116 



led to passage of PL 94-199 have been forgotten; Congressional intent is conveniently 

 misinterpreted or ignored. 



Among the people who thought their interests were protected are power boaters. 

 Section lO's recognition of both motorized and nonmotorized river craft as valid uses 

 of the Snake River within the recreation area was thought to protect access by those 

 using both types of craft, yet the latest Forest Service management plan features provi- 

 sions that eliminate power boats from a major portion of the Wild Snake River for i 

 three days a week during the peak summer use period. One valid use is elimmated to j 

 benefit the other. 



To make matters worse, those who use motorized river craft find their access to the j 

 open portions of the river arbitrarily slashed to unrealistic levels, based on old and I 

 faulty data. This drastic regulatory action was not founded on any demonstrated need ' 

 to protect the canyon, its resources or visitors. It did not respond to threats against the ; 

 recreation area's purpose or its listed objectives. It was not necessitated by the dictates i 

 of law. It's sole foundation was a perceived need by the managing agency to provide a ! 

 particular kind of social experience dictated by the agency's own inflexible policy. I 



To provide this experience the agency took it upon itself to rewrite or expand on 

 legislation passed by Congress. It decided to convert part of the non-wildemess river 

 corridor to wilderness for 3 days a week for two months, setting a precedent for even 

 more severe restrictions later. It decided to ignore Congressional intent, granting itself '' 

 authority to regulate "type" of river craft by promulgating regulations after Congress 

 refused. It decided to ignore the letter and spirit of Congress's validity language, j 



adopting a management plan which determined one valid use to be more "valid" than j 

 the other. When Congress did not designate the study river as scenic, the agency ! 



decided to manage it as scenic anyway. Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

 makes no reference to type of water craft or the use of motors, the agency has cor- ! 

 rected that oversight by directing the elimination of motors via policy, interpreting j 

 references to primitive shorelines as justifying a defacto wildemess, requiring a primi- 

 tive or semi-primitive nonmotorized experience. After all, both wild river and wilder- i 

 ness contain the word. "wild"; they must be the same thing. 



Traditional access to private land provided by the Snake River, a recognized public ij 

 highway that provided unrestricted access to those properties throughout our history , !i 

 was curtailed in the latest Forest Service management plan. Boat trips to and from ;] 

 private holdings were allocated as part of the severely limited launches associated | 

 with either recreational or commercial boating. The value of these properties plunged t 

 with release of the plan. If the latest plan is implemented, land owners will be unable ji 

 to use their properties for traditional purposes, potentially devastating associated 

 businesses. . r 



Strong and viable businesses tied to power boating in the canyon will be severely 

 impacted by the management plan. The healthy and competitive power boat outfitting 

 industry is to be dismantled and restmctured to fit a mold designed by the Forest 



