7955 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Technical Clarity in Inter-Agency Negotiations: Lessons From Four Hydropower Projects TABLE 1. Questions Posed to Evaluate the Clarity of Technical Issues. 1. At this phase, did the parties involved agree to the definition of the instream flow problem? - the geographic extent - the range of flows to be considered - the important species and life stages - the recreation and other water uses to be included 2. Didyou agree with the definition of these technical issues? If"NO": If not now, then when? [Identify phase.] 3. At what point was the study clearly dermed? 4. Once established, was that understanding ever lost? Did it fluctuate, or remain constant? 5. For this phase, please rate the technical bounds on a scale where l=completely obscure - to - lO=complete clear. For subsequent phases, respondents were asked: 6. Did technical issues change during this phase? If "YES": Were new technical issues introduced, or did the existing issues change? Did you agree to these changes? 7. How clear were the technical issues? l=totally obscure - to - lO=complete clear. and the project began operating in 1991. The pre- license consultation began in 1980 and focused on issues of stream flow, sedimentation, and public access. These issues were fully resolved before the license was issued in 1986. Participants reported that because the physical impacts of the project were expected to be minimal, the level of conflict was low. In February of 1992, participants in the consultation were interviewed. The negotiated agreement reached in the Koma Kulshan consultation was rated as fully successful according to our study criteria. All parties believed that a successful agreement was reached; eight of the ten stated that the final agreement contained provi- sions for monitoring (the other two did not recall); and each individual reported that he or she would willing- ly negotiate with the same group in the future. In fact, this group of people often find themselves in negotiations with each other. This willingness to negotiate with the same parties in the future was found in all of the cases we studied. Because the physical impacts of the project were not of great concern, there were no intractable con- flicts around the issue of technical clarity. This is not to say that there were no disagreements, only that the disagreements did not halt the consultation process. One area of uncertainty was that of cumulative impacts. Resource agencies requested the applicant to conduct a cumulative impact assessment but were not specific about what this meant. In the words of a rep- resentative of the applicant: [l]t [cumulative impact assessment] is a valid issue. What I did have trouble with is that no one could really define what they meant by "cumulative impact." I'd say "O.K, what do you want us to do?; what is it that you're really con- cerned about?" When we finally did get things pinned down, it came down to sediment, that was the major thing; that was something that was tractable. The typical progression in terms of clarifying issues tended to follow the pattern of the cumulative impact issue. When technical issues were initially encoun- tered, they were painted with a very broad brush. This lack of specificity led participants to believe that the problem was unmanageable. However, because a general belief existed that others were acting in good faith, these unclear issues were discussed until the scope was narrowed and strategies were designed to address them. Thus, the trend was for technical clari- ty to increase throughout the course of the consulta- tion. Another reason for increased technical clarity was that many issues simply were not raised in the early part of the negotiation. As the project unfolded, the scope and nature of the appropriate issues became apparent. Applicants and resource agencies began the process cognizant of the fact that certain generic issues would be raised: flow, habitat issues, mitiga- tion, and the like. It was not until the specific site was examined that other issues arose. For example, a 189 WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN