240 



• Accountability: The extent to which it is clear who is responsible for 



making decisions and accepts political, legal and financial responsibility 

 for those decisions. 



After identifying the criteria, the SOR team conducted another internal workshop. This 

 workshop demonstrated that the criteria above were useful in discriminating between 

 alternatives. However, there were considerable differences of opinion v^rlthin the team 

 on how well the alternatives fit the criteria. In fact, depending on the assumptions used, 

 and projections about how the public might react, exactly opposite rankings of 

 alternatives were made based on the same criteria. 



The SOR team then presented the alternatives and proposed evaluation criteria at a 

 stakeholders workshop. Participants included representatives from power interests, 

 fish interests, Indian tribes, flood control interests, a representative from a Governor's 

 office, and the Power Planning Council. 



Participants argued that the real issue was "who made the decision, and for what 

 purposes." They recommended the creation of an additional "single-agency decision 

 maker" option. They also observed that different sets of assumptions could result in 

 significantly different rankings even using the same criteria. 



Based on the stakeholders workshop, the SOR team added a "single Federal agency 

 decision maker" option. In addition, the SOR team added an analysis based on who 

 makes the decision (control), and how much involvement the public has in 

 decisionmaking. 



Final Draft - September 15, 1993 71 



