145 



without prejudice. They encouraged floaters and power boaters to compromise 

 and propose an alternative for shared use with limits numbers. They did so, but 

 their alternative was discarded. It may actually be that planners on the Forest 

 were not even aware of the memo's existence and the upper level tinkering 

 resulting in the plan's power boat closure, as directed by Housley , took place in 

 the Regional Office. 



The planning team finished their task and a CMP was sent to the Regional 

 Forester and, later the Chief of the Forest Service in December, 1980. The 

 Chief signed the plan on May 23, 1981 and must have felt as if he had just slid 

 down a banister covered with razor blades. A feature of the plan was a full 

 control period power boat closure of the wild river from Wild Sheep Rapid to 

 Rush Creek Rapid. This resulted in over 20 appeals and outrage from power 

 boaters who had worked out a compromise with floaters to limit power boat 

 access in that section of river, but not eliminate it. 



Idaho Senators McClure and Symms and Congressman Craig sent a letter to 

 the Chief on July 15, 1981 challenging the plan, asserting that it failed to 

 comply with the letter and intent of the Act. They asked him to withdraw his 

 decision and, the Chief, in an unprecedented move, decided to do just that. He 

 appointed a committee to review the plan and make recommendations. The 

 committee advised him to allow power boat access on the entire river, but to 

 limit numbers during the control period in the upper section, a proposal very 

 close to the original power/float compromise. It was at this point that the 

 Housley memo surfaced. Local managers said they had no knowledge of the 

 memo's existence. 



The Chief signed his second decision, adopting the committee 

 recommendation on May 12, 1982. However, as you might expect, 

 relationships between the Forest Service and Power boaters were badly 

 wounded by what power boaters saw as a betrayal of trust; they decided to fight 

 any restrictions on their access and more appeals were filed against the second 

 plan than the first. It is worth pointing out that at no time did float interests 

 enter the process, either in support of the Forest Service or against it. They left 

 the agency swinging in the wind alone on a gallows of its own construction. 



In fact, the Forest Service had failed to establish that power boat use in this 

 segment of river was at a level requiring restrictions to meet any defined goals 

 or objectives. They weren't challenged on their float allocation because 

 physical factors dictated the limit. In the case of power boating, however, any 

 limits had to be based on resource concerns or social factors and experience 

 objectives. Nothing in the plan supported limits on either basis. 

 • The Crowell decision 



On April 21, 1983 Assistant Secretary of Agriculture John Crowell signed a 



31 



