7928 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

This confusion was due to uncertainty over how to handle the resolution of technical questions and how to move forward. The parties looked to the FERC for leadership but found little, and the direction provided by the applicant did not seem to lead to timely results. Confusion did not arise from disputes over which studies to conduct. Rather, after completing the studies the parties still did not agree on how to interpret the results. The post-license phase was marked by studies designed to meet license requirements and agreements on several outstanding issues. But the issue of flow release in the Pit'3 bypass reach had not been resolved. After the flow studies were completed the parties could not agree whether the flows were established to promote trout habitat or eagle foraging on Sacramento Sucker. Even within the internal deliberations of one of the parties there was no agreement about this question. Moreover, although the parties did agree that eagle foraging was one important factor, they could not agree how much use by eagles constituted foraging: Did one eagle taking one fish constitute foraging or did foraging require a group of eagles making regular use of the reach? We rated the negotiation as minimally successful. Agreement was not reached on flows and the FERC order was contested. Implementation was included on those issues agreed to; monitoring was a part of FERC license. All parties reported a willingness to negotiate again. Success scores range from 1-7. DISCUSSION Of the six projects, we evaluated two as fully successful (Eastman Falls and Koma Kulshan), and four as minimally successful (Oswegatchie, Cataract, Ashton-St. Anthony, and Pit 3, 4, 5). The two successful cases were the ones in which technical clarity was most evident (Table 3). Although two consultations were judged to be successful each displayed unique distinguishing features. In Eastman Falls the key feature was the earlier negotiation of a comprehensive plan covering fish passage requirements for the entire river. Mitigation steps required of the Eastman Falls project proponent were understood in advance and the consultation was a matter of conforming to the plan. Questions did arise about the responsibilities of individuals representing some of the parties to the consultation because those representatives had not been a part of the negotiations over the comprehensive plan. However, these questions did not impinge upon the technical clarity of the issues under negotiation. In Koma Kulshan the issues were streamflow, sedimentation, and public access. Unlike Eastman Falls, there was no previous agreement on these issues. The parties had to decide what the problems were, determine appropriate studies to evaluate alternatives, and design a solution. All of this required considerable time. This was the one case we studied for which no license had yet been issued. Because the project was not in place the parties had the luxury of time to develop a solution. Although the parties were interested in completing the consultation, several non-technical issues delayed the process. The delay allowed time to develop trust-based working relationships. Finally, the parties agreed that the environmental effects of the project would be minor. The feature that sets these negotiations apart from those that were less successful is that the parties shared an understanding of the technical issues. In both cases this shared understanding arose from a long negotiation; albeit in the Eastman Falls instance that negotiation occurred in a separate forum. In each case the technical issues were straightforward and there was no real question about whether or not the project should be licensed (although this was not clear at the beginning of the Koma Kulshan consultation). The parties in both consultations were able to resolve (Koma Kulshan) or already had resolved (Eastman Falls) the technical questions related to the heart of the negotiation: What is the extent of adverse environmental effects? That is to say, they resolved the value or ethical questions about the project. Simon (1976) observed that every decision contains both fact and value elements. Factual propositions are those things that can be objectively tested, while values are statements of what ought to be. Values are ethical propositions that "cannot be described as correct or incorrect" (Simon 1976:50). One of the most difficult tasks in the consultations we studied was for the parties to arrive at some ethical premise that would guide their negotiations. In the successful negotiations the parties were either given or developed the premise that it was suitable that the license be granted. Reaching this