123 



for any regulation." 

 The reason for the 1981 plan's departure from the path to which its planners had 

 committed themselves and the participating public is found in a July 10, 1980 memo- 

 randum, from Acting Deputy Chief R. M. Housley to the Regional Forester, R-6. The 

 Regional Forester was directed to further justify the use of power boats on the Wild 

 portion of the Snake River in the draft CMP: 



"The proposed level of use is so low it appears that now may be a good time to 

 eliminate all power boat use. If use becomes established under this plan it will 

 be extremely difficult to eliminate it in the future." (emphasis added) (see 

 attachment 2) 

 Responding to public and political outrage, the Chief reconsidered his decision and 

 issued a new plan in 1982, allowing access to the entire river for a very limited num- 

 ber of powered craft, the compromise alternative worked out by floaters and power 

 boaters. In the meantime, after obtaining a copy of the July 10, 1980 memo, power 

 boaters, who were totally fed up with the Forest Service's lack of good faith, appealed 

 the new plan. Assistant Secretary Crowell overturned the 1982 decision in 1983, 

 allowing unlimited day use by power boats and citing failure on the part of the Forest 

 Service to demonstrate a need for restrictions. 



In 1988 the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest initiated a review and revision of 

 the river management portion of the CMP. A planning process called "Limits of Ac- 

 ceptable Change" (LAC) was initially utilized. Over a period of 2 years an LAC task 

 force of citizens, representing all major interests in the canyon, hammered out a river 

 management plan, completing their task in 1991. It was a long, difficult process, with 

 many compromises. However, the plan's framers were, with the exception of two 

 members representing environmental groups, committed to it. 



The Wallowa-Whitman then began preparation of an EIS for the plan and, during 

 this process, abandoned the LAC plan's direction for allocation of use, adopting in- 

 stead in the Draft EIS a scheme of their own that would allow power boaters exclusive 

 access to the wild river one week and power boaters the next. Both classes of boaters 

 were appalled and responded with overwhelming opposition. In the Final EIS, the 

 agency gave floaters alone the benefits of exclusive use, closing the heart of the can- 

 yon to motorized river craft for three days a week in July and August, the peak of the 

 recreation season. They also severely limited motorized access to the rest of the river. 

 The decision was justified by Area Ranger Ed Cole during a press conference by 

 saying power boaters were willing to share, but some floaters were not. In spite of the 

 lack of any demonstrable resource problems or conflict with the Act's objectives, and 

 in the face of overwhelming public support for motorized river craft and shared use, 

 the agency seemed steadfastly determined to eliminate motorized river craft from 

 some part of the river for at least part of the year, a decision power boaters feel is 

 intended to set a precedent for even more severe restrictions in the future. The Forest 



