. Biennial report, Montana Game and Fish Commission, State of Montana . ust be submitted to the Fish andGame Commission prior to the beginning ofconstruction. The Commission then reviews theplans and advises the applicant as to whetheror not the project will adversely affect the fish-eries potential of the stream. Alternatives mayalso be recommended. In the event there is an impasse betweenagencies in reaching mutual agreement, theproblem may be turned over to a board of ar-bitration. The board, composed of a memberfrom each agency and a third person mutuallyagreed upon by both agencies, hears
. Biennial report, Montana Game and Fish Commission, State of Montana . ust be submitted to the Fish andGame Commission prior to the beginning ofconstruction. The Commission then reviews theplans and advises the applicant as to whetheror not the project will adversely affect the fish-eries potential of the stream. Alternatives mayalso be recommended. In the event there is an impasse betweenagencies in reaching mutual agreement, theproblem may be turned over to a board of ar-bitration. The board, composed of a memberfrom each agency and a third person mutuallyagreed upon by both agencies, hears testimonyand renders a binding decision. Under the regulatory influence of the StreamConservation Law, inter-agency problems havebeen resolved without arbitration. From July 1,1963 through May 31, 1964, the Fish and GameDepartment has received 34 notices of con-struction projects affecting fishing streams, threefrom cities or counties and 31 from the MontanaHighway Department. Two of the city-county projects were judgednon-detrimental. The third was detrimental, but. Physical requirements ol fish are destroyed in manhandlingof streams. fish and game recommendations to alleviatestream damage were followed. One of the 31 notices received from theHighway Department is in the process of evalu-ation at time of this writing, June 5, 1964. Ofthe other 30, the Department has recommendedchanges in 8 and no change in 22. Our reasonsfor not recommending changes in these 22 proj-ects were either: (1) the project caused minordamage to good fishing streams; (2) no reason-able alternative could be suggested; or (3) be-cause the project affected streams of minor im-portance. Seven of the 22 projects fell into thefirst category. Agreements were reached on five of theeight projects judged detrimental. On one ofthese projects two bridges will be installed tosave a long meander and boulders will beplaced in a length of reworked channel; onthree projects loss will be reduced by addingstructures an
Size: 1581px × 1581px
Photo credit: © Reading Room 2020 / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910, booksubjectfisheries, bookyear19
