8020

• 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

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

wildlife reports often state that a proposed measure or group of measures if
implemented would maintain the current level of the resources. Additional
pre- or post-construction investigations should be provided to further identify
project impacts on fi sh or wil dll fe resources and measures requi red to prevent,
mitigate, and compensate for losses to such resources. If adequately funded,
this provision will enable fish and wildlife agencies to always present sponsor-
ing agencies with specific quantitative recommendations with detailed specific
data as to the recommendations predicted effects on the biota. This is an
extremely critical point in the recommendation process, because without
quantitative recommendations based on sound methodologies .and baseline data
the ultimate acceptance and implementation of the measure will be perfunctory.
It is apparent that an accounting and tracking system of recommendation
is needed. An initial step of such a system is to require the sponsoring
agencies to advise in writing the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of
Commerce, and the concerned agencies of the appropriate state of the proposed
disposition of each recommendaton, including the approximate schedule for
installation of each measure in relation to the installation of other project
features. This is an important requirement, because in some case studies it
was difficult to determine the disposition of a recommendation. Once the
disposition of a measure is documented, the measure can be tracked through
the implementation process and a determination can be made as to the measure1s
success at preserving fish and wildlife.
In addition, the sponsoring agencies should be required to consider post-
construction recommendations in the same manner as pre-construction measures
is most significant. Study findings indicate that one-half of follow-up study
recommendations were ignored by the sponsoring agency, whereas the average
rejection rate is about 25% (6). For example, in a follow-up report on Emi-
grant Dam, Oregon the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1965 recommended a flow of
2 cfs to avoid fish losses. This recommendation was rejected by the sponsoring

23