR 51532, Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
Recommended publications
  • Missouri River
    Welcome Message from Eileen Ryce Montana's Fish Chief After another long winter in Montana, it is time to get excited about spring. With spring comes new growth and, of course, a new fishing season. These regulation booklets get stuffed into tackle boxes, fly vests, glove boxes and backpacks all around Montana. They not only tell you how to fish legally - they also outline the great fishing opportunities all around the state. From high mountain lakes and reservoirs to large rivers and small streams, there is something for everyone. This year’s regulations have a slightly different layout. I hope you find it easier to use. For the second year in a row, we ran a photo competition for the front cover, and I hope you agree this year’s front cover model shows the joy that anyone can experience by getting out and fishing. For the back cover, we ran a competition for the best kids’ fish drawing. Briah Ard did a fantastic drawing of a Brook Stickleback. It’s great to see youth getting excited about fish. Keep your eye out for the 2020 Fishing Newsletter. As usual, it will be packed with lots of great information from our staff from around the state. Stop into one of the FWP offices to pick up your copy or visit http://fwp.mt.gov/fish/. I hope you have a great fishing season, and if you get the chance, take a kid fishing! Eileen Ryce 2Montana Fish Chief Visit fwp.mt.gov/fish 3 0 There’s a There’s a 0 bucket fuLL bucket fuLL 1 of troUble ofin montana’S troUble waters 1 in montana’S waters 2 2 New watercraft inspection regulations are in effectNew for watercraft2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Montana's Basin Closures and Controlled Groundwater Areas
    Montana's Basin Closures and Controlled Groundwater Areas Revised & Updated June 2016 Water Resource Division Water Rights Bureau 1424 9th Avenue P.O. Box 201601 Helena, Montana 59620-1601 http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/water/water-rights/montana-basin-closures for questions call (406) 444-1601 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS General Information ............................................................................. 4 Controlled Groundwater Areas: BNSF Paradise Railyard ........................................................................ 5 BNSF Somers Railyard ........................................................................... 6 Hays Creek ............................................................................................ 8 Larson Creek ......................................................................................... 9 Bitterroot Sanitary Landfill ................................................................... 10 Warm Springs Ponds ............................................................................. 11 Rocker ................................................................................................... 12 Old Butte Landfill/Clark Tailings Site .................................................... 13 Butte Alluvial and Bedrock Site ............................................................. 15 East Valley (East Helena) ………………………………………………………………….. 16 Bozeman Solvent Site ............................................................................ 17 Idaho Pole Company Site .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • University of Montana Bulletin Bureau of Nines and Mintalluroy Series No
    UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA BULLETIN BUREAU OF NINES AND MINTALLUROY SERIES NO. 2 THE MONTANA STATE BUREAU OF MINES AND METALLURGY DIRECTORY MONTANA METAL AND COAL MINES STATE SCHOOL OF MINES BUTTE, MONTANA DECEMBER, 1919 STATE BUREAU OF MINES AND METALLURGY STAFF CLAPP, CHARLES H. Director and Geology PhD., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1910 ADAMI, ARTHUR E. Mining Engineer E. M., Montana State School of Mines, 1907 PULSIFER. H. B. - - - - - - - Metallurgy and Safety B. S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1903; C.E., Armour Institute of Technology, 1915; M. S., University of Chicago, 1918. FOREWORD The purpose of this bulletin is to serve as a directory of all the metal and coal mining companies in the State of Montana. Although every effort possible by correspondence was made in the attempt to get information on every mining company in Montana, it is possible that some companies have been overlooked. However, it is believed that this bulletin contains the names of most of the operating com- panies of the State, together with some general information on each company, and that the bulletin will serve as a valuable reference book for those interested in the mining industry. This bulletin is supple- mentary to a report on the various mining districts of Montana which is now being prepared by the Geological Department of the State Bureau of Mines and Metallurgy. —4— DIRECTORY OF MONTANA OPERATING METAL MINES ALICE GOLD AND SILVER MINING CO. Butte. Location: Summit Valley Mining District, Silver Bow County. Officers: Pres., John D. Ryan; Secy-Treas., D. B. Hennessy, 42 Broadway, New York, N.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri-Madison Project
    Hydropower Project Summary MISSOURI AND MADISON RIVERS, MONTANA MISSOURI-MADISON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2188) Hauser Dam Morony Dam Photos: PPL Montana This summary was produced by the Hydropower Reform Coalition and River Management Society Missouri and Madison Rivers, Montana MISSOURI AND MADISON RIVERS, MONTANA MISSOURI-MADISON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2188) DESCRIPTION: This hydropower license includes nine developments, of which eight were constructed between 1906 and 1930, and the ninth- the Cochrane dam- began operation in 1958. The projects are spread over 324 river-miles on the Missouri and Madison rivers. The Hebgen and Madison developments are located on the Madison River whereas the other seven- Hauser, Holter, Black Eagle, Rainbow, Cochrane, Ryan, and Morony- are located on the Missouri River. The Madison River flows into the Missouri River near the city of Three Forks, approximately 33 miles northwest of Bozeman. While this summary was being prepared, Northwestern Energy, a company based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and serving the Upper Midwest and Northwest, is in the process of acquiring this project. Read more at http://www.northwesternenergy.com/hydroelectric-facilities. A. SUMMARY 1. License application filed: November 25, 1992 2. License issued: September 27, 2000 3. License expiration: August 31, 2040 4. Waterway: Missouri and Madison Rivers 5. Capacity: 326.9 MW 6. Licensee: PPL Montana 7. Counties: Gallatin, Madison, Lewis and Clark, and Cascade Counties 8. Project area: Portions of the project are located on federal lands, including lands within the Gallatin and Helena National Forests 9. Project Website: http://www.pplmontana.com/producing+power/power+plants/PPL+Montana+Hyd ro.htm 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Samuel T. Hauser and Hydroelectric Development on the Missouri River, 1898--1912
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1979 Victim of monopoly| Samuel T. Hauser and hydroelectric development on the Missouri River, 1898--1912 Alan S. Newell The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Newell, Alan S., "Victim of monopoly| Samuel T. Hauser and hydroelectric development on the Missouri River, 1898--1912" (1979). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 4013. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/4013 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976 THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT IN WHICH COPYRIGHT SUB­ SISTS. ANY FURTHER REPRINTING OF ITS CONTENTS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE AUTHOR. MANSFIELD LIBRARY 7' UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA DATE: 1979 A VICTIM OF MONOPOLY: SAMUEL T. HAUSER AND HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT ON THE MISSOURI RIVER, 1898-1912 By Alan S. Newell B.A., University of Montana, 1970 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 1979 Approved by: VuOiAxi Chairman,lairman, Board of Examiners De^n, Graduate SctooI /A- 7*? Date UMI Number: EP36398 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Shadow of the Big Stack: Black Eagle
    In The Shadow of the Big Stack: Black Eagle In The Shadow of the Big Stack: Black Eagle. Martin, 384, 456, & Mildred (Amy) Black Eagle History Book Committee. Lillegard, 30-31, 310, 441, 479-482, 484, 511, 567, 575 Mary Lou, 31 ACM See Anaconda Copper Mining Co. Richard (Dick) & Lynette, 31 ADAMS Roland, 30, 429 David, 55 Ruth, 31 Donald & Delores Benedetti, 55 William, 31 Dr., 234, 236 AMERICAN SMELTING & REFINING Prohibition Federal Agent, 459 COMPANY OF GREAT FALLS Karen, 55 [aka old Silver Smelter], 8 AFRICA ANACONDA COPPER MINING CO., 6-22 Emigrants from Orange Free State, 197 Anaconda Zinc Plant, 22 ALAIR Black Smith Shop, 568 Harry, 578 Bowling Alley, 33 ALBANAS Cadmium Plant, 11 Mr., 478 Change Houses, 9 ALBERTINI Church, 474 Cheryl, 421 Copper Commando, 412 Dick, 455 Electrolytic Copper Refinery, 9-10 ALBRIGHT Employees Club, 14, 42 Kay, 375-377 Furnace Refinery, 9-10 ALDEN Great Falls Reduction Dept., 7 Janell, 73 History of, 511 Jody, 73 Klepetico Boarding House, 12 Wayne & Jo Anne Corr, 73 Laboratory, 9 ALINE Leaching Division, 11 Clotilda (Tillie), 214 Little Church, 13, 474 Enrico, 25, 269 Roasting Furnaces, 11 Gertrude, 267, 269 Rolling Mills, 9-10 Henry, 214 Safety Dept., 12, 221 Henry & Annie, 269 Shops, 9 Henry V., 214, 489 Smelter Hill Residential Area, 12-13, 64 Joe, 197, 331, 408 Smelter Stack, 22, 582 Sam, 214 Strikes, 14 ALLISON Tramming System, 11-12 Tex, 500 Unions and Strikes, 22 ALLAN Wire & Cable Plant, 8+, 36 Ada, 91 Wire Mill, 8+, 22 George & Veda, 91 Zinc Plant, 9-11 Jim & Kay Sanders Aragon, 91 ANDERSON ALLEN Alden K.
    [Show full text]
  • ACM Smelter Residential Soil Health Consultation
    Health Consultation Exposure to Lead and Arsenic in Surface Soil, Black Eagle Community ANACONDA COPPER MINING COMPANY SMELTER AND REFINERY SITE GREAT FALLS, CASCADE COUNTY, MONTANA EPA FACILITY ID: MTD093291599 SEPTEMBER 15, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Community Health Investigations Atlanta, Georgia 30333 Health Consultation: A Note of Explanation A health consultation is a verbal or written response from ATSDR or ATSDR’s Cooperative Agreement Partners to a specific request for information about health risks related to a specific site, a chemical release, or the presence of hazardous material. In order to prevent or mitigate exposures, a consultation may lead to specific actions, such as restricting use of or replacing water supplies; intensifying environmental sampling; restricting site access; or removing the contaminated material. In addition, consultations may recommend additional public health actions, such as conducting health surveillance activities to evaluate exposure or trends in adverse health outcomes; conducting biological indicators of exposure studies to assess exposure; and providing health education for health care providers and community members. This concludes the health consultation process for this site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR or ATSDR’s Cooperative Agreement Partner which, in the Agency’s opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued. You May Contact ATSDR Toll Free at 1-800-CDC-INFO or Visit our Home Page at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov HEALTH CONSULTATION Exposure to Lead and Arsenic in Surface Soil, Black Eagle Community ANACONDA COPPER MINING COMPANY SMELTER AND REFINERY SITE GREAT FALLS, CASCADE COUNTY, MONTANA EPA FACILITY ID: MTD093291599 Prepared By: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Community Health Investigations Western Branch Table of Contents 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Consultation
    Health Consultation Evaluation of Residential Soil Arsenic Action Level ANACONDA CO. SMELTER NPL SITE ANACONDA, DEER LODGE COUNTY, MONTANA EPA FACILITY ID: MTD093291656 OCTOBER 19, 2007 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Atlanta, Georgia 30333 Health Consultation: A Note of Explanation An ATSDR health consultation is a verbal or written response from ATSDR to a specific request for information about health risks related to a specific site, a chemical release, or the presence of hazardous material. In order to prevent or mitigate exposures, a consultation may lead to specific actions, such as restricting use of or replacing water supplies; intensifying environmental sampling; restricting site access; or removing the contaminated material. In addition, consultations may recommend additional public health actions, such as conducting health surveillance activities to evaluate exposure or trends in adverse health outcomes; conducting biological indicators of exposure studies to assess exposure; and providing health education for health care providers and community members. This concludes the health consultation process for this site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR which, in the Agency’s opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued. You May Contact ATSDR TOLL FREE at 1-800-CDC-INFO or Visit our Home Page at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov HEALTH CONSULTATION Evaluation of Residential Soil Arsenic Action Level ANACONDA CO. SMELTER NPL SITE ANACONDA, DEER LODGE COUNTY, MONTANA EPA FACILITY ID: MTD093291656 Prepared By: US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Atlanta, Georgia 30333 Anaconda Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Miners, Managers, and Machines : Industrial Accidents And
    Miners, managers, and machines : industrial accidents and occupational disease in the Butte underground, 1880-1920 by Brian Lee Shovers A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History Montana State University © Copyright by Brian Lee Shovers (1987) Abstract: Between 1880 and 1920 Butte, Montana achieved world-class mining status for its copper production. At the same time, thousands of men succumbed to industrial accidents and contracted occupational disease in the Butte underground, making Butte mining significantly more dangerous than other industrial occupations of that era. Three major factors affected working conditions and worker safety in Butte: new mining technologies, corporate management, and worker attitude. The introduction of new mining technologies and corporate mine ownership after 1900 combined to create a sometimes dangerous dynamic between the miner and the work place in Butte. While technological advances in hoisting, tramming, lighting and ventilation generally improved underground working conditions, other technological adaptations such as the machine drill, increased the hazard of respiratory disease. In the end, the operational efficiencies associated with the new technologies could not alleviate the difficult problems of managing and supervising a highly independent, transient, and often inexperienced work force. With the beginning of the twentieth century and the consolidation of most of the major Butte mines under the corporate entity of Amalgamated Copper Company (later the Anaconda Copper Mining Company), conflict between worker and management above ground increased. At issue were wages, conditions, and a corporate reluctance to accept responsibility for occupational hazards. The new atmosphere of mistrust between miners and their supervisors provoked a defiant attitude towards the work place by workers which increased the potential for industrial accidents.
    [Show full text]
  • Montana Fishing Regulations
    MONTANA FISHING REGULATIONS 20March 1, 2018 — F1ebruary 828, 2019 Fly fishing the Missouri River. Photo by Jason Savage For details on how to use these regulations, see page 2 fwp.mt.gov/fishing With your help, we can reduce poaching. MAKE THE CALL: 1-800-TIP-MONT FISH IDENTIFICATION KEY If you don’t know, let it go! CUTTHROAT TROUT are frequently mistaken for Rainbow Trout (see pictures below): 1. Turn the fish over and look under the jaw. Does it have a red or orange stripe? If yes—the fish is a Cutthroat Trout. Carefully release all Cutthroat Trout that cannot be legally harvested (see page 10, releasing fish). BULL TROUT are frequently mistaken for Brook Trout, Lake Trout or Brown Trout (see below): 1. Look for white edges on the front of the lower fins. If yes—it may be a Bull Trout. 2. Check the shape of the tail. Bull Trout have only a slightly forked tail compared to the lake trout’s deeply forked tail. 3. Is the dorsal (top) fin a clear olive color with no black spots or dark wavy lines? If yes—the fish is a Bull Trout. Carefully release Bull Trout (see page 10, releasing fish). MONTANA LAW REQUIRES: n All Bull Trout must be released immediately in Montana unless authorized. See Western District regulations. n Cutthroat Trout must be released immediately in many Montana waters. Check the district standard regulations and exceptions to know where you can harvest Cutthroat Trout. NATIVE FISH Westslope Cutthroat Trout Species of Concern small irregularly shaped black spots, sparse on belly Average Size: 6”–12” cutthroat slash— spots
    [Show full text]
  • An Evaluation of Walleye in the Missouri River Between Holter Dam and Great Falls, Montana
    An Evaluation of Walleye in the Missouri River between Holter Dam and Great Falls, Montana PPL-Montana MOTAC projects 771-09, 771-10, 759-11, 771-11 and Fisheries Bureau Federal Aid Job Progress Report Federal Aid Project Number F-113-R9, R10, R11, R12 Montana Statewide Fisheries Management Submitted to PPL-Montana 336 Rainbow Dam Great Falls, Mt. 59404 Prepared by Grant Grisak, Brad Tribby and Adam Strainer Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 4600 Giant Springs Road Great Falls, Mt. 49505 January 2012 1 Table of Contents Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 5 Study Area……………………………………………………………………………. 5 Creel survey………………………………………………………………… 10 Angling……………………………………………………………………... 10 Fish Abundance………………………………………………………………………. 11 Tagging……………………………………………………………………………….. 15 Radio Telemetry……………………………………………………………………… 17 Early Life History…………………………………………………………………….. 28 Diet…………………………………………………………………………………… 32 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….. 34 References……………………………………………………………………………. 37 2 List of Tables No. Page 1. Angler use statistics for Missouri River section 9, 1991-2009………………... 8 2. Economic statistics for the Missouri River section 9, 1995-2009……………... 9 3. Angler use statistics for Missouri River section 8, combined angler days with 9 section 9, and economic statistics for section 8 and section 9, 1991- 2009……………………………………………………………………………. 4. Landmarks and associated river miles in the Missouri River between Holter 18 Dam and Black Eagle Dam……………………………………………………. 5. Meristics of radio tagged walleye in Missouri River, total miles traveled and 26 total days radio transmitter was active, 2008-2011……………………………. 6. Locations in the Missouri River and proportional use by radio tagged walleye 27 2008-10. Missouri River, Montana……………………………………………. 7. Young of the year walleye seined at sites in the Missouri River between 30 Cascade and Great Falls……………………………………………………….. 8. Number of fish species sampled by year and total number of sites where 31 found.
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL Canyonferry Cover.Psd
    Revised Environmental Assessment Contents Chapter 1: Introduction Purpose and Need .............................................................1 Background ..................................................................2 Dam and Reservoir...........................................................2 Helena Valley Irrigation District ................................................3 Toston Irrigation District ......................................................5 City of Helena...............................................................6 Relationship of the Proposed Action of Other Activities ...............................7 Decisions to be Made...........................................................9 Issues.......................................................................9 Significant Issues..............................................................9 Other Resource Issues..........................................................9 Chapter 2: Alternatives Alternatives Considered in Detail................................................11 Proposed Action Alternative ...................................................11 Irrigation ................................................................11 Municipal and Industrial Water ...............................................13 Mitigation Measures .......................................................13 Water Quality ...........................................................13 Riparian Habitat .........................................................14 Grebe Nesting...........................................................14
    [Show full text]