7928 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

INTRODUCTION Technical clarity in negotiations over environmental issues involves understanding the science-based aspects of a project, including the professional value judgments that must be made and the technical facts. Technical clarity is achieved when there is agreement on values and facts. Technical values include issues such as the resources influenced by the project and the geographic extent of project effects. Resolving these value questions requires defining the nature and extent of benefits that may be gained from the negotiation. Technical facts include issues such as the level of flow that will provide fish habitat and the timing of flow releases to maximize power production. Resolving the technical fact questions determines distribution of these benefits to each party To determine the relation between technical clarity and successful negotiations,, we - - studied six consultations conducted under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) hydropower licensing process. These consultations were undertaken between 1980 and 1989. Although the procedures for FERC consultation became more formal after passage of the Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986 (ECPA; 16 U.S.C 791 et seq.), the negotiations we studied were typical of most environmental conflicts in that the parties were expected to work out acceptable means to protect fisheries and recreation values without benefit of explicit rules to guide the process or evaluate the solution they reached. The consultation procedures for all the cases we studied required the applicant for a license to consult with state and federal fish and wildlife agencies and to report the results of those consultations to the FERC. The FERC issued licenses for the projects with terms and conditions that usually reflected the results of the consultation (Kerwin 1990). The principal issues in the six cases were fish passage, instream flow releases for fish habitat, and entrainment of fish in hydropower turbines. These issues are very common in FERC hydropower licensing consultations because hydroelectric projects almost always involve damming a stream, bypassing the stream through a pipe (called a penstock), and dropping the water back into the stream through a turbine that generates electrical power. A hypothetical project is shown in Figure 1 to illustrate that a hydropower facility could completely block the upstream migration of fish unless suitable facilities for fish passage are included in the project. Figure 1 also illustrates that the flow in a bypassed reach of stream could be significantly reduced when water is routed through the penstock to the powerhouse. In some projects, the turbines are incorporated into the dam itself (resulting in no bypassed reach) and in others the bypassed reach can extend for several miles. In addition, when water is directed through the turbines, flow is increased below the powerhouse. This fluctuation in flow can be dramatic, causing damage to the fishery and altering the bed and banks of the stream. Finally, fish that pass through the penstock and turbines can be injured or killed. How to construct and operate a project so that these effects are minimized is the question at the heart of most FERC hydroelectric license consultations. For example, from 1980 through March of 1983, 59% of hydropower licenses contained special articles governing instream flows (Kerwin 1990). Instream flow conditions were included in 80% of the licenses issued during 1985 (Kerwin and Robinson 1985). Answering the question of how to minimize environmental damage is a technical problem amenable to scientific analysis. Although scientists can analyze the problem, the best course of action is not beyond dispute. As Patterson observed about management of California's Central Valley Project, "This will not be just a technical decision. Any program has to be workable politically" (quoted in Burby 1994:44) Ozawa and Susskind (1985) found that even if specific points are agreed upon in environmental negotiations, it is common to disagree on how to study the problem and how to interpret the results of studies. The findings of our study support those of Ozawa and Susskind (1985). We concluded that technical clarity was one critical element in the successful resolution of these conflicts.