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

This classification is premised on the supposition that recommendations offered
in successively later time periods of project development usually incur cor-
respondi'ngly increased resistance to their adoption. The data show that flow
requests made after the project began operating frequently resulted in poor
bargaining success; whereas, flows requested during every other stage of pro-
ject operation generally approximate the norm. One significant exception is
that rejections of requests made in early project development were two-thirds
of the usual proportion.
The data also is analyzed according to the type of measure requested.
A classification of improvement measures in Table 2 employs the major cate-
gories of a more detailed scheme presented in a study for the Fish and Wild-
life Service (7,8). The broadest distinction within this classification scheme
is between habitat and population improvement measures. It is noteworthy that
although population improvement measures are requested less frequently, they
are accepted without modification 50% more frequently than habitat improvement
measures.
Generally,habitat improvement measures indirectly affect fish and wildlife
resources by directly altering the: reservoir flood basin (selective clearing);
reservoir conservation pool (minimum pool); dam discharge system (multi-level
intakes); streamflows, riffles and pools (minimum flows); streambank protection
(bank stabilization), and general practices (food and cover planting). Popul-
ation improvement measures directly affect fish and wildlife resources by
providing: fish propagation (fish hatcheries), fish passage (fishways), fish
stocking and control (fish screens), wildlife propagation and control (passable
fencing), and wildlife protection at canals (escape ramps).
In Table 2, bargaining is reported for eleven' major categories of habitats
and population measures. For categories with more than ten requests, three
significant deviations from the acceptance rates are apparent from the table:
. Lower acceptance rates for streamflow, riffles and pools
. Higher acceptance rates for fish propagation
. Higher acceptance rates for fish stocking and control
"In