fowl and other wildlife habitats in Arkansas, and since these important habitats are being ruthlessly and rapidly destroyed. The use of public monies for these purposes is adverse to wildlife, recreation, timber and other resource values. "4. The AWF supports the objectives of the 'Land and Water Conservation Fund' bill, and believe all Federal Agencies should be equally obligated to collect fees assignable to, and in accordance with, the provisions of this Act. The AWF notes that monies derived from these fees are made available to the State for the purchase of lands and development of recreation resources, and bring large returns to the State in ratio to fee collections in Arkansas. In addition the AWF supports S. 1401 which amends this Act to add revenues from the Outer Continental Shelf oil receipts, and which would double monies made available to the States over the next 5 year period.

"5. See other resolutions under Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Resolution V Land acquisition, #5 and #6.

"VII. THE AWF SUPPORTS THE FOLLOWING NATIONAL LEGISLATION

"1. S.B. 119: The National Wild Rivers Bill. (See also Buffalo River National Park Resol. 111, #2.)

"2. S.B. 2805: Ecological Research and Resources Inventory.

"3. H.R. 7796 (Dingell); H.R. 13211 (Tunney); Establishment of 'A Council of Ecological Advisors'.

"4. H.R. 25: Inventory of estuarine areas. S.B. 695: preservation of estuarines "5. S.B. 886 (Moss): A National Department of Natural Resources.

"6. S.B. 2760 For pollution research in its abatement. S.B. 847: To improve programs under this act.

"7. A national system of hiking, horse-back riding, and historic trails. "8. Establishment of a Redwood National Park.

"9. Full protection of endangered species. H.R. 11618: prohibition of interstate transportation of endangered species.

"10. The land and Conservation Act of 1965, its provision for fee collections S.B. 1401 (Jackson amendment) to increase funds available to states. (See Resolution 111, #4.)

"11. The Wilderness Bill and plans for additions to this system.

"12. The Emergency wetlands acquisitions programs and its values to waterfowl resources in accordance with provisions of H.R. 480 and its extension for an additional 8 years. (See also Resolution 111, #3.)"

STATEMENT OF THE BLUFF CITY CANOE CLUB

We of the Bluff City Canoe Club in Memphis, Tennessee wish to go on record in support of Representative Saylor's Scenic Rivers Act HR90. Our energy and our will are committed to the task of preserving our nation's dwindling resource of scenic rivers.

An ever increasing percentage of our population are becoming cognizant of our scenic rivers' potential for restoring health and for refreshing the spirit. These glorious rivers constitute a refuge from the frenzy and nervous turmoil of urban society, where seventy percent of our people live. Canoeing and river bank camping, as the easiest, most accessible form of wilderness experience, are reaching boom proportions. It is vital that our few remaining unspoiled, free-flowing streams be protected from further depredations.

You members of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee have within your power to bequeath to the nation a priceless legacy that will be cherished by millions living today and by all posterity. We implore that you do not betray our hopes and our dreams.

We ask that you consider for inclusion in your system, in addition to the Tennessee Buffalo, our two most prized deep-gorge, white water streams: the Obed and the Big South Fork of the Cumberland, both located in East Tennessee. If you cannot include them in the current bill we ask that you at least confer on them a "study" status which would insulate them, pending final disposition, from any impairment of their free-flowing nature.

Finally, we endorse the following statements: Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association Statement of March 14 to the Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation; the Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning Statement of March 18 by L. B. Russell to the same Subcommittee.

Consider the above our testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation.

Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR,

WARRENSBURG, Mo., March 10, 1968.

Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation,

House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. TAYLOR: I would like to comment on the proposed bills to establish a national scenic rivers system on which hearings are currently being conducted and request that my statement be made a part of the record of the hearings.

I am a professor of zoology whose teaching and research interests are in ecology and conservation. For several years I served as a professional summer guide on many of the western rivers included in the proposed legislation and have run wilderness river trips for the American White-water Affiliation and the Sierra Club. I led the first party of paddlers to successfully run the Selway River in Idaho and initiated group river trips on it. My guidebook, Missouri Ozark Waterways, published by the Missouri Department of Conservation, is in its second printing of 10,000 and seems to have become a pattern for similar guides put out by agencies of other states. This alone is an indication of the tremendous public interest in "wild and scenic" rivers. My opinions on scenic rivers bills are based on considerable experience with both the recreational and scientific aspects of such rivers.

One of the most vital points, which must be included in any bill to really preserve our scenic rivers, is a system of classifying the rivers. Since it lacks such a classification system, the bill (S. 119) already passed by the Senate would not only be ineffective but could result in the downgrading of the high quality wilderness streams. This would be ironic indeed.

Mr. Aspinall's bill (H.R. 8416) comes close to being an ideal bill and has the vital classification element. However, in an attempt to reduce opposition, the number of rivers listed for the initial system has been kept too small. Rivers which have overwhelming support for inclusion from their home states could be included at no risk to the passage of the bill. Such a river is the Eleven Point, upstream to Thomasville in Missouri. The inclusion of this river has strong support from Missourians, including Governor Hearnes. Nearly the same situation applies to several rivers in Wisconsin, of which the Wolf is the most outstanding.

It would have been better if the drafters of H.R. 8416 had left designation of the classification of the rivers in the initial system, to competent agencies as is done in Mr. Saylor's H.R. 90. Errors in judgment on this important feature could defeat the purpose of classification. For example, in H.R. 8416 the whole Clearwater system would be preserved as a "wild river." The Salway section is and should be "wild," the Lochsa section qualifies only as "natural environment" and the Middle Fork might be rated as low as "pastoral." The bill ranks the Salmon as "wild" which is true of its Middle Fork and the main stem below Shoup, but from North Fork (where the "wild" segment supposedly begins) to Shoup, it has roads, campgrounds, ranches, homes and at least one tavern.

Any bill passed should include the Selway upstream to its origin. The Selway ranks as one of the finest wild rivers in the whole continent and the protection of its upper watershed is vital to the preservation of the river and all parts of the Clearwater drainage below it.

Sincerely yours,

OSCAR HAWKSLEY.

KANSAS CITY, Mo., March 5, 1968.

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

GENTLEMEN: The following reasons for the passage of H.R. 8416 are respectfully offered the Subcommittee. May this be made part of the record.

A short survey of literate citizens bring up only the question of why there should be any delay in passing river protective legislation. Congressmen and conservationists have learned that the simple task of saving any natural resource is quite difficult. It might be well to examine the symptoms in order to find the reasons for polluted water, poisoned air and wasted resources.

Those who had most to gain by the passage of Missouri's Wild Rivers Bill were its most effective opponents without, of course, having any actual knowledge of what the bill proposed to accomplish or how. River valley farmers were told, or assumed, that they would be dispossessed if the bill passed.

92-560-68- -36

Although no one would be evicted because of our bill thousands of farmers have been thrown out of homes and work by impoundments. A representative squawked about the cost, less than 5 million, after quietly swallowing the 250 plus millions it will cost to impound the Meramec. Kansas Citians vote to build a multimillion sports complex while we still dump raw sewage and industrial poisons into the Missouri River.

We people are conditioned to feel, not think, that any expensive man made change in our environment is progress and therefore good while an attempt to protect a part of our country is regressive. The fact that thousands of conservationists will work long hours without pay is incomprehensible and therefore suspect to people who strive only for material gain.

A study of the various river protective bills by one who has some knowl. edge and love for wilderness and rivers shows the bill passed by the Senate is inadequate.

H.R. 90 by Mr. Saylor would be ideal legislation if the three words, "and make accessible" were out. This bill could probably not be passed for the precise reason that such conservation is vitally needed. Too many people still equate pollution with progress and will not change until they start choking.

H.R. 8416 includes few rivers yet it leaves the way open for the protection of many and the streams included in the bill are actually protected. It is important to differentiate between legislation that classifies, protects and upgrades rivers and that which is merely designed to draw tourists. While some of us hope H.R. 8416 by Mr. Aspinall will be broadened, to protect more rivers such as the upper Missouri and the Rio Grande beside and below Big Bend Park, we realize that it is up to the states to get these and other rivers into the bill.

A study of he various Wild and Scenic Rivers Bills and the testimony before the Senate Committee led me to believe that H.R. 8416 was the more enlightened and that the Izaak Walton League of America was and is the foremost proponent of river protective legislation. Accordingly I am now a member of the Ike Walton League so that I can combine my attempts to save rivers with my efforts to preserve wilderness.

Sincerely,

JIM MCALISTER.

SMOKY MOUNTAINS HIKING CLUB,
Knoxville, Tenn., March 29, 1968.

Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR,

Chairman, House Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation,
House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. TAYLOR: We request that this letter be made a part of the record of the public hearings held this month by your Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation on the subject of National Scenic Rivers.

We are heartily in favor of a strong national scenic rivers act to assure that some of America's outstandingly scenic rivers are permanently preserved in their natural, free-flowing condition. Such rivers are among the nation's great natural assets. It is right and proper that as a nation we undertake thru appropriate legislation to assure their perpetuation in this condition.

For too long as a nation we have taken the position that the best use for any river is to dam it. It is high time we recognized that for many rivers their freeflowing state is the most beneficial to the nation; that accordingly we should adopt a national policy aimed at retaining many of our rivers, in a free-flowing, scenic condition.

There has already been entered in the hearing record as of March 18-19, 1968 the testimony of the Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning and of the Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association in support of strong, comprehensive legislation on this matter. The Smoky Mountains Hiking Club fully endorses the statements of these two organizations.

We would especially stress two ideas: (1) That the protective provisions of any national scenic rivers act shall automatically be extended to any statedesignated scenic rivers which meet the criteria of the national act: and (2) Where provision is made for restrictions on federal agencies with respect to the construction of dams and other water resource projects on establised scenic rivers the three principal federal dam building agencies shall be individually named as subject to such restrictions, namely the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, for unless these three agen

cies are clearly forbidden to interfere, we will have done little to assure the conservation of any designated scenic river as a free-flowing stream.

Our endorsement of the testimony of the Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning and of the Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association particularly extends to the recommendation that the Obed River (including Clear Creek and Daddys Creek), the South Fork of the Cumberland River (including Clear Fork), and the Buffalo River-all of which are in Tennessee-be placed in the National Scenic Rivers System.

Thank you for this opportunity to express our views on this vital conservation legislation.

Sincerely yours,

ERNEST M. DICKERMAN, Chairman, Conservation Committee.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. MILLER, REPRESENTING TENNESSEE SCENIC RIVERS ASSOCIATION AND TENNESSEE CITIZENS FOR WILDERNESS PLANNING, BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. SENATE, APRIL 14, 1967

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: My name is Robert A. Miller. I am president of the Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association and a member of the Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning. I am presenting today the feelings of these organizations concerning the future of scenic rivers in Tennessee and throughout the nation. We hope that this testimony and that of similar conservation groups across the United States will be of value to this Committee in determining the adequacy of scenic river legislation referred to it.

Our organizations are state-wide, and each has members in other States as well. The Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association seeks the preservation and esthetic improvement of our State's best remaining rivers. Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning is concerned with the total problem of the preservation of unspoiled natural areas in our State, but with a particular emphasis on scenic streams. The recent simultaneous origin and rapid growth of our two organizations is a sign of the now widespread feeling in Tennessee that our free-flowing rivers are unique treasures that rank among the greatest scenic assets of the Eastern United States.

Each organization has members who are expertly qualified in various fields related to the study of rivers. The fields of hydrology, geology, forestry, ecology, fish biology, and various phases of planning, are all ably represented. Our testimony today is based on the recommendations of such professional insight, and on an intimate knowledge of the rivers for which we seek preservation.

There is a certain urgency in what we say here today. The problem we face in Tennessee is the virtual extinction of our remaining rivers. We have long been aware of the benefits of river impoundments and of wise river planning in the past in our State. But there certainly must be a reasonable limit to this kind of development. We feel this limit has been reached, indeed in some cases exceeded. Unless we take immediate action, all of Tennessee's rivers will be lost to the dam, to channelization, and to pollution. What we ask today is legislation that will save some of the great scenic rivers of Tennessee and will guarantee their continued protection.

Our testimony here is not presented in terms of any particular bill under consideration by this committee. In light of the several similar bills now pending in Congress, we feel it is more important that we present our views of what we think any scenic rivers legislation should contain.

Our presentation today, therefore, is of a twofold nature. First, we should Our presentation today, therefore, is of a twofold nature. First, we should like to present to you these items which we feel would be vital in the structure of a scenic rivers act. Second, we should like to suggest those rivers in Tennessee which we feel qualify immediately for National Scenic River status, with a further listing of those rivers in Tennessee which have sufficient scenic qualities to merit study for future inclusion.

I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

We have studied the various scenic rivers bills submitted for committee study in the Senate and in the House, and after careful and extensive consideration of each, we request the following items be made a part of the legislation to be approved by this committee:

A. In our opinion, the most important feature of a Scenic Rivers Act is the establishment of a moratorium on any alteration in the free-flowing nature of the rivers being studied, or designated for study, as scenic areas. Specifically, we request legislation stating that no dam, channelization, or other project shall be constructed or authorized to be constructed in any scenic river area subject to review. This restriction should apply to all river control projects, including those of the Federal Power Commission, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Interior and the Tennessee Valley Authority. We emphasize that this moratorium should apply not only to scenic river areas being reviewed under Federal law, but also to those established, or being studied, by a State or political division thereof. Without such provision, a State may be powerless to save a freeflowing river.

B. All present and future planning by any agency concerning development of any river should include an independent evaluation of the scenic and recreational values of said river.

C. There should be a classification of rivers to determine the proper restrictions to be placed on timbering, mining, road building, grazing, and other developments and activities within each scenic river area. Specific limitations should be stated concerning such activities and developments and ample protection of the rivers should be provided.

D. In regard to the amount of land to be purchased or scenic easements obtained, such acquisitions should be adequate to protect the total scenic vista of any river. In meadow streams, only a narrow strip would be required, but in deep gorge rivers (such as the Obed and the South Fork of the Cumberland) the entire gorge should be preserved.

E. The adminstration of all National or National-State scenic rivers should be by a cooperative Federal-State arrangement.

II. SPECIFIC TENNESSEE RIVERS

A. Our organizations have mutually agreed that the following rivers in Tennessee offer outstanding qualities and should be included in legislation approved by this Committee, and be given immediate National Scenic River status:

(1) Buffalo (entire river).

(2) South Fork of the Cumberland (including Clear Fork River).
(3) Obed (including Clear Creek and Daddys Creek).

The qualifications of these rivers are briefly outlined as follows:

The Buffalo River has long been regarded by all who have known it as the classic float stream. It was studied in detail by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and was highly recommended as a scenic river by that agency. The 84th General Assembly of Tennessee, in Senate Joint Resolution #24, 1965, highly endorsed the Buffalo as a scenic float river and offered the assistance of various State agencies in carrying out a program for its development as a National Scenic River. Few rivers in America could be as deserving of preservation, and have as widespread recommendation as the Buffalo.

The South Fork of the Cumberland, with its southwestern tributary the Clear Fork River, is one of the most outstanding wilderness river systems in the Eastern United States. Its watershed is heavily forested, and the river gorges are almost totally removed from civilization. It was studied by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and was given an excellent recommendation as a scenic river in a preliminary report. There is widespread support for scenic river status for the South Fork in various civic and conservation organizations.

The Obed River and its major tributaries Clear Creek and Daddys Creek, represent a wilderness area with magnificant beauty, outstanding recreation value, and pure, crystal-clear waters. A heavily forested watershed, deep gorges, a measure of challenging white water, good wilderness campsites, and outstanding fishing for muskelunge, bass, and other game fish make this river system exceptionally well qualified for preservation. The State of Tennessee owns an 80.000 acre tract in the heart of the area (Catoosa Wildlife Management Area). Thus a large part of the region needed for preservation of this river is already in public ownership. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation has been asked to make a study of this river system also.

We have, for your inspection, maps showing the locations of these rivers. We also have color slides and photographs showing the water quality and wilderness aspects that we have outlined.