Water development projects present problems to resource 

 management agencies. This mud flat is of no value to fish, 

 wildlife or recreation in its present condition. 



Water Resource Development 



Water developments in Montana have been 

 affecting our fish and wildUfe resource in two basic 

 ways. First, they consume land, frequently critical 

 range areas, formerly used by a variety of wildlife. 

 Secondly, they create an artificial aquatic 

 environment that is not necessarily suited to 

 Montana game fish species. Greatly increased 

 activity in water resource planning and 

 development in recent years necessitated creation 

 of a water resource development section within the 

 fisheries division. 



Over the past two years this section has been 

 participating in the development of two 

 comprehensive river basin plans, one for the 

 Missouri, one for the Columbia, and has worked 

 with constructing agencies and the Fish and 

 Wildhfe Service on specific water development 

 projects. 



The Fish and Game Department has taken the 

 position that since these development projects are 

 federally financed, the financial responsibility for 

 determining the effect on existing resources and 

 ways to replace fish and wildlife habitat sacrificed 

 lies with each individual project and should not be 

 the responsibility of Montana's sportsmen. In order 

 to accomplish the needed work, the Water 

 Resource Development Section has prepared 

 detailed study outlines and budgets for several 

 projects and offered to perform the necessary work 

 on a contract basis. These proposals are currently 

 under study by various construciion agencies. 

 Should this concept and these proposals be 

 accepted, it will be a first step toward constructing 



multipurpose projects in fact, rather than just in 

 name. 



Habitat Preservation and Improvement 



During the biennium, the department received 

 93 legal notices of construction of projects 

 affecting fishing waters. These notices to the Fish 

 and Game Department are required by the Stream 

 Preservation Act from most state, city and county 

 agencies. Forty-nine of these projects were not 

 harmful to fish habitat as planned. On the 

 remaining 44 projects we made recommendations 

 for certain changes to reduce or ehminate the fish 

 habitat destruction they would have caused if 

 constructed as originally planned. On some 

 projects the department asked that road alignments 

 be changed to avoid streams entirely, on others the 

 department asked for additional bridges to preserve 

 natural, meandering channels. On other projects 

 where alignment changes or bridges were not 

 feasible, the department recommended new 

 meanders be built to replace those cut off in order 

 that the total stream length would be the same 

 after the profect as before. Where channel changes 

 have been unavoidable, the department has asked 

 that new channels be excavated in the dry to 

 minimize silt pollution. Preservation of streamside 

 vegetation during construction has been asked and 

 where this is not possible, that bare banks be 

 revegetated as soon as possible. Apparently the 

 requests for these special considerations have been 

 reasonable for not one was denied. Thus, it has not 

 been necessary to submit any project to the 

 arbitration provided for in the act. 



Through cooperative agreements, several federal 

 agencies follow the intent of Montana's Stream 

 Preservation Act. Some private individuals also 

 seek advice on stream construction projects, 

 although Uke the federal agencies, they do not 

 come under the act. More inclusive legislation 

 would be beneficial to Montana's stream fishery 

 resource; however, the present act has allowed the 

 department and the construction agencies involved 

 to greatly reduce the stream habitat destruction 

 that was occurring before 1*^*63. 



Tho goal ol fisheries management is quality recroation. 



