226 



state that for the purposes of this recommendation the Council should take into account 

 and attempt to balance all uses of the river. 



Council staff would act as the technical staff to review the technical basis for the 

 recommendation. Presumably some compensation would be paid by the SOR lead 

 agencies to the Council for this staff time, or for hiring additional staff. Because they 

 cannot forego their legal accountability under this option, the SOR lead agencies would 

 undoubtedly also conduct a review of the techiucal basis for the decision. 



3.3.2.3 Public Involvement Option: Reconunendation by a New Entity 



An option to having a recommendation developed by an existing entity would be to 

 have recommendations developed by the board of directors of a new entity specifically 

 created to advise on river operations. The closest examples of such a entity, from 

 among the examples of approaches used elsewhere presented earlier in this chapter, 

 would be the boards of the Chesapeake Bay Program and the Gulf of Mexico Program. 

 There are three variations on membership for the board of this new entity: 



• Federal/State Agencies Only: The board would be composed of members of 

 Federal and state agencies oiUy. 



• Agencies /Stakeholders: The board would include representatives of federal 

 and state agencies, with some representation from stakeholder groups (e.g. 

 power interests, recreation interests, etc.) 



• State Representatives: The Governors of the four Northwest states would 

 appoint the members of the Board. 



Final Draft - September 15, 1993 57 



