52 



ferring to it as a wilderness, but it is not a wilderness, so I am con- 

 fused. 



Mr. Bailey. I would be happy to elaborate on that. The state- 

 <ment has been made by previous witnesses that the river was not 

 intended to be a wilderness area, and in fact, it is correct that the 

 upper portion, in fact, the entire river corridor was left out of the 

 wilderness area, despite the fact that it is enclosed on either side 

 for about the first 20 miles by designated wilderness. 



In fact, the Congress did not clarify that was to allow Jetboat use 

 on the entire river. The Congress could have excluded that from 

 the wilderness area for a number of other reasons, for example, to 

 use drilling equipment to maintain the trail that runs along the 

 river. 



There is a trail on either side of the river and Wilderness Act re- 

 strictions would have precluded them from using rock drilling 

 equipment. 



Another reason would be that they simply felt that the Wild and 

 Scenic Rivers Act was strong enough in and of itself to dictate 

 management and appropriate river use levels, but the fact of the 

 matter is, that in addition to the primitive vestige that the Wild 

 and Scenic River Act talks about, the National Recreation Area Act 

 in Section 7 specifically requires that the Forest Service protect 

 wilderness on the river, and so we feel that there is substantially 

 more provision in the law to provide for a wilderness experience 

 than there is to not provide for one. 



Mr. COOLEY. I guess the next question I should ask is, are you 

 willing to share the Snake River and Hells Canyon with motorized 

 craft? 



Mr. Bailey. Yes. We do not favor elimination of all Jetboats from 

 the entire river, and we do 



Mr. CoOLEY. I am talking about — excuse me, I don't mean to in- 

 terrupt, but are you talking about, you are in favor of reducing 

 Jetboats on the river for commercial or private use or in what ca- 

 pacity? 



Mr. Bailey. We do hope there is a place on the river for both 

 commercial and private Jetboat use; however, my organization does 

 -favor establishment of nonmotorized areas on the river, and we feel 

 that in terms of the Forest Service plan, that is really the only con- 

 cession in the Forest Service plan that was made to people who do 

 desire a nonmotorized experience on the river was that non- 

 motorized window which is a tiny window when you look at all the 

 time and space on the river in that context. 



Mr. CoOLEY. How would you handle the private property on the 

 river that may fall within your area where you do not want to have 

 any motorized boats at all? How would you handle that portion in 

 your statement? 



Mr. Bailey. The only piece of private property that would be on 

 the river in the wild section is Kirby Creek Ranch, which is owned 

 by the Riddles, but that area is not within the area that is pro- 

 posed for nonmotorized use by the Forest Service in their plan. 



As far as I am concerned, even if hypothetically speaking the 

 Forest Service were to eliminate all motorized use from the wild 

 section of the river, the Kirby Creek Ranch is only about a mile 

 and a half upstream from the wild river boundary, and I frankly 



