TECHNICAL CLARITY IN INTER‐AGENCY NEGOTIATIONS: LESSONS FROM FOUR HYDROPOWER PROJECTS¹

Abstract

We investigated the effect of technical clarity on success in multi‐party negotiations in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing process. Technical clarity is the shared understanding of dimensions such as the geographic extent of the project, range of flows to be considered, important species and life stages, and variety of water uses considered. The results of four hydropower licensing consultations are reported. Key participants were interviewed to ascertain the level of technical clarity present during the consultations and the degree to which the consultations were successful. Technical clarity appears to be a prerequisite for successful outcomes. Factors that enhance technical clarity include simple project design, new rather than existing projects, precise definition of issues, a sense of urgency to reach agreement, a sense of fairness among participants, and consistency in participation. Negotiators should not neglect the critical pre‐negotiation steps of defining technical issues and determining appropriate studies, deciding how to interpret studies, and agreeing on responses to study results.

Evaluation of Generalized Habitat Criteria for Assessing Impacts of Altered Flow Regimes on Warmwater Fishes

“…Resource managers must frequently use predicted effects of flow alteration on fish abundances and species diversity as a basis for negotiating flow regimes (e.g., Kerwin 1990; Burkardt et al 1995). The Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) component () of the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM; Bovee 1982) provides a widely used tool for explicitly analyzing habitat availability for fishes or other biota as a function of flow regimesthrough the use of species‐specific habitat suitability criteria (HSC).…”

The Importance of Defining Technical Issues in Interagency Environmental Negotiations

“…Negotiation success is not clearly defined in the literature and is difficult to measure (Moore, 1996). In our study, interviewees were also asked to evaluate the success of each negotiation (see Table 2; Fulton, 1992;Burkardt, Lamb, & Taylor, 1995). Our criteria to evaluate success included (a) that the parties recognized that an agreement was reached, (b) that the agreement included a plan of implementation and postconstruction monitoring, (c) that there was a willingness to enter into future negotiations with the same parties, and (d) that respondents rated success at more than 7 on a 10-point scale (where 1 meant no success and 10 meant fully successful).…”