254 



cx)sts, because the process for attempting to influence the decision would be better 

 understood. FORUMS 2 and 3 may actually result in somewhat higher costs to 

 participate, because parties would probably want to attempt to influence both the 

 recoRunendations and the final decision. 



5.3 COMPARISON BY ALTERNATIVE 



Based on the analysis above, a brief discussion of the strength/ weaknesses of each of 

 the alternatives is presented below. The information presented is identical to that 

 provided above except it is orgaiuzed by alternatives rather than by objectives. 



5.3.1 FORUM 1: Decisionmaking by the SOR lead agencies + a complete public 

 involvement program. 



The primary strength of this alternative is that it that there are few costs to implement it. 

 The three operating agencies could simply dedde to do implement this alternative at 

 any time. This alternative does not consolidate decisioiunaking. It may reduce 

 legal/political challenges to decisions to the extent those challenges are based upon the 

 absence of a visible decisionmaking process. If legal challenges are instead based on 

 substantive decisions, then this alternative would not reduce challenges, and could 

 actually increase them. An enhanced public involvement process might result is 

 somewhat increased trust and might increase the perception that all uses were treated 

 equitably. It probably does not materially improve accountability (although it does 

 create visibility for the decisionmaking process) nor alter the costs to participate It 

 would represent an increase in cost over the existing condition, but would be less costly 

 than having a recommendation developed by an other entity. 



Final Draft - September 15, 1993 85 



