7928

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7928
• Author: Lamb, B. L., N. Burkardt and J. G. Taylor
• Title: The Importance Of Defining Technical Issues In Inter-Agency Environmental Negotiations
• USFW Year: n.d.
• USFW - Doc Type: 13
• Copyright Material: YES

the next dam, passage facilities could be designed
for that project. The parties in Cataract and
Oswegatchie understood the facts but disagreed on
the values.
Ashton-St. Anthony and Pit 3, 4, 5
provide examples of unclear technical issues,
opposing values, and an unclear consultation
process. In Ashton-St. Anthony none of the parties
was able to articulate clear management objectives--
other than the utility's aim to relicense the project.
All the parties expressed confusion about how to
conduct the consultation. Studies were conducted
without agreement on purpose or method. Steps
were taken to conduct studies, acquire lands, or
perform other mitigation activities without a clear
connection to goals beyond meeting milestones in
an uncertain process. In Pit 3, 4, 5 instream flow
studies were undertaken because it was understood
that such studies had been required in other cases.
But there was no agreement on the management
objective of the studies--i.e., eagle forage or trout
fishery. The parties believed the FERC licensing
process was fuzzy. Although the rules governing
the FERC process changed during the course of all
our cases, Ashton-St. Anthony and Pit 3, 4, 5
negotiations were not near conclusion at the time of
the change and respondents cited the changed rules
as factors in resolving the conflicts.
Several factors promote technical clarity
during negotiations. For example, we found that
having a sense of urgency in the negotiation
motivated participants to work hard at defining the
appropriate technical issues. Conversely, a
consultation process that is at once formally
required and uncertain in its procedural
requirements reduces the sense of urgency. The
combination of the right people in the right places
was also extremely important. Knowledgeable
individuals with well planned objectives and
experience in group decision-making are valuable to
all sides.
The most successful negotiations we
studied focused on two technical elements: First,
coming to agreement on desirable conditions
(values) and, second, determining how to operate a
project to achieve those conditions (facts). In the
least successful negotiations, parties attempted to
answer the project operation question without
resolving their differences over goals. Thus,
disagreement over technical issues was a
manifestation of underlying differences in approach
and philosophy. Achieving technical clarity is
difficult. Negotiators often plunged into their task
without clearly defining the problem, hoping that a
series of studies would illuminate the best course of
action (Burkardt et al. 1995). Defining and
discussing technical issues and their implications at
an early stage may be critical to the ultimate
success of a negotiation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful for the work on this project
provided by our research assistant Donna L.
Lybecker and for the efforts of colleagues on our
research team Dr. Carl Armour, Dr. Terry
Waddle, David Fulton, and Beth A. K. Coughlan.
LITERATURE CITED
Bearzi, J. A. and W. R. Wilkerson. 1990.
Accommodating fish and wildlife interests under
the Federal Power Act. Natural Resources and
Environment. 4(4):20-58.
Bearzi, J. A. 1991. The delicate balance of power
and nonpower interests in the nation's rivers.
Rivers. 2(4):326-332.
Burby, J. 1994. Water wizards. Government
Executive. 26(11):40-44.
Burkardt, N. B. L. Lamb, and J. G. Taylor. 1995.
Technical clarity in inter-agency negotiations:
Lessons from four hydropower projects. Water
Resources Bulletin. 31(2):187-198.
Fulton, D. C. 1992. Negotiating successful
resource management: An analysis of instream flow
mitigation decision processes. MS thesis, Program
in Environmental Science and Regional Planning,
Washington State University, Pullman, WA.
Kerwin, C. M. 1990. Transforming regulation:
A case study of hydropower licensing. Public
Administration Review. 50(1):91-100.
Kerwin, C. M. and J. M. Robinson. 1985. Report
to the Office of Hydropower Licensing. Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
Lamb, B. L. 1992. Accommodating, balancing,
and bargaining in hydropower licensing. Resource
Law Notes 25 (April):5-11.