Now, this does not mean, of course, that that area will be inflexible, and I heartily agree with my colleague, Mr. Brooks, that the purpose should be to avoid wherever possible in establishing the exact corridors the places that persons have made their homesteads and where they are presently residing. It seems to me that those areas may be avoided, without interfering with any persons in that area or only a very few.

We flew over this area yesterday and an observation of the narrow corridors that are sought in this bill would indicate that there are very few residences within the area, if any. We actually did not see many, but it is difficult to see them from the air.

The bill does provide and does take care of certain flexibility on page 2 in section 1, which says, "However, the Secretary may make minor revisions in the boundary of the park from time to time, but in no event shall the boundary encompass less than 100,000 acres. It seems to me that would give the flexibility.

In addition to that, because I feel very strongly that persons' homesteads and their residences should be protected to the ultimate degree, I would suggest-I have not offered it in a separate bill because I have the feeling that the committee and its staff would be most competent to draw the actual language, though I do have language hereI feel very strongly that there should be language in this bill by amendment providing a means by which a life estate may be maintained by persons who actually are domiciled in the area.

The pattern for such legislation will be found in the Voyageurs National Park bill, which is a rather recent piece of legislation, in the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in the State of Wisconsin bill, which is Public Law 81-424, in the National Seashore in the State of Florida, Public Law 81-660, and in the Buffalo National River in Public Law 92-237.

It seems to me that these provisions in a bill will totally answer the questions that have been raised with respect to that residential concern to which I think we should pay the utmost attention to.

I shall not speak about the values of the park. The committee has seen it and many of the witnesses here can give it first hand.

I thank the chairman for the opportunity to appear at this time. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Eckhardt.

(Mr. Eckhardt's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB ECKHARDT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear here today to speak in support of legislation to create a Big Thicket National Park. I also want to join Congressman Jack Brooks in welcoming you to Texas and hope that you are enjoying your first-hand looks at the Big Thicket.

I am not going to go into a long discussion this morning of the value of this ecologically-significant area. I am going to leave that to those who are more knowledgeable than I-the various persons who are members of the Big Thicket Coordinating Committee and other environmental groups who are acquainted with the biological aspects of the Big Thicket and the eminent dangers confronting it. So I would like to confine my remarks to a few personal observations and then to a discussion of the bill I have introduced, H. R. 12335, how it came into being and why I believe it should receive your consideration.

It appears to me there are two real dangers confronting the Big Thicket: 1. Clear cutting of huge areas by irresponsible timber interests.

2. Developing and sub-dividing of areas to make room for summer homes and weekend retreats.

I believe the latter may well be the greatest danger, since I believe that most of the responsible timber interests do respect the need to preserve some of these areas for posterity. I think we need to face the fact that some timber people are taking a short-sighted approach, and devastating in some cases, climax forests which provide the "grocery store" for hundreds of species of birds and wildlife. I fear that acres and acres of hardwoods, gum, hickory, wild pecan, beech and other species are being destroyed to make room for pine tree farms. And, as I told the Senate Subcommittee two years ago, I cannot imagine anything more sterile than vast reaches of pine trees with not a hardwood sapling left standing. A few years ago, en route to a Big Thicket Association meeting, I passed several sawmills, and noted huge piles of hardwood logs awaiting the saw. Upon asking a sawmill employee what the lumber was to be used for, he replied: "Corduroy roads." If you are not acquainted with the phrase "corduroy roads," these are roads built with lumber leading into oil and gas wells in low-lying, swampy areas. What an ignoble use for majestic valuable hardwoods!

Evidently the practice is still being carried out. Just a week ago, a member of my staff noted huge piles of hardwood just a few miles from the Saratoga Triangle we are seeking to save.

I would like to make it clear, at this point, however, that I am not opposed to harvesting of trees, as I am not opposed to the harvesting of surplus numbers of deer or other game. I realize the necessity of reaping our timber harvest to provide lumber for a burgeoning population. But I do not believe that preservation of 100,000 acres, out of the approximately 11 million acres of woodlands in East Texas, will appreciably affect the supply of such lumber. Neither do I believe that voluntary practices of timber men to protect the relatively few acres of hardwood would make a dent in lumber and pulpwood supplies.

As to the second danger confronting the Big Thicket, this poses a real, and more lasting, peril than cutting trees for lumber and pulpwood. If a timber man uses good practices in his cutting, the forests will continue to stand. It is only when he devastates an area, as has been done in some areas, that such areas for years resemble a napalm-bomb shattered area in Vietnam. But, when an area is developed into one-half and one-acre lots for weekend retreats, then it has been taken out of the public realm forever. It would be extremely difficult, as you realize, to ever establish a Big Thicket National Park if you had to purchase tens of thousands of individual summer homes and vacation retreats. This is why it is essential that this subcommittee move and move quickly to approve a bill establishing this National Park.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly discuss how and why I introduced H.R. 12335. By July, 1970, only one bill had been introduced in the House to establish such a Park, and it would have set aside only the 35,000 acres depicted in an earlier National Park Service study and would have protected only a few "pearls" in the Big Thicket. In fact, environmentalists take the position that it is absolutely necessary to preserve a much larger area if those pearls are to be protected. So, on July 20, 1970, I introduced H.R. 18527, which would have established a Park of approximately 185,000 acres, which environmentalists considered necessary to protect the natural beauty and the ecologically-fragile area. This bill, however, was a general one, very similar to others which have been introduced by other Members.

After I introduced H.R. 18527, members of various environmental groups all over Texas contacted me and suggested that a measure could be drawn which would specifically set out which areas should be included in such a Park, with approximate acreages for those areas. Subsequently, the Big Thicket Coordinating Committee, representing all the major environmental groups supporting such legislation, was formed. This group has worked long and hard with my staff in coming up with a meaningful bill, and I would like to commend them highly at this point for the work they have done. You will be hearing from them later in the hearing.

On February 4, 1971, I introduced H.R. 3618, the brainchild of those environmentalists and the first bill ever offered which specifically pinpointed areas to be included in the Park. I would like here to emphasize some of the reasons that I and other environmentalists think that Congress itself should spell out, in general terms, what should be included in the Big Thicket National Park. My proposal is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an indication that we mis

86-024-72-2

trust or have a lack of confidence in the National Park Service in delineating the specific areas. But, it appears to me, that Congress should, whenever the opportunity appears, take the lead in specifying exactly where Parks should be, and should take the advantage of expertise from the region involved. I believe that expertise is available from those members of the Big Thicket Coordinating Committee who worked so hard with my office in drafting the legislation. These persons are knowledgeable in the Big Thicket, in its ecology, its fragile state, its economic worth, and its needs. My legislation does not present a hide-bound directive that cannot be adjusted as the Secretary may so direct. But it does spell out certain areas that local people feel very strongly should be preserved.

While these environmentalists are dedicated in their belief that the 191,000 acres called for in H.R. 3618 are vital, they are pragmatic enough to know that such a Park may not be feasible. So, last year, they again went to work to come up with a compromise proposal which they thought would mollify big timber interests. They pared down the acreage from 191,000 acres to a bare minimum of 100.000 acres. Let me point out to you on this map how they finally arrived at this acreage.

Here is a map showing the Park as outlined in my original H.R. 3618. You will note the broad corridors along Big Sandy Creek, along Turkey Creek to the north and joining with a trail connection, and the broad corridor along the Neches River on the East. Also included in this Park proposal was a minimum of 40,000 acres in the Saratoga Triangle.

But the new proposal, H.R. 12335, introduced on December 15, 1971, cuts down the acreages in the corridors, slashes the acreage in the Saratoga Triangle to half, or 20,000 acres, and does away with the proposed Trail Connection in the north. Here, you may note the areas are shaded in blue, which depict the areas include under my new legislation, as compared with the shaded areas, or the acreage to be covered in the original bill. Environmentalists in Texas, and across the nation, feel that this is the minimum which should be included in the Big Thicket National Park.

Now, there is one other point upon which I would like to touch. Scores of residents of this area who misunderstood a misfortunate letter which the Park Service distributed have been concerned and disturbed over the possibility they may be displaced from their homes. In the first place, this presumption is premature, since no one can possibly know at this time where the boundaries of the Park will lie until they have been delineated. I am sure that many of those who have voiced protests will not even be included within the boundaries of the Park.

In the second place, several pieces of similar legislation have already been passed providing 25-year tenancy, or life tenancy, for any home owner who wishes to retain his home for that period of time. Park Service representatives tell me that a home owner can retain his home for a period of up to 25 years, and then the Park Service would purchase it, but the value of the property would decline one per cent per year for each year the owner of such improved property kept possession. In the case of life tenancy, the owner could retain possession until his death, or the death of the spouse, whichever came later. Then the Park Service would negotiate with the heirs on fair market value. I intend to introduce an amended version of my bill to include these provisions, and also a provision to direct the National Park Service to conduct a study within two years to determine which units in the Big Thicket National Park should be granted Wilderness status.

Mr. Chairman, again I appreciate the opportunity to appear here, and urge you and the other members of this subcommittee to move expeditiously to approve legislation to establish a Big Thicket National Park. For every day that we delay, it means more beautiful areas have fallen victim to the bulldozer and the chain saw, more wooded glens and glades have been converted to weekend retreats, never to be available for National Park status again.

(The statements of Senator Bentsen, former Senator Yarborough, and Lorraine Bonney follow :)

STATEMENT OF HON. LLOYD BENTSEN, JR., A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure to testify today on H.R. 12034 by Congressman Jack Brooks to establish a Big Thicket National Park. I have introduced an identical bill in the Senate and welcome this opportunity to present my views to the National Parks and Recreation Subcommittee.

I hope that these hearings indicate a willingness on the part of the House to act upon the Big Thicket legislation and to bring the day nearer when a portion of this remarkable area of Southeast Texas will be preserved as a National Park. At one point, Mr. Chairman, the Big Thicket comprised a vast wilderness area in east Texas, stretching over 100 miles east to west and 50 miles north to south. The area covered over 3 million acres of swamp, woodland, and river. Today that area includes but 300,000 acres, and even that size is diminishing daily.

The Big Thicket is often called "the biological crossroads of North America.” Within its shrinking boundaries, one can find elements common to the Everglades, the Appalachian Region, the Piedmont forests and the Okefenokee swamp. It is truly an "environmental laboratory," where students of ecology can observe many of the plant communities common to our continent within a limited area.

But the Big Thicket is not simply a preserve, it is also an area which has great potential as a recreation site for the thousands of tourists who visit Texas each year, as well as the residents of nearby metropolitan areas of Beaumont, Houston, and Dallas.

Aside from the abundance of wild animals and vegetation within the confines of the present 300,000 acres, there are also numerous connecting waterways, which can serve as havens for float trips, canoe trips, and as primitive camping

areas.

Ideally, the Big Thicket Park would preserve some important ecological features which are a treasured part of our heritage and open other sections to tourists who come to enjoy the recreational advantages of the region.

Mr. Chairman, there have been a number of different proposals offered concerning how many acres and what particular acreage should be included in a Big Thicket National Park. The proposals for a park before this Committee range in size from 190,000 to 35,000 acres and are of every shape and configuration imaginable.

This division over the size and shape of the Park has been one of the principal causes of the delay in acquiring a Big Thicket National Park and that is why the compromise contained in the Brooks-Bentsen bill is such a significant step forward. This measure has been co-sponsored by 13 other members of the Texas Delegation in the House and has the support of many interested groups here in Texas.

The Brooks-Bentsen bill approaches the question of size and site selection for the Big Thicket Park in the following manner: First, it sets a size limitation of 100,000 acres to be comprised of the most significant and ecologically unique acreage in the Big Thicket area. Second, it allows the Secretary of the Interior through the National Park Service to select and recommend to the Congress the areas to be included in the Park.

Following this recommendation, the Congress can review the selection made by the National Park Service and then receive the views of land owners, conservation groups and other parties who are interested in the Big Thicket issue. Specific boundaries will then be approved by the Congress and acquisition by the Park Service can begin.

Let me be perfectly clear on this point, it is the intention of the Brooks-Bentsen bill that only those areas which are unique for either their ecological or recreational value should be included in the Big Thicket National Park. This is why we are giving those people who will live near the Park and use the Park an opportunity to have a voice in the process of selecting the site for the Park. This Park must exist in harmony with the Commerce and the life style of the people of Southeast Texas or it will not be a success,

It is, therefore, incumbent upon the public officials who will handle the establishment of this Park to move cautiously and to make sure that their intentions are clear and well understood.

Incidents such as the recent mailing of a letter to East Texas residents from the National Park Service which made unwarranted statements concerning the acquisition of property in the Big Thicket area must be avoided in the future. Such blunders on the part of the Park Service have caused considerable concern among local residents and have harmed our chances for saving the Big Thicket. I have assured the people of East Texas that I will not be part to any land confiscation or land acquisition by the Government which would provide less than fair market value for the property acquired.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Parks and Recreation Subcommittee will enjoy their tour of the Big Thicket and will come to share in the concern and pride we Texans have for this great living treasure of our State. It is a part of our heritage that traces back to a time when great primordial forests covered millions of acres of our land, and when wildlife and game roamed freely across this rolling terrain. It is our contact with a past that has nearly disappeared in this Nation and it is a heritage that we must save and preserve for the future generations who will follow us here.

Thank you.