Mr. ASPINALL. Well, as a Coloradan I am going to suggest some of them come to this area.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Kazen.

Mr. KAZEN. Thank you, sir, for the contribution which you made here this morning. We appreciate your statement.

I only have one question, Mr. Crawford. The String of Pearls that you refer to has already been surveyed and the boundaries have been designated. Am I correct in that?

Mr. CRAWFORD. No, sir. It has not been surveyed. I believe that the members of the Park Service have been on it, on the ground. They have spent many hours and many days over here and these are the areas that they have picked out. They have been to each one of them but I do not think they have been surveyed.

Mr. KAZEN. And so in the number of acres that they talk about, 35,000, those have not had boundary lines placed on them by the Park Service.

Mr. CRAWFORD. No, sir, they have not.

Mr. KAZEN. Thank you very much.

Mr. TAYLOR. Now, your proposal consists of various locations. Would you connect them by any kind of a strip down the river?

Mr. CRAWFORD. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. You state that the streams are owned by the State of Texas.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes, sir.

MY. TAYLOR. In most States navigable streams are owned by the Federal Government.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Well, here, too, but most of these that will be included in here are not classed as navigable.

Mr. TAYLOR. Of course, I know the State of Texas was an independent country before it became a State and I thought probably it had retained title to its streams; thus putting it in a different category from other States.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Very likely it did.

Mr. TAYLOR. I think that is probably the situation.

I also would like to comment on a problem that is developing with regard to houseboats on the Neches River. They are a source of pollution and will become a much more severe source if the problem is not faced forthrightly by the State or some agency with authority.

Mr. KAZEN. I was just going to bring to the chairman's attention that Texas did retain its title or the title in all of its public lands and I think that Texas is about the only State west of the Mississippi where the Federal Government owns practically no land. So whatever we have to acquire here will have to be acquired either from the State or from local property owners.

Mr. TAYLOR. And the State would have to donate the streams in order or the park proposal to be po sible.

Mr. CRAWFORD, Yes, sir.

Mr. KAZEN. And this, Mr. Chairman, is another one of those technicalities that we are going to have to deal with before we can create the type of a Big Thicket that some of the folks have been talking about here because the legislature has to take that action.

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, if there are no other questions, thank you, Mr. Crawford.

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you for your time.

(Mr. Crawford's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF OLIVER R. CRAWFORD, VICE PRESIDENT, EASTEX, INC.

My name is Oliver R. Crawford. I am vice president of Eastex Incorporated and chairman of the Big Thicket Presservation Committee of the Texas Forestry Association. The Texas Forestry Association membership numbers over 2,000 and includes tree farmers, woodland owners. Forest products processors, civic and conservation groups. Professional people, sawmilis, pulp and paper producers and other firms and individuals. The association began serving Texas in 1914 as a non-governmental State-wide privately supported organization designed to promote the conservation, utilization and fullest economic development of our forest and related resources.

For a full understanding of the present-day east Texas forest and specifically that nebulous portion of this forest known as the Big Thicket, all investigators should have background information on the past treatment of the forests of east Texas. The early forests were characteristically marked by open stands of pine timber growing in a park-like appearance with thick stands of hardwood alongside the water courses. In the October 1879 Harper's Monthly a writer observed the forest in our area as, "in its virgin state there was little or no undergrowth save along the water courses, but the trees rose in stately grandeur from a luxuriant carpet of the finest green." Following the Civil War, lumbering interests began moving into east Texas as the timber supply of the lake States and South-Eastern States showed the threat of exhaustion. The lumbermen followed the example set by their predecessors in other sections of the United States and removed every tree that would make a profit leaving only a few small trees for a second crop or as a seed source for future crops. As a result, the virgin pine forests of Texas were destroyed. Hardwood forests, too, faced the logger's axe and cross-cut saw and practically all the virgin hardwoods were removed during this same period. As a matter of record, a 1936 study report by the east Texas Big Thicket Association revealed the pending sale and eminent removal of the remaining virgin hardwoods as one of the prime reasons behind the move to establish a Big Thicket Park at that time. This sounds remarkably similar to statements being made today.

By 1932, the timber supply of the South seemed destined to disappear and many of the companies of that "cut-out-get-out" era were already looking at the western virgin forests as their only hope for continuing in business. Fortunately, in the years between 1910 and 1920, some farsighted individuals, realizing the potential for second-growth forests in Texas and the South, began pushing conservation efforts to secure the regrowth of the forests. Their efforts resulted in the formation of the Texas Forestry Association and a State Forest Service. These organizations through their campaigns of education, fire protection and reforestation began to establish the background for the rebirth of the Texas forests.

Today, the forests of Texas supply raw material for a thriving forest industry and furnish employment opportunities in timber-based activities for over 160,000 east Texans. The total annual value of shipments from primary and secondary timber manufacturing plants in Texas exceeds $500,000,000, and the forest industry's total contribution to the Texas economy is well over 1.2 billion dollars annually. This from an industry which in the 1930's was being written off as finished. As a matter of record, my company's predecessor, the Houston Oil Company of Texas, actively tried to dispose of all the surface rights of their ownership because they mistakenly thought the cut-over lands to have little or no future value. In fact, after they were unable to sell the surface, an effort was made to deed the lands to the State of Texas, which gift was refused. The reversal of the deforestation of Texas is one of the major economic gains of the 20th century and scientific forest management deserves much of the credit.

I use this brief history only to point out to you that many of the stories being produced today concerning the virgin state or wilderness-like condition of present southeast Texas forests are entirely without basis when viewed from a

historical perspective. The forests of Texas grow vigorously and under intensive forest management programs have produced timber stands which contain individual trees closely resembling those of the pre-logging era. However, few if any areas remain which have not been cut-over two or more times.

Because the fire prevention efforts of the aforementioned Texas Forest Service have been highly successful, destructive wildfires have been kept from many acres of our forest stands, and this has allowed the intrusion of hardwood species into areas where they were completely absent during the days of the virgin timber stands. This is not an unusual phenomenon and occurs on sites throughout this country where the shade-tolerant species are allowed to establish themselves under the dominant conifer overstories.

The original forests of east Texas were fire-climax in nature and without the application of control measures, hardwoods eventually will dominate the sites and form the climax forest on most of the land in our part of the South. Recent decisions of the National Park Service to allow wildfires to burn unmolested in areas of the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks dramatically illustrate the principle. The very values for which the parks had been established were in danger of being exterminated because the exclusion of fire was bringing about a change of vegetative types. This dynamic quality of forests is even more pronounced in our fast-growing southern area and illustrates why techniques that temporarily drastically alter the appearance of forest areas are necessary for their preservation. Indeed, clearcutting of forest stands to propagate desirable species has been recently recognized as an economic and cultural necessity after exhaustive studies by the Senate Interior Public Lands Subcommittee.

The Texas Forestry Association and its members endorsed and vigorously promoted a 35,500-acre Big Thicket National Park or monument as concluded by the National Park Service in its study report dated February 1967. We declared and still maintain a cutting moratorium on that portion of the 35,500 acres under our direct control. Today, 492 other organizations ranging from forestry groups through wildlife conservation organizations, garden clubs, civic clubs, chambers of commerce, and many other groups, have joined with the association in recommending the adoption of this proposal. Specific groups include the National Wildlife Federation, the American Forestry Association and the Sportsmens Clubs of Texas. I might add that the National Rifle Association recently withdrew their support of a 100,000-acre park without urging from our organization. The resolutions come from eighteen States other than Texas, including Alaska and Hawaii. I have included a complete list with copies of my statement which have been submitted to the committee.

Al of the 35,500 acres suggested by the Park Service are on privately-owned land, and this concept is often referred to as the "string-of-pearls." The 35,500 acres is composed of nine separate tracts and was chosen following a careful study for two reasons: (1) because it encompasses, collectively, everything of ecological significance in the Big Thicket; and (2) because it is widely dispersed in a five-county area.

The nine tracts in the "string-of-pearls" were not selected casually. They were chosen following a careful examination of the Big Thicket area by competent Park Service personnel. Size alone cannot be the basis for preserving the thicket. Rather, quality selection should limit public acquisition to the acreage best demonstrating the best ecological qualities of the thicket. The Park Service recognized this in its well-formulated proposal of 1967. The report states, "in order to preserve the significant widely-dispersed features of the Big Thicket without causing undue impact on the established economy or on any one member of the industry, it is proposed that the objective be implemented by means of a series of relatively small detached units rather than one large one."

"It would not be a valid criticism of such a land plan to say that the selection of scattered smaller tracts sacrifices the advantages for wilderness area designation that a single large park unit might offer. The reason is simply that there scarcely exists in the Big Thicket today a large enough block of the authentic forest type to compose a wilderness unit of acceptable standards-that is, containing 5,000 or more acres of roadless or otherwise unaltered land. Some of the sites recommended in this report are believed to be as large as any that have survived from the standpoint of wildness, besides best representing the essence of the Big Thicket."

Any park proposal larger than the 35.500 acres would serve only to tie up additional unneeded land that detracts from the economy of east Texas. During the

past twenty years, the forest industry of east Texas has given up in excess of 120,000 acres of land to highways, pipelines and other such single use projects and an additional half million plus acres have been taken into water impoundment projects such as Lake Sam Rayburn, Town Bluff Reservoir, Toledo Bend, Lake Livingston and others. Bear in mind that more than 700,000 acres of timberland have been removed from production the past few years. Despite this loss, the forest industries of Texas have wholeheartedly endorsed the 35,500-acre Big Thicket principle. Careful consideration must be given to the acquisition of additional land to satisfy the selfish demands of a vocal minority. In the face of a shrinking land base, we are also being called upon to provide, within the next thirty years, two or three times the amount of wood fiber now required by American citizens. Some have offered a simple answer to this dilemma by suggesting that we use substitute products and greater recycling to meet this demand. Every effort is being made to recycle as much wood fiber as possible.

Even with maximum utilization, the percentage of the total demand that could be met by this process would be small. As for the use of substitute products, no materials currently exist which can be manufactured as economically and with less energy needs than wood. This renewable resource must be utilized by future generations rather than locked up in inaccessible preserves for the use of a favored minority of our population.

Since the beginning of the Big Thicket controversy, the forest industries of east Texas have been subjected to a slanderous smear campaign questioning our objectivity and suitability to manage the forests of east Texas. We stand accused of destroying the Big Thicket at the rate of fifty to one hundred acres per day. Had this been true, simple arithmetic would prove that all of the claimed 300,000 wilderness acres remaining in the area being considered for a Big Thicket Park would no longer exist. It has been stated that we use giant earth-shredding machines that completely destroy all vegetation, down to the dephs of four feet or greater, including the residual stumps, on areas being converted to pine plantations. Following this treatment, the residual soil type is said to be a red clay forest floor covered with nothing but pine needles.

Furthermore, to insure that the forests remain in this condition, we stand accused of widespread spraying of aerial herbicides and pesticides. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me take a moment to show you a series of comparative aerial photographs taken of portions of east Texas in 1932 and 1972. We have actually regrown the area once known as the Big Thicket.

I am sure that you will agree with me that the forest industry of Texas has done a creditable job of managing their lands for the production of benefits favorable to all Americans. I sometime am made to wonder exactly who can manage the timberlands of our country to the satisfaction of our critics. Apparently, not even the National Park Service fully meets the necessary criteria. In the Texas Committee on Natural Resources Conservation Report Number 31, the statement is made, "we cannot entrust the size and configuration of the Big Thicket to the National Park Service."

Gentlemen, the Big Thicket is not a single contiguous jungle. Even its most loud-spoken advocates readily admit this fact. If the real goal of the park proponents is to preserve the unique areas of the Thicket, then the 35,500-acre String of Pearls accomplishes this objective. Recreational prospects for this vegetative type are woefully lacking. Even the president of the Big Thicket Association stated in a recent article that, "the thicket is too hot for hiking from May through September and too wet for camping the remainder of the year." In the face of such admissions, it is difficult to visualize this particular park ever constituting a tourist bonanza.

After viewing a portion of east Texas yesterday, I am sure you are wondering what the controversy and clamor is all about. Does the area you observed compare with the Redwood Park of California? Even this park containing the majestic redwoods has not proved a tourist bonanza along the heavily populated west coast of the United States. Recent newspaper reports point out that the park's biggest attraction, a 500-year old redwood tree, 367 feet tall and believed to be the tallest living thing on earth, fails to attract many visitors, the reason being simply that not many citizens are willing or able to hike the 8-mile trail to visit the tree. The total 1970 visitation is estimated by the park superintendent at 800 to 1.000 persons and only 685 actually signed the visitors' register located at the tree. Closer to home, it is important to note that 721,000 people visited the

famous Padre Island National Park and the Big Bend National Park registered only 172,600 the same year-1970.

For those physically strong enough to enjoy hiking or backpacking in east Texas the 659,000 acres of national forests in Texas are located within 100 miles of Beaumont and Houston and offer unlimited access. A 100-mile hiking trail was recently completed on the Sam Houston National Forest north of Houston. Other trails have been made available through industrial members of the Texas Forestry Association. A brochure describing these trails has been submitted to the committee with this statement.1

As to wildlife management in east Texas, few will deny that today's forests contain a variety of animals almost equaling or exceeding that of any past period with the exception of large carnivores, such as bears and cougars. Certainly, the deer population is at an all-time high, not only in east Texas, but throughout the South where intensive management of southern forests is practiced. Recent U.S. Forest Service surveys show an increase in the deer population south-wide from 303,000 in 1945 to more than 2,400,000 today.

This is only one aspect in the improvement in game habitat that has occurred and is continuing to occur in the south. Pine plantation management does not create biological deserts as some people would have you believe. The normal suecession of grasses, herbs, and hardwoods occurs in any pine plantation very much as it did in the virgin forests following natural acts of clearcutting such as fire or windstorm. An examination of a 30-year-old Kirby Lumber Corporation slash pine plantation which is located 15 miles north of Beaumont in Hardin County recently revealed the presence of 9 important wildlife food-producing hardwood species and many, many more shrubs and vines composing an understory vegetation capable of supporting more wildlife than old growth forests where the older mature trees shade out the vital understory plants.

Dr. Clarence Cottam, director of the Welder Wildlife Refuge in Sinton, Texas, has often been quoted as an authority in his field, and is credited by advocates of a large Big Thicket Park as a reliable witness that pine plantation management does indeed produce the so-called biological desert. Dr. Cottam made this statement in reply to a direct question as to whether a vegetative type composed only of pine stems with no understory growth would support a variety of wildlife. He had not actually personally witnessed the development of vegetation in pine plantations at this time. He has since visited this area with a group from the Audubon Society and observed our current management practices. On October 26, 1971, Dr. Cottam addressed a letter to a member of the Texas Forestry Association wherein he stated, "I can see a lot of sense and I can understand some of the biology of your management practices in that area. None of this had been presented to me before. It seems to me that if you make either clearcut narrow strips or relatively small clearcut units, there could be little justification for criticism. Small units clearcut will not stay devoid of vegetation very long as these species are a part of the climax vegetative cover. These and related trees will come in if the seed stalk is present."

"Anyway, I was favorably impressed with much of the work you folks are doing and I will do my best to communicate with some of my friends on the opposite side of this program. I thought you were quite reasonable in your desire merely to get exchange of property if there is a public demand for setting aside of some of this area for wildlife recreation or public use." You will note that Dr. Cottam endorsed our position of a land trade designed to offset the loss of productive forest acres and lessen the economie impact on the forest industry of East Texas. The matter of reimbursement for land lost should be optional. however, due to non-industrial owners in the area.

Dr. Cottam's statement that hardwood is the natural climax vegetative type of East Texas lends further support to the maangement of these lands as currently practiced by the forest industry. We are not and do not intend to eliminate hardwood from these forests. We have stated before and would like to bring to the attention of this committee recent survey results made by two of the largest forest industrial concerns of East Texas which reveal a dramatic increase in the number of hardwood stems present on their lands. Eastex Incorporated realized an increase of 11.6 million hardwood stems between 1957 and 1968 which was a 59 percent increase. Kirby found that the total count of stems on their land

1 Placed in committee files.