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 />Dent projects, including development of prediction techniques, is vested <br /> <br />with the impacted state's conservation agency in coordination with the <br /> <br />u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service and, in recent past, the U.S. National <br /> <br />Marine Fisheries Service at the Federal level. Cooperative efforts to <br /> <br />obtain more effective input by this conservation community have resul~ed <br /> <br />in an almost continuous evolution of planning (including mitigation) meth- <br /> <br />odologies. However, the emphasis placed on review of past mitigation ef- <br /> <br />forts at existing projects has been negligible. Any attempt to improve <br /> <br />planning procedures in the absence of adequate post-impoundment evalua~ <br /> <br />tions ~t certainly face considerable obstacles and could result in well <br /> <br />intentioned but poorly prefaced methodological development. <br /> <br />Just over s~ven years ago, the majority of fish and wildlife agencies in <br /> <br />the United States cooperated in a major inter-agency review of fish and <br /> <br />wildlife planning at water resource development projects. The Fish and <br /> <br />Wildlife Service, state fish and wildlife agencies and many national con- <br /> <br />servation organizations deliberated intensively and produced a list of 169 <br /> <br />recommended actions to improve the fish and wildlife planning process. <br /> <br />These recoumendations as presented in a publication which wa. called the Act- <br /> <br />ion Report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1971), included the following: <br /> <br />Study projects under construction and completed to determine if <br />recommended fish and wildlife features are being provided, to <br />evaluate results of previous recommendations, and to provide <br />basic data for future evaluations and recommendations. <br /> <br />AVAILABILITY OF FISH AND WILDLIFE DATA <br /> <br />The effectiveness of past fish and wildlife planning was a matter of con- <br /> <br />cern among the construction agencies also. In 1974 the U.S. Army Corps of <br /> <br />Engineers awarded a contr~ct to the Sport Fisbing Institute to evaluate <br /> <br />41 <br />