My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8020
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:32 PM
Creation date
5/22/2009 4:50:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8020
Author
Horak, G. C.
Title
Proceedings of the Symposium on Mitigating Developmental Impacts on Fish and Wildlife.
USFW Year
1979.
USFW - Doc Type
March 1979.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
145
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.