220 



This alternative assumes that all five agencies believe the interests they represent will 

 gain more from working together than from separate processes. If this is the case, the 

 agencies would develop an integrated planning process that allows all the interests to 

 be addressed simultaneously, or at least employ the same plaiming cyde 



This alternative could be implemented by the five agencies without the need for 

 additional authority from Congress. The agencies would negotiate an agreement on 

 the process to be followed, staffing arrangements, funding, etc. 



3.3.1.3 Decisionmaking Option: Decisionmaking by a Single Federal Agency 



In this alternative, a single Federal agency would make all operational decisions for the 

 river. Presumably this would be one of the SOR lead agencies, since they have 

 operational experience. If this were the case, the remaining issue that would have to be 

 resolved would be the role of the National Marine Fisheries Service, which holds a 

 strong position in decisionmaking related to endangered spedes issues. Alternatively, 

 the National Marine Fisheries Service could be designated as the decision maker, 

 because of its role in proterting endangered spedes. 



The argimients that stakeholders might make for consolidating dedsioiunaking in one 

 agency could be: (1) simplifying the dedsiorunaking process, and (2) consolidating 

 decisionmaking in the hands of an agency whose mandate is dosest to that of the 

 stakeholder group, (i.e., if your interest is power generation, then you might support 

 consolidation in the hands of the agency with the strongest mandate for power 

 generation.) 



Final Draft - September 15, 1993 51 



