51 



another task force member could not agree to the proposal, and 

 therefore, we opposed it, and submitted a statement to the task 

 force that we did in fact oppose that particular plan that the LAC 

 committee had come up with. 



But if I could add. Congressman, that the LAC process is not a 

 process to develop a specific plan that has to be adhered to. It is 

 a citizens' task force that makes a recommendation to the agency, 

 and the agency has no obligation, and this is absolutely made clear 

 from the outset, they have no obligation to adopt that plan. 



Mr. COOLEY. What about you, Mr. Hughes? 



Mr. Hughes. I was on the LAC. I was an outfitter-float member 

 of that group. 



When the LAC process was complete, float operators, as I think 

 everyone, every interest group left grudgingly accepting the deal 

 that we had been able to come up with as a group. The only excep- 

 tions are the ones that Ric Bailey just mentioned. 



Unfortunately, there was a year lapse before anything moved on 

 the LAC and as time went by, more people from every possible 

 point on the compass became disgruntled with the LAC. 



Then over time when the draft environmental impact statement 

 came out, we saw the management was going different ways. The 

 draft picked up on the idea of one week on, one week off; one 

 motorless week, one motor week for the upper wild river, and that 

 had been something the LAC group worked with, and from that 

 point on, the LAC, while much of the information from that was 

 included in the draft and in the final environmental impact state- 

 ment, we went off into different fine tuning of management alter- 

 natives. 



Mr. CooLEY. Mr. Bailey, does AWA make an objection to one 

 week on, one week off that you refer to that you would not agree? 

 Wouldn't you agree to accept that report, or did I misunderstand 

 you? 



Mr. Bailey. No, we had disagreed to a plan that actually came 

 out of the LAC committee which was different than the week-on/ 

 week-off plan which came from the Forest Service in their draft en- 

 vironmental impact statement. 



Mr. CoOLEY. And you objected to the draft. What part of the 

 draft did you object to? I am just interested to find out. 



Mr. Bailey. Primarily, the level of Jetboat use that was allowed. 

 We felt that from the outset, the LAC process did not highlight the 

 laws that are required to be adhered to in management of the 

 river. In fact, specifically that the upper 32-mile section of the 

 river — excuse me, 31-mile section of the river is designated as wild 

 under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the act requires that, 

 that be managed as a vestige of primitive America. 



We felt that Jetboat use on that section of the river in LAC 

 was — particularly on that section of the river, was far too high. 



Mr. CooLEY. But the task force had a consensus, and you just 

 didn't agree with the consensus. 



Mr. Bailey. Myself and another person. 



Mr. CoOLEY. I understood your statement, but could you differen- 

 tiate for me the definition of a wild river, nonmotorized and motor- 

 ized, because the corridor not a wilderness. It is — and you keep re- 



