Mr. PRICE. Yes.

There are only two agencies in the Federal Government-the Defense Department and the AEC-who if they build a reactor, would not have to get a license from the Commission. For example, if the TVA builds a nuclear powerplant, they will have to get a license from the Commission, just like the Consolidated Edison Co. in New York. But that is a licensed plant, and our only control over them is our licensing authority, so that it would be the radiation hazard, as I mentioned.

Mr. DINGELL. I see.

Are there further questions?

Mr. PELLY. According to your testimony, it was the Commission itself that asked for the bill that is presently before another committee.

Mr. PRICE. I believe all of the witnesses that appeared before you are supporting that bill; yes, sir.

Mr. PELLY. H.R. 10701. That certainly indicates to me that you have an interest.

Mr. PRICE. Yes, sir.

Mr. PELLY. Why did you not say so?

You did not tell the chair

man when he kept insisting that you did not have an interest. I thought you did.

Mr. PRICE. I tried to insist that we did, but I suppose I did not succeed.

Mr. PELLY. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I think when you backed that legislation, you were interested.

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. DINGELL. Gentlemen, just one last point that troubles me greatly is this: You feel that you don't have legislative authority to go into these questions.

Assuming as a matter of fact that you were to find that a project you were licensing was going to raise the temperature of a major river by 10°, and this was going to have an enormously destructive effect on, let's say, a major run of salmon, as a matter of fact, it would wipe out a major salmon and trout stream, would the Atomic Energy Commission go ahead then and license that plant, in spite of that fact?

Mr. PRICE. Under the present law, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe we could deny the license for that reason.

Now, I am sure we would do some things short of exercising mandatory control, which we don't have. I think we would tell those people that they had a real big problem, and that they ought to work with the State and other interested agencies on it.

But we could not, under the law, deny the license on that ground. I am sure of that.

Mr. DINGELL. I see.

Assuming, though, that there was no other Federal or State statute that would affect this matter. Then what would you do?

Mr. PRICE. I think we would be very unhappy, but I think we have got to administer the law, which we have, and the whole purpose of it was to guard against the special hazards of radiation, and that is what the licensing control has been established for.

Mr. DINGELL. I see.

Thank you very much, sir.

The Chair is grateful to the Commission for your presence today. We have one more witness, Mr. Louis Clapper from the National Wildlife Federation.

We appreciate your presence and your patience.

STATEMENT OF LOUIS S. CLAPPER, CHIEF OF CONSERVATION EDUCATION, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

Mr. CLAPPER. Mr. Chairman, I am Louis Clapper, chief of conservation education for the National Wildlife Federation, which has its national headquarters here in Washington, D.C.

Ours is a private organization which seeks to further the cause of conservation through educational means. Affiliates of the federation are located in 49 States. These affiliates are composed of local groups and individuals who, when combined with associate members and other supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, number an estimated 2 million persons.

Mr. Chairman, we welcome the invitation to comment briefly upon the three proposals under consideration here today.

First, we are in accord with the principles outlined in H.R. 9492:

To amend the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act to provide adequate notice and opportunity for the Secretary of the Interior and State fish and game agencies to conduct studies on the effects of projects licensed by Federal agencies on fish and wildlife resources, and for other purposes.

Section 1 of II.R. 9492 would delay the issuance of a permit or license to construct a water facility until the Department of the Interior and the State or States concerned have determined its probable effects upon fish and wildlife resources, and recommendations for minimizing or mitigating the losses can be made.

We have written the Federal Power Commission to express satisfaction with its proposed rules, announced April 19, 1966, to require the preparation of exhibits:

*setting forth matters related to the conservation of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project be filed as part of license applications for proposed projects of more than 2,000 horsepower installed capacity.

We were pleased that the proposed exhibit would encourage an applicant to consult early with the proper fish and wildlife agencies in planning for the conservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife

resources.

Despite the progress indicated in this proposed rule, we would prefer to have this portion of H.R. 9492 enacted to give the added protection of law, even though we would not want any undue delay.

We believe that added research is needed on the effects of thermal pollution on fish and wildlife, and would be in general agreement with section 2 of H.R. 9492.

Thermal pollution has had both good and bad results on fish and wildlife and their habitats, from casual observations and experience, but much more needs to be known about it.

Section 3 provides for the Secretary of the Interior to give to the creator of thermal pollution the result of findings in cases detrimental to fish and wildlife.

Since the Secretary now will be in charge of all Federal water pollution abatement efforts, with transfer of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, perhaps the need for this section is not as great as when the proposal was introduced.

However, we agree that thermal pollution is a factor which must be dealt with in the same manner as other forms of pollution.

In our opinion, H.R. 14414 and H.R. 14455 should be considered together. In effect, collectively, these proposals bring the Atomic Energy Commission, the Federal Power Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority under provisions of the Coordination Act.

From testimony presented earlier, it appears that FPC and AEC are covered, and with this we are in complete agreement.

Attached, Mr. Chairman, is a copy of resolution No. 10, adopted by the National Wildlife Federation in its annual convention earlier this year. This resolution is to a considerable extent self-explanatory. It relates to a plan of TVA to control floods in the upper French Broad watershed of North Carolina. The project, which also claims other benefits for water supply, low-flow augmentation, recreation, and industrial development, would feature 14 dams-12 of the "wet" type, and 2 of the "dry" type.

The Soil Conservation Service had started development of the project, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, back in 1963, recommended-attachment No. 2-the construction of "dry" dams to carry out flood control objectives, while preserving some of the most outstanding natural trout stream fishing in the eastern United States.

TVA then took over the project, and has ignored alternate plans of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to minimize damage to trout streams through the use of "dry" dams in the upper reaches and a "wet" dam in the lower area.

Clyde P. Patton, executive director of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, in November 1965, wrote TVA:

On

It is our considered opinion that this plan fails to give consideration to the trout fishery commensurate with its value and importance to the public. those streams where major impoundments are proposed, water temperatures would be elevated and the trout habitat, along with the trout fishery, practically destroyed. Trout streams are irreplaceable. Their loss cannot be mitigated. Comparable habitat cannot be created at any price.

Also attached are recent resolutions by the North Carolina Wildlife Federation and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission-attachments 3 and 4-which relate to this problem.

I would request that all of these resolutions be made part of the record.

(Resolutions referred to follow :)

PRESERVATION OF FISHERIES IN TVA AREA

RESOLUTION No. 10

National Wildlife Federation, 30th Annual Convention, Pittsburgh, Pa., March 11-13, 1966

Whereas, the Tennessee Valley Authority is seeking to develop acceptable plans for controlling floods in the watershed of the Upper French Broad River in North Carolina while, at the same time, providing water supply and low flow augmentation; and

Whereas, present plans propose dams and water impoundments on tributaries in locations and through manners which will cause major alterations of the characters of these streams; and

Whereas, many of these impoundments would destroy irreplaceable habitat for trout; and

Whereas, the trout fishery of the Upper French Broad watershed is of significant economic and recreational importance to North Carolina and the entire nation; and

Whereas, Federal funds are to be used for this multiple use watershed manage ment program: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the National Wildlife Federation, in annual convention assembled March 12, 1966, at Pittsburgh, Pa., hereby requests that the Tennessee Valley Authority adopt a plan for flood control in the Upper French Broad watershed which will implement recommendations of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for minimizing losses of this important trout fishery through the installation of a main stream impoundment and dry reservoirs; and be it further

Resolved, That the National Wildlife Federation expresses its sincere belief that the Tennessee Valley Authority must be brought under provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act in the same manner as it applies to all other Federal water resource agencies.

RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE FRENCH BROAD WATERSHED

Whereas, The headwaters of the French Broad River arise in the mountains of Transylvania and Henderson Counties, North Carolina; and

Whereas, The tributary streams and that part of the main river now provide excellent habitat for mountain trout which are present in abundance and which provide important recreational values to the fishermen of North Carolina and other states, and substantial monetary values to the people of these counties who sell equipment, supplies, and services to the fishing public, both of which values will increase in future years as the demands increase; and

Whereas, Plans are being developed for a series of flood control impoundments to be constructed on these streams by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, which ponds may be of considerable financial benefit to the riparian owners on whose lands they lie; and

Whereas, A scientific study by the Wildlife Resources Commission demonstrates that the proposed impoundments will prevent adequate spawning migrations of trout and will elevate water temperatures in the impoundments and in the waters below the dams, making such waters unsuitable for trout and destroying a great part of this irreplaceable resource which is of great public value and importance; and

Whereas, The maintenance and good management of this fishery is in the public interest and properly comes within the purview of activities of this Commission: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, By the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission at its meeting in Raleigh on this 22nd day of January, 1963, That it deplores this unnecessary destruction of trout habitat and recommends, as a compromise and a reasonable solution, the construction of "dry dams" without permanent impoundments, so designed as to carry out the flood control objectives of the Soil Conservation Service, and, at the same time to provide for the preservation of the trout population with an absolute minimum of detrimental conditions; and be it further

Resolved, That the Commission's Director be instructed to send copies of this Resolution to all persons, agencies, and organizations concerned with this project.

RESOLUTION URGING PRESERVATION OF TROUT STREAMS

Whereas, The trout streams of North Carolina constitute an irreplaceable public resource belonging to all of the people of the state; and

Whereas, The quantity and quality of water capable of maintaining a popu lation of trout is fixed by natural factors; and

Whereas, The action programs of many public agencies include provisions which inadvertently cause the destruction of natural trout habitat through

various means, including impoundment, diversion, dredging, channelization, road construction, sand and gravel removal, and the like; and

Whereas, Additional trout habitat in the form of free-flowing streams cannot be created nor can means of mitigation usually be provided to offset their loss: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, By the North Carolina Wildlife Federation, at its meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina, on February 25, 1966, That any program by any individual or any private or public agency that in any manner reduces the quantity or quality of free-flowing water which constitutes suitable habitat for the natural propagation and growth of trout shall be of primary concern to the Commission; and that this policy shall guide the efforts of the North Carolina Wildlife Federation.

RESOLUTION URGING PRESERVATION OF TROUT STREAMS

Whereas, The trout streams of North Carolina constitute an irreplaceable public resource belonging to all of the people of the state; and

Whereas, The quantity and quality of water capable of maintaining a population of trout is fixed by natural factors; and

Whereas, The action programs of many public agencies include provisions which inadvertently cause the destruction of natural trout habitat through various means, including impoundment, diversion, dredging, channelization, road construction, sand and gravel removal, and the like; and

Whereas, Additional trout habitat in the form of free-flowing streams cannot be created nor can means of mitigation often be provided to offset their loss: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, By the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, at its meeting in Raleigh, N.C., on January 21, 1966. That any program by any individual or any private or public agency that in any manner reduces the quantity or quality of free-flowing water which constitutes suitable habitat for the natural propagation and growth of trout shall be of primary concern to the Commission; and that all practical efforts be exerted by the Commission and its staff to minimize or avoid such loss.

Mr. CLAPPER. What gives us added consternation, Mr. Chairman, is that TVA is exempt from the Coordination Act. TVA has not sought advice of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife on this project, although the Forest Service has asked its aid on some streams within its jurisdiction in the area.

TVA is ignoring recommendations of the State wildlife agency. Furthermore, under its broad authority, we assume TVA will go direct to the Appropriations Committees to seek funds for the project-probably for fiscal 1968.

The same sort of situation exists with respect to the Tellico project on the Little Tennessee River in Tennessee. TVA is seeking funds to start construction of this project, which has been opposed by many national conservation organizations, as well as local groups.

This project, of questionable justification, in our opinion, would flood out one of the finest free-flowing fishing streams in the Eastern United States. Sixteen existing major lakes are located within 50 miles of the Tellico site, and offer all of the warm water fishing opportunities that are needed. Trout water stream fishing opportunities, however, are limited.

The cold, metered flow of water in the Little Tennessee has given this stream a capacity for trout and trout fishermen equal to all the natural trout stream mileage under State management. In other words, this is the State's No. 1 trout stream.

Enough trophy-sized brown trout already have been taken from this stream this year to dominate national competition in the Eastern division contests.