7955 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Technical Clarity in Inter-Agency Negotiations: Lessons From Four Hydropower Projects fact that little biological data had actually been col- lected. The utility was reluctant to commit to major expenditures without data showing that many fish would benefit from project modifications. When the application was submitted to the FERC, it reflected the various areas of disagreement. When the license was issued in August 1987, FERC includ- ed five articles pertaining to environmental mitiga- tion, and they reflected each disagreement. The applicant and the resource agencies were charged with resolution of conditions contained in the license articles. A new round of negotiations commenced and had not concluded at the time of our interviews. Throughout these consultations, applicants and resource agencies disagreed about appropriate mitiga- tion. One reason for this was lack of agreement on the proper use of various techniques and methodologies. From the beginning of the process, the state resource agencies expressed concern about the loss of wild fish due to entrainment and turbine mortality. When an attempt was made to quantify potential losses, each group arrived at different conclusions about fish mor- tality. In addition to that problem, there appeared to be very different views on the value of wild fish ver- sus hatchery fish. In the opinion of some resource agency representatives, the applicant seemed to believe that (1) the fish were there to be caught, and (2) there is no qualitative difference between catching a wild fish and catching a hatchery fish. Resource agency personnel believed that the wild fish popula- tion was intrinsically valuable and worth preserving. Indeed, the resource agencies believed that the utility ought to be required to mitigate for past damages and make some attempt to return the fishery to pre- project conditions, but this request was never made explicit. Another problem became apparent when designing studies for evaluating the effectiveness of a fish pas- sage window in the diversion dam. The applicant's consultants planned on using hydro-acoustics to detect fish passing through the dam. The resource agencies warned the applicant that in the particular situation, the solid wall of the dam would result in blind spots. Undeterred, the consultants proceeded with plans for hydroacoustic monitoring, only to find that the plan failed - because of blind spots. Eventu- ally, these problems were overcome and a permanent fish passage facility was constructed. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION Of the four consultations analyzed, one (Koma Kul- shan) was rated as fully successful, and three (Oswe- gatchie, Cataract, and Ashton-St.Anthony) were rated as minimally successful. The Koma Kulshan case exhibited the highest level of technical clarity. Technical Clarity Enhanced by Simple Project Design The most obvious reason for Koma Kulshan's tech- nical clarity was that the engineering design was not complex and only moderate environmental impacts were expected. Project operations posed certain prob- lems, but for most of the potential drawbacks a mutu- ally acceptable solution was available. For example, one concern was possible erosion in the case of a pen- stock rupture. The solution: the penstock was routed over a lava field with low erosion potential. This prob- lem-solving approach characterized the Koma Kul- shan negotiations. _ . This is not to say that parties had no disagree- ments over technical issues. Throughout the negotia- tions there was some distrust between resource agencies and the applicant. This stemmed from a belief held by all parties that their form of expertise was most appropriate in solving problems. The appli- cant questioned the ability of the resource agencies to interpret engineering designs, and the resource agen- cies held fast to the notion that their interpretation of biological studies was the only valid one. Despite these differences, there was consensus about the actu- al scope of the issues to be addressed; sometimes par- ties disagreed on how to study the problems or even how to interpret the studies but agreed on the validity of the issues themselves. Because of a generally coop- erative atmosphere and a desire on the part of all par- ticipants to finalize the negotiations, disagreements on methodology and interpretation were resolved. Technical Clarity Enhanced in New Projects The Koma Kulshan project was the only new pro- ject we studied. Each of the other projects involved an application for a renewal license for an existing pro- ject. At first glance, it might appear that renewing a license would be less complicated than starting from the ground with a new project. In fact, the Koma Kul- shan process required about as much time to resolve as the other cases, ten years. Nonetheless, some inter- esting dynamics added to the complexity of relicens- ing. In the Koma Kulshan case, the potential impacts were believed to be minor. To verify this, the parties conducted studies and assessed the project area's bio- logical resources. Because no concrete had actually been poured, the applicant had the flexibility to work around problems that were identified. 193 WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN