124 



Service adopted the plan in the Fall of 1994. 



In response to a flood of appeals, a stay was granted by the Regional Forester, 

 avoiding disastrous implementation of the plan in 1995. However, the Regional 

 Forester's appeal decision supported the concept of a closure of part of the river to 

 motorized river craft and regressive limits of access based on old and unreliable data. 



For those who participated in development of the first plan, this latest planning 

 effort was an experience in d6j^ vu. In both plans the Act's validity language was 

 rationalized away. In both a sound compromise worked out by the public at the 

 agency's urging was summarily discarded. In both the Forest Service was determined 

 to eliminate power boating from the Wild Snake River, in spite of Congressional 

 intent and public input. 



As evidenced by the 1980 memorandimi, the agenda at the agency's top level, one 

 that apparently continues today, is elimination of power boating in Hells Canyon. If it 

 wasn't to be eliminated in 1981, the Acting Deputy Chief was concemed about effects 

 of the plan on efforts to eliminate it in the future; its eventual elimination was not in 

 question. Neither was any concern indicated about corrupting the public involvement 

 process, in which hundreds of citizens had participated in good faith (a monumental 

 breach of ethics), or conflict with Congressional intent expressed in the validity lan- 

 guage. They were not even mentioned. 



Issues 



A number of resource and other issues concerning power boating received detailed 

 attention by the Forest Service in development of their EIS for the latest river manage- 

 ment plan. Most were easily addressed and disposed of because they had no sub- 

 stance. None of the issues, except the agency's own arbitrary social objectives, drove 

 their decision to eliminate power boating on part of the river for part of the year; none 

 necessitated or supported the severe restrictions imposed on power boat access to the 

 remainder. 



The only basis for the decision is the agency's own policy determination of the 

 kind of social experience every wild river should provide. Lacking the imagination to 

 recognize the Snake River's tmique qualities, they relentlessly attempted to move the 

 wild section of the river towards their vision of a more primitive setting. This is a 

 setting where large parties of floaters traveling the river in bright yellow, blue, red or 

 florescent pink high tech-hypalon rafts are OK, adequately primitive. Camping on the 

 shores with mini-cities of high visibility nylon tents is compatible; powered boats on 

 the river are not. 



Those opposing power boating continue to raise the same old issues with the press, 

 members of their organizations and commercial guests, the same issues that failed to 

 drive the Forest Service's EIS and plan when subjected to analysis. They will prob- 

 ably be raised here to germinate doubts in your minds about this legislation. It is best, 



10 



