Finally-to complete the decalogue-pine plantations may well turn out to be economically unworkable because of a little-realized ecological weakness. Every 4 to 5 years east Texas suffers from an epidemic of pine bark beetles. These beetles attack and kill pine trees. Once a tree is infested it cannot be saved; it is cut, and a sapling is planted in its place. On a mixed pine-hardwood forest, the original forest, pine bark beetles move with far greater difficulty from pine to pine, sometimes cannot make the transition at all. But in a pine plantation groups of two, three, 400 trees at once may be contaminated and lost. The economics of this loss ought to be obvious to everyone. Perhaps by the end of the present outbreak of pine beetles, sad experience will have convinced the powers that be of what conservationists could not: there can be ties between ecological diversity and economic returns.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Gunter, before you present the next witness now I have just one quick question. You have three additional pages attached to your statement. Do you desire that they be made a part of the record?

Mr. GUNTER. Very definitely.

Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, so ordered.

(Mr. Gunter's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF PETE GUNTER, PRESIDENT, BIG THICKET ASSOCIATION

WILDERNESS VERSUS PLANTATION IN THE BIG THICKET

The Big Thicket Association endorses the position of the Big Thicket Coordinating Committee concerning the prospective acreage and location of the proposed Big Thicket National Park.

This fact is well known. What is perhaps less well known are the reasons for the urgency with which the Big Thicket Association and other conservationist groups seek to save a significant portion of the wilderness now. The threat to the Big Thicket posed by real estate developers has been discussed. Briefly, I would like to discuss the threat posed by pine plantation methods.

The Big Thicket is biologically one of the most varied, if not the most varied, sub-region of the United States.1 This variety is the key to understanding its character as a transition region, and is the strongest, though certainly not the only, argument for its preservation. It is precisely this variety which recent pine plantation technologies threaten. This new tree-growing technology can be explained simply. A large acreage is first "selectively" stripped of its valuable timber, then bulldozed. The resultant windrows of dead foliage are then burned and, sooner or later,* rows of pine sapplings are planted. If native hardwoods regrow, they are killed out by tree-girdling and/or herbicides. Insects are killed through regular aerial spraying with insecticides. In fifteen or twenty years the pine crop is harvested, and the cycle begins again.

Unquestionably, this method will produce its desired result: a steady supply of low-grade construction material and paper pulp. Unquestionably also, such materials are useful. But we must look at the costs as well as the credits.

In the case of the Big Thicket the cost is obvious: the original ecology is being lost, rapidly and forever. So obvious is this loss, that were financial interests not involved there would be no controversy whatever surrounding it. As things stand, however, two smokescreens have been interposed between the public and the sad potential fate of the Big Thicket. First, it has been claimed that since there are

1 A possible exception is the southern tip of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, with its transition from a temperate 6,000 feet above sea level to a Piedmont 700 feet above sea level. Even here, however, the ecological diversity does not match the Thicket's due to the lack of subtropical and western species. Many plant growth patterns found in the Appalachians, incidentally, reoccur in the better drained parts of the Big Thicket. 2 I have tried to describe this variety in a recent book: "The Big Thicket: A Challenge For Conservation." Austin: Jenkins: Connecticut: Chatham, 1972, 160. It is endless, and still remains to be inventoried in detail.

Occasionally some pines are left standing, and one company has given orders not to cut magnolia trees. 4 Often a cleared area will be left 6 months or still more.

The two pine species utilized in Texas pine plantations are the loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and the slash pine (Pinus caribaea).

as many forested acres in Thicket Counties now as in 1950, there have been no real changes since then. But straight lines of pines sans vines, hardwoods, orchids, are not the Thicket. When these latter are gone, everything has changed. Second, it has been claimed that since there are more hardwood stems in the Big Thicket now than in the 1930's, conservationists' cries of alarm are vacuous. But two facts about this claim must be understood. In the first place, from the 1930's until the present time the Big Thicket region, like much of the Southern United States, has gradually recovered from early lumber practices which virtually denuded its forest areas. The woods, left alone or subjected to selective cutting, have simply regrown themselves. This is a natural ecological succession, and if allowed to continue would result in the original mixed pine-hardwood forest (interlaced with hardwood bottomland forests and some areas of pine predominance). But having bragged so extensively about the number of hardwood stems now present in Thicket Counties, lumber companies now lament that the new forest they have allowed to emerge from the early decimation is a supposedly worthless growth of scrub and low-value hardwoods. They have, therefore, bragged about their efforts yet proclaimed the results to be worthless: but not in the same press release. In any case, the results are not ecologically worthless; they are a biologieally rich mixture of living things.

The point is this. The method of natural regrowth and selective cutting that has regrown the Big Thicket is being junked. An accelerating pine plantation technology has taken its place. On a helicopter tour of the Big Thicket last June a year ago, officers of the Big Thicket Association estimated that 30,000 acres of Thicket had been bulldozed in the prior two years. Our figures were wrong, however. The actual rate of destruction runs to around 30,0000 acres per year— some 10,000 acres of which fail to "take." i.e. to reseed," at least on the first goaround. Smokescreens and public relations cannot hide these facts-they are certainly familiar enough to those who live and hunt in the Thicket, and they form the basis for the very real fear that unless something is done now, in less than a decade there will be nothing left to render to the National Park Service. Take 300,000 acres, divide by 30, 35 or 40 thousand acres per year: the result is the life expectancy of a great and unique wilderness area.

We have no time here today for a laborious critique of pine plantation technology. Nonetheless, I would like to recite a simple list of its drawbacks (i.e. its destructiveness). In all of the following it is conceded that the plantation method has its usefulness. What is objected to is its absolutely wholesale use.10 The list will end with a point which should be of particular economic concern to the lumber companies. 1. Bulldozing and heavy machinery are harmful to soil structure." 2. Land left bare to rain and runoff is thereby damaged and leached of valuable

11

scientific inventories on lands of two of the main forests industry landowners show dramatic increases in the number of hardwood stems present on these lands. In one case the total increased 11.6 million between 1957 and 1958, and the other doubled between 1950 and 1970." Ollie Crawford in Fort Worth Star Telegram, May 11, 1972, 5A.

? Strictly speaking, lumber companies are those which produce construction materials (literally, lumber) while timber companies grow trees to produce pulp and other byproducts. For simplicity's sake I have lumped them both under the heading of "lumber" companies.

An exception is Temple Industries, the only local lumber company still with extensive holdings in east Texas.

Eastex (a subsidiary of Time, Inc.) states that of its 600,000 acres in east Texas. at least 480,000 acres will be converted into straight-line pine plantations. At the present time 6.000 acres per year are being bulldozed, though this figure is expected to increase markedly. (Cf. P. Gunter, "The Last Big Thicket Blues", Texas Observer, Oct. 22. 1971, 1-6) Southland Paper (a Dallas-based concern partly owned by St. Regis of New York) plans to turn 75 percent of its land into pine plantation. (Cf. Dorothie Erwin, Timber Dwindling? Well. Yes and No." Dallas Morning News, May 28, 1972, 22A.)

10 Aerial photographs taken by Big Thicket Association show numerous areas where pine has not regrown-or has grown only in stunted, economically worthless form. One of the biggest complaints of conservationists is the wholesale nature of the bulldozing, which may occur in boggy regions or seeps where pines can never flourish. What kind of “scientific" forestry practices would dictate trying to grow pines in hardwood habitat? The sole exception to this "wholesale" approach is provided by one company, which has agreed to cease cutting 50 feet from the edge of major streams. Prior to this policy, limbs, refuse, etc. was simply bulldozed into area creeks, whose banks were stripped of timber. Other companies in the area continue this policy, however. And, 50 feet is a small stream corridor, offering little protection.

11 "Forest Practices and Productivity", Yearbook of Agriculture, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1957, 735-741, esp. 741 for conclusions. Cf. Also: "Tree Cutting and Nutrient Loss", Science News, XCIX. No. 18. May 1, 1971. 302. In one case in New Hampshire nutrient lost in 3 years by a clear-cutting operation could be replaced by nature only in 100 years.

86-024-72--3

minerals and other soil contents." 3. The burning of unwanted limbs, trunks and other debris pollutes the air. 4. The burning of "refuse" wastes thousands of tons of valuable wood fiber per year. 5. The herbicides used to control hardwood growth are highly toxic, and inevitably drain into area streams and ponds, crippling animal (including fish) life. 6. Area streams in pine plantations are regularly straightened and ditched, reducing wildlife habitat, beauty, and rainfall retention. 7. Insecticides aerially dusted on plantations inevitably poison surrounding streams and ponds. 8. Except in early stages of growth, pine plantations support very little game.12 9. The end result is monotonous and, because monotonous, boring. (Points 8 and 9 taken together, incidentally do not augur well for East Texas' tourist industry.) Do not these nine points add up to the destruction of a wilderness?

13

Finally to complete the decalogue-pine plantations may well turn out to be economically unworkable because of a little-realized ecological weakness. Every 4 to 5 years East Texas suffers from an epidemic of pine bark beetles. These beetles attack and kill pine trees. Once a tree is infested it cannot be saved; it is cut, and a sapling is planted in its place. In a mixed pine-hardwood forest, the original forest pine bark beetles move with far greater difficulty from pine to pine, sometimes cannot make the transition at all. But in a pine plantation groups of two, three, four hundred trees at once may be contaminated and lost. The economics of this loss ought to be obvious to everyone. Perhaps by the end of the present outbreak of pine beetles, sad experience will have convinced the powers that be of what conservationists could not: there can be ties between ecological diversity and economic returns.

STATEMENT OF MRS. MAXINE JOHNSTON, BIG THICKET

ASSOCIATION

Mrs. JOHNSTON. I am going to read fast and somebody blow the whistle on me when I am out of time. I am Maxine Johnston. I have attempted to answer a great many questions on the Big Thicket in my lifetime. I live in Batson, I work in Beaumont, and I have commuted behind an awful lot of log trucks in my time, so I am a little bit hung up by that.

Since becoming an officer of the Big Thicket Association, I have made a conscientious effort to visit each area of the proposed park, and in so doing I have walked many miles at the heels of Harold Nicholas, Neal Wright, and Geraldine Watson.

I support the Big Thicket Coordinating Committee proposals for a Big Thicket National Park as described by Mr. Kindschy in a previ

ous statement.

12 On the fate of game in pine plantations Cf. Phil D. Goodrum, "Acorns For Wildlife", XXX, No. 1, January 1972, 12-14: J. W. Farrar and Louis Brunett, "Florishing Forests Threaten Wildlife", Louisiana Conservationist, November-December 1971, 22-27 Robert M. Blair, "Forage Production After Hardwood Control in a Southern Pine-Hardwood Stand", Forest Science, XVII. 1971, 279-284. The words of Dr. Clarence Cottam, Texas' foremost authority on wildlife habitat are instructive:

"There aren't many game or wildlife species that dwell in the forest of near pure culture of slash pine. In fact, any of the pines are not very good as wildlife foods. Some of them in moderate amounts serve as good supplements. Generally, I think we can say that a monoculture of a single species is never a good wildlife habitat.

"Population in an extensive area of predominantly slash pine would in all probability be quite low. Some insects are associated with it. Therefore we can expect some of the vireos, flycatchers and warblers to subsist, assuming that there are other species in sizeable abundance in the mixture of slash pine. Rodents, of course, feed to some extent on the seeds and some birds would get nourishment from the seeds. Squirrels would do fairly well if there are other species to go with this. But if it is predominantly a single culture of slash pine, nothing would do well." Texas Observer, Oct. 22, 1971.

13 For a general criticism of clear-cutting and plantation practices. Cf. Brock Evans, "High Yield Forestry. A New Assault on our Forests", Sierra Club Bulletin. March 1972, 10-13, 19. Cf. also Bord Norton, "Counterpoint". Audubon, January 1972, 121: Robert E. Farmer. Jr.. "Spaceship Economics and the Third Forest". Journal of Forestry, June 1971. 335-337: Michael Frome. "Forest Lands and Wilderness", Current History, LVIII. No. 346. June1970, 343-369. For a defence of clear-cutting which admits its severe side effects Cf. Charles A. Connaughton, "The Revolt Against Clear-Cutting", Journal of Forestry. LXVIII, No. 5, May 1970, 264-265.

Today, I have two axes to grind and one confession of faith to offer.

The first ax involves doom-saying among park opponents who would lead us to believe that the removal of 100,000 acres from the tax rolls and from the coffers of the forest industry will result in economic blight for the area. I challenge these gloomy folk to prove that any other national park has brought such consequences to any area. On the contrary, commonsense tells us that a Big Thicket National Park will contribute to economic growth in the area. More restaurants, motels, gas stations, and other tourist facilities will have to be provided by local free enterprise. Moreover, the tourist season in east Texas need not be limited to 3 or 4 months but can continue through most of the year.

But will tax losses be significant? Probably not, because the 100,000acres recommended is spread among some eight counties. Hardin County's tax assessor recently stated that at Hardin County's rates. 100,000 acres would cost a total of $123,000 in county, State, and school taxes a very small cost when distributed among eight counties. Indeed, Ralph Nader's report on the timber industry released in 1970 shows that in six east Texas counties the tax loss from undervaluation of forest industry lands amounted to $785,740.1

Will the forest industry go out of business from losing productive lands? Again, the answer is no. According to I. F. Eldridge of U.S. Plywood-Champion, pinelands predominate in Hardin County-88 percent of the forest is pinelands-and all of the hardwoods are found along stream bottoms and near Saratoga. Sounds a little bit like the Big Thicket Coordinating Committee's proposal, does it not? He further says that these have not been cleared because of "esthetic values" and because "they are difficult to clear*** often flooded *** and they form natural barriers against wildlife and slow down the spread of insects and diseases attacking forest trees." If this is true of other counties, then few productive lands are affected by the park, and the effect on the timber industry will be negligible. Those pine farms will continue to produce side-by-side with a Big Thicket National Park and both will contribute dollars to the economy.

Mr. TAYLOR. If you wish to leave 3 minutes for Mr. Fritz, I suggest you finish within 1 minute.

Mrs. JOHNSTON. I will ask that the rest of my statement be included in the record and note that it had a lot of kind words to say about forestry industry people, politicians, and associated other folk. Thank you. [Laughter and applause.]

Mr. TAYLOR. I believe you are a pretty good politician yourself. (Mrs. Johnston's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF MRS. MAXINE JOHNSTON, VICE PRESIDENT, BIG THICKET

ASSOCIATION

Gentlemen: I am Maxine Johnston, Vice-President of the Big Thicket Association and a librarian with twenty-three years experience. Sixteen of those years were spent at a reference desk, where questions about the Big Thicket have always been received and where we attempted to provide answers from printed and manuscript suorces. In my work with the Big Thicket Museum in recent years,

1 Nader, Ralph, and associates. Timberland in East Texas. Typescript released November 1. 1970. 2 Hardin County Forestry Seminar, Notes, March 23, 1972.

I have talked with many old-timers. Since 1953 I have lived in Batson, and I have spent a good deal of time with the late Lance Rosier of Saratoga-its foremost authority. Since becoming an officer of the Big Thicket Association, I have made a conscientious effort to visit each area of the proposed park, and in so doing I have walked many miles at the heels of Harold Nicholas. Neal Wright, and Geraldine Watson. I am not an expert on anything, but I have reasonably wellinformed opinions on everything, and I deliver them with a great deal of conviction and sincerity.

I support the Big Thicket Coordinating Committee proposals for a Big Thicket National Park as described by Mr. Kindschy in a previous statement.

Today, I have two axes to grind and one confession of faith to offer.

The first axe involves doom-saying among park opponents who would lead us to believe that the removal of 100,000 acres from the tax rolls and from the coffers of the forest industry will result in economic blight for the area. I challenge these gloomy folk to prove that any other national park has brought such consequences to any area. On the contrary, common sense tells us that a Big Thicket National Park will contribute to economic growth in the area. More restaurants, motels, gas stations, and other tourist facilities will have to be provided by local free enterprise. Moreover, the tourist season in East Texas need not be limited to three or four months but can continue through most of the year. These tourist dollars will directly benefit area citizens, and the sales taxes that go with them will offset any tax losses.

But will tax losses be significant? Probably not, because the 100,000 acres recommended is spread among some eight counties. Hardin County's tax assessor recently stated that at Hardin County's rates 100,000 acres would cost a total of $123,000 in county, state and school taxes-a very small cost when distributed among eight counties. Indeed, Ralph Nader's report on the timber industry released in 1970 shows that in six East Texas counties the tax loss from undervaluation of forest industry lands amounted to $785,740.1

Will the forest industry go out of business from losing productive lands? Again, the answer is No. According to I. F. Eldridge of U.S. Plywood-Champion, pine lands predominate in Hardin County-88 percent of the forest is pinelandsand all of the hardwoods are found along stream bottoms and near Saratoga. (Sounds like a description of the proposed park, doesn't it?) He further says that these have not been cleared because of "aesthetic values" and because "they are difficult to clear . . . often flooded . . . and they form natural barriers against wildlife and slow down the spread of insects and diseases attacking forest trees." If this is true of other counties, then few productive lands are affected by the park, and the effect on the timber industry will be negligible. Those pine farms will continue to produce side-by-side with a Big Thicket National Park and both will contribute dollars to the economy.

92

The second axe-to-grind changes the subject completely and involves a strong objection to National Park Service map No. 90,010.

Before proceeding, let me underscore the fact that the Big Thicket Association endorses the park proposal of the Big Thicket Coordinating Committee, and, further, that I personally would be appalled to lose any of the designated areas and would much prefer to extend their boundaries. I know about ecology, and I believe.

But map No. 90.010 omits the Saratoga Triangle, and this can not go unnoticed. This area is the heart of the Traditional Big Thicket and its removal sacrifices much of the integrity of the park and borders on mockery.

This area is botanically interesting and contains some of the flora of all the other areas, and it offers more protection for wildlife, which require an extensive habitat for ranging. Either reason is sufficient for preservation; both make it obligatory. We are not asking you to preserve legends associated with the area; we will take care of that. We do say that it can stand on its own merits. The area cannot be evaluated from the air, from a bus, or on a comfortable hike: much of it is remote from even dirt roads.

Why this map was prepared or on whose advice is not known, and if the National Park Service has looked at the area carefully, it seems curious that the Big Thicket Association would not have been invited to participate.

1 Nader, Ralph, and associates, "Timberland in East Texas," typescript released Nov. 1, 1970. "Hardin County forestry seminar; notes, Mar. 23, 1972.