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 />A means to gauge the rate of implementation of fish and wildlife measures <br />is to compare the progress of expenditures for fish and wildlife measures to <br />the progress of expenditure on other project purposes (l). Table 5 presents such <br />a co~parison for 12 Bureau of Reclamation projects. For each year of the con- <br />struction period it is possible to compare obligated funds to estimated funds <br />for both fish and wildlife measures and the rest of the project. ThrQugh a <br />comparison of the two sets of statistics, it is possible to chart fish and <br />wildlife funding status relative to other project purposes. The first two <br />columns in Table 5 show the percentage of estimated expenditures for fish <br />and wildlife measures and the remainder of the project respectively, which <br />had been obligated as of June 30, 1972. The entries in the main body of <br />the table show the ratio of percent completion in fish and wildlife funding <br />to percent completion in the rest of the project for anyone year between <br />the start of the project and June 30, 1972. If the ratio is greater than <br />one, fish and wildlife funding is being completed at a faster rate than the <br />project. If the result is less than one, fish and wildlife funding lagged <br />behind expenditures on the rest of the project have been tabulated in the <br />1 as t co 1 umn. <br />The most noticeable result of this comparison is the almost universal <br />fact that fish and wildlife mitigation measures requiring funding never <br />are initiated as early as other project activities. The one exception to <br />this observation is the Fryingpan-Arkansas project, which started and has <br />continued to date with funding fOr fish and wildlife implementation ahead <br />of other project activities. <br />Although lagging initially, fish and wildlife mitigation shows a <br />tendency to catch up with the remainder of the project as it progresses <br />to completion. In 6 of the 12 projects studies, fish and wildlife miti- <br />.gation expenditures have reached a level which equals or exceeds that in <br />other project activities. <br /> <br />16 <br />