called placer mining. However, if the open pit happens to start in the bottom of a tributary, which is most likely it would, and it would remove sand and gravel for mining purposes because it would have to move to the surface in order to get to the ore. And I would say that, perhaps, this is not intended by the language. The language would prohibit open-pit mining in the entire basin, which is not right. Well anyway, the Sale-Douglas case should have been a lesson. The use of legislation to manage specific land is not only unwise and inflexible, but very costly because of all of the political involvement.

In summary, I feel that it would be wise to avoid legislation to classify the St. Joe River as a wild and scenic river mainly because of future unforeseen events and interpretations which would not be compatible with the law or were not contemplated when the law was made. Thank you.

Senator CHURCH. Thank you very much. You have made your position clear, and you have also indicated where the language could be revised. We appreciate that.

Senator MCCLURE. Thank you. I have no questions.

Senator CHURCH. Our next witness is Duane Little, Shoshone County assessor. We will look for him in case he's just stepped out. That takes us to Don Springer. Is Don Springer here? Is Kathy Sims here? Keith Droste.

STATEMENT OF KEITH J. DROSTE, GENERAL MANAGER, DAY MINES, INC., WALLACE, IDAHO

Mr. DROSTE. Senator Church, Senator McClure, my name is Keith Droste. I am general manager for Day Mines, Inc.

I will comment on two basic questions that I see as important and state the position of Day Mines, Inc., regarding property that we own in the St. Joe drainage and our general feeling regarding the administration of public lands of this type.

First, what is the intent of the St. Joe compromise?

To allow reconciliation of the various economic, recreational and preservationist interests.

Second, what will be the effect of the proposed S. 3052 amendment? And of course this is a question that so many people have been discussing.

It appears possible, for example, that a downstream interpretation of the nonspecific language could be construed to prohibit certain necessary elements of any hardrock mining operation.

From our point of view Day Mines, Inc., holds 50 patented and 6 unpatented mining claims near Adair (T. 46 N., R 7 E.), and would be barred from using the land for purposes in which it was acquired, by governmental fiat. This compromise does not give Day Mines, Inc., any security as a private property owner.

I do not agree with the phrase ". . . subsequent development plan for the river prepared by the Secretary of Agriculture. as this puts complete control of any economic development in the hands of the Federal bureaucracy. This legislation must safeguard the rights of the people of this region to have a major voice in these subsequent plans.

The North Idaho Panhandle has many remote and scenic areas, but is this any reason to limit the economic opportunities of the people

who live and work here. This compromise has been hailed as not causing the average economic opportunity of the region to be decreased. I always suspect use of the word "average", because if I've got one foot in a hot stove, and the other foot on a block of ice, "on the average", I'm comfortable.

Day Mines, Inc. favors application of multiple-use management on the public lands. The special treatment of the St. Joe drainage system has been considered most recently by the "St. Joe compromise," resulting in the proposed bill S. 3052 amendment. Underground hardrock mining has not been mentioned and no guarantees are stated. Often it is mistakenly assumed that additional controls for the mining industry on the national forests are required. Let me quote from "Mining in National Forests": Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, current information report No. 14, January 1975, concerning the numerous and stringent regulations on mining and prospecting on the national forests:

Question. Does the Forest Service have the authority to issue these regulations? (Regulations concerning mining and prospecting operations on the National Forests.)

Answer. Yes. The Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate occupancy and use of the national forest for the protection and management of their surface resources. All national forest users, including prospectors and miners, are required to observe these regulations

Day Mines recommends that S. 3052 speak specifically to the intent of the proposed amendment and leave no ambiguities. And here again, I realize I am echoing sentiments expressed by many.

Therefore, language must be specific which "protects the rights of the public" regarding: Hardrock mining, logging, recreation, grazing, and any other contemplated uses.

Senator CHURCH. Thank you, Mr. Droste.

Senator MCCLURE. I have no questions. Thank you.
Senator CHURCH. Our next witness is Dennis Wheeler.

STATEMENT OF DENNIS E. WHEELER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, COEUR d'ALENE MINES CORP., WALLACE, IDAHO

Mr. WHEELER. Honorable Senators Church and McClure, I appreciate the opportunity to present my comments regarding Senate bill 3052. I am appearing here today on behalf of Coeur d'Alene Mines Inc., as its senior vice president and general counsel. The official news release announcing today's hearing announced that the legislation being considered and the classification of the St. Joe River will not interfere with logging and timber harvest in the accessible reaches of the St. Joe Valley. Also, that the compromise which resulted in Senate bill 3052 would prohibit dredge mining on the main stem of the St. Joe and the tributaries of the river to the east of Avery.

The committee which entered into the compromise agreement of April 25, 1978, clearly expressed its intent in a letter to Mr. Larry La Rocco under the date of May 2, 1978, that the "committee would not favor any legislation that could give the impression of a general mineral withdrawal of or interference with present right to underground hardrock mining."

While the intention of the committee which signed the compromise agreement and the intent of the Honorable Senators is apparently

38-621 0-797

clear that S. 3052 shall not prevent logging or hardrock mining in the St. Joe, as a lawyer I must express my deepest concern and doubt that the proposed language of Senate bill 3052 will carry out these intentions. Mere reference to use, access, or maintenance to existing or future Forest Service roads and use of or construction of bridges as needed for timber harvest is clearly inadequate, in my opinion, to announce and confirm to environmental groups and administrative agencies of the United States of America that logging is to continue in the St. Joe.

More shocking yet is the complete absence of any language confirming in any manner the right to conduct mining other than dredge mining in the area. The absence of such clarifying language in my opinion will only lead to confusion and invite litigation to interpret the intent of the legislation.

The ambiguities which exist in the bill could have been avoided had the people of Shoshone County been afforded the opportunity to participate in the drafting of the legislation. Since the opportunity to provide such input was not afforded us until this hearing, I sincerely urge you Senator Church and Senator McClure to amend the bill to clarify its ambiguities in order that peace may in fact come to the St. Joe. Thank you.

Senator CHURCH. Thank you. Our next witness is Bill Mulligan, of Potlatch.

STATEMENT OF BILL MULLIGAN, MANAGER, NORTHERN UNITS

LOGGING, POTLATCH CORP., ST. MARIES, IDAHO

Mr. MULLIGAN. Senator Church and Senator McClure, my name is Bill Mulligan. I am the manager of the Northern Units Logging, based at St. Maries, Idaho. The Northern Unit has responsibility for supplying approximately 200 million board feet of timber to Potlatch Corp. for Northern Mills each year. I represent Potlatch at today's hearing.

Potlatch has roots in northern Idaho that date back to the turn of the century. We are deeply concerned over matters that affect the economical stability of the area, the rights of private-land owners, and the management of timbered lands. We feel we have the right to express suggestions and recommendations on behalf of our employees, stockholders, and as land managers in the community. We appreciate the opportunity to express our views here today.

The St. Joe River has provided both a work area and recreational site for many local people for 70 years. Some of these people are fortunate enough to live along or near the river, and like Potlatch Corp., are private-land owners in the area. Through diligence, care, and respect for the river, these people have done a good job of protecting its natural beauty while still carving a living from the land. Restrictive classification will greatly adversely affect the lives of these people, and their ability to provide a living from the local economy.

Potlatch Corp. alone operates a plywood mill, a small log mill, and a whole log chipper at St. Maries that employs upward of 400 people. Company and contract logging operations send an additional 150 people to the woods daily. When adding other people who work in the industry, plus those who are supported indirectly by the timber industry, it becomes quite clear that the community is completely dependent

on the timber from this area to provide a way of life, and economic year-round stability for the community.

We believe that classification of any part of the St. Joe River not under Federal ownership is wrong, and therefore are completely opposed to any alternative that considers the area downriver from the Forest Service ownership line east of Avery. The economic effect on our industry is potentially disastrous, and the right to private ownership would be interfered with.

The U.S. Forest Service presently owns all the land east of Avery to St. Joe Lake that lies within a quarter of a mile of the river. This land is today managed under a set of guidelines, policies, and laws, both Federal and State, that dictate a stringent approach concerning water quality, mineral development, fisheries, big game, esthetics, recreation, soils, logging, forestry, and any other possible concern. Why then should it be necessary to involve any more regulation toward use or development? The Forest Service already has the administrative authority to make decisions and regulate the use of the upper reaches of the St. Joe.

Although the point of economics has been mentioned time and again during public meetings and input on the future of the river, we are not aware of any comprehensive economic impact study to date. There is no doubt, however, that timber development and related activities constitute the largest single economic factor in the drainage. In consideration of the future of this most important segment, there should be some clarification concerning past remarks.

We are concerned about the apparent notion that the potentia, economic value of the timber in the drainage has nearly peaked out. This is completely erroneous. According to the "State Water Planl Part II, Panhandle River Basins": "The timber economy within the subregion is projected to remain at about the same level as it is today. However, the demand for timber products is projected to make a significant increase." Anyone familiar with the area adjacent to the area knows that there is a tremendous variety of timber type and age in the drainage. Many young stands of timber are ready today for commercial thinning, and some are yet to reach that age. The fire history of the area, especially the fire of 1910, left a patchwork of timber size, specie, and age. Because timber is not commercially harvestable today does not mean that the ground may be removed from management for timber. Many of these areas represent the future of the industry in this area, and will contribute heavily toward stability of the local economy.

We are further opposed to any restriction that results in further shrinking of the land base that provides raw material for our industry. The effects of RARE II, wilderness inclusion, timber management with a "protection" attitude and changing of cutting practices have been disastrous on available timber supply and will eventually show in the price for products at the marketplace.

We are opposed to restrictions that will slow the land and timber management process and delay timely decisions. We watched helplessly as millions of acres of timber were destroyed in eastern Washington and Oregon in 1974 and 1975. Those who know the upper reaches of the St. Joe have to be horrified at the timber losses to the spruce budworm as it continues to spread downriver unchecked. Present bureaucratic red tape has resulted in lack of action, and any regulation

that further restricts the land manager's ability to react to such an outbreak has got to be wrong. We should be looking toward policies that provide more flexibility to the land manager, rather than to those that further tie his hands and make useless his professional training. Should any classification of the upper portion of the river be decided, we strongly suggest wording to protect the timber industry. Present and future access must be guaranteed, with no loophole for exclusion or incorrect future interpretation. Present and future bridge sites that will access the southern side of the river must be guaranteed. The Forest Service must have the right to remove infested or dead timber to prevent either an insect outbreak or a major forest fire from starting in the timbered buffer strip left along the river. Logging systems are available to industry to sanitate these timbered stands and accomplish this with minimum impact on the resource.

We are also strongly opposed to a classification that would require all lands within view of the river to be managed primarily for esthetics. This would result in large areas being logged with expensive sophisticated systems that are completely unnecessary, and only inflationary in respect to manufactured timber products.

In summary, Potlatch Corp. does not support any classification of the St. Joe River from Avery downstream. Classification above Avery, on Forest Service land, such as that presented by the intent of the proposed compromise bill, would be supported only if the aforementioned guarantees were clearly included and if the width of the classified area is held to a quarter of a mile on each side of the river. Senator CHURCH. Thank you very much for your testimony. I think you've made your position very clear. Do you have any questions, Jim?

Senator MCCLURE. I have no questions. Thank you very much.

Senator CHURCH. Gordon Hagen was next on our list, and I have been informed that he will submit written testimony later on behalf of the St. Maries Chamber of Commerce. That brings us to Bill Lampard. STATEMENT OF BILL LAMPARD, RESIDENT, SHOSHONE, IDAHO

Mr. LAMPARD. My name is Bill Lampard. I am a Shoshone County resident, employed by one of the local mining companies. But I am speaking on behalf of myself. And you notice the accent; it's part of my heritage. By the way, neither I nor my company has any direct economic interest in the area in question. But I do have some matters that I would like to mention to you. You will notice that they are somewhat repetitive of what we have heard already, but I would like to have my chance to say them.

First, I object to the basis of the legislation in itself as an accord reached under duress by two unrepresentative and self-appointed special interest groups was published, if not as a fait accompli, at least with the Good Housekeeping-I'm sorry, senatorial seal of approval. Presently, citizens and recreational mining interests now have to appear at this late stage as bad guys, objecting to apple pie and motherhood rather than being involved later on. I think that's not a very good democratic process, and we are suffering because of it. We are up here fighting, where we could have contributed constructively. Second, the proposed legislation does not square entirely with the wording and the intent of the accord, an accord aimed entirely at the