Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> % of <br /> No. 0 f % of Agreed-to <br /> No. 0 f Measures Measures Measures <br /> Projects Recommended Implemented Implemented <br />TOTAL 146 578 64 87 <br />BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 2 7 43 100 <br />BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 6 9 100 100 <br />BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 68 307 67 87 <br />CORPS OF ENGINEERS 33 171 61 86 <br />FEDERAL ENERGY REGULA- 14 35 74 93 <br />TORY COMMISSION <br />FOREST SERVICE 14 14 64 100 <br />SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 9 35 46 73 <br />Table 3. Implementation Finding by Sponsoring Agency <br /> <br />In Table 4, implementation success is reported for eleven major cate- <br />gories of habitat and population measures presented in a U.S. Fish and <br />Wildlife study (7,8). For categories with greater than 10 requests, the <br />implementation rates for reservoir conservation pools and dam discharge <br />systems are comparatively high, especially in contrast to general practices. <br />Possibly these differences reflect the priorities normally assigned to <br />implementing the design features of the dam itself and the planned fishery <br />management measures when constructing reservoir projects. Types of measures <br />sometimes neglected deal with features remote from the immediate dam and <br />reservoir site. Therefore, features planned for the upstream or downstream <br />reaches and intended land use controls affecting the entire reservoir site <br />or related watershed may be postponed or never accomplished. <br /> <br />14 <br />