Do you members of the committee realize that, at Sam Rayburn Reservior, with a shoreline of 560 miles, only 10 of the proposed 51 parks have been completely developed? The reason is money. Is it proper, then, to create another "giant" of a park?

Preserve the proper amount of the area needed and the best interests of East Texas will be served.

The 35,000 acre string of pearls concept will allow researchers, specialist students and university people, scientists and scientific writers, and ecologists to make their studies.

Mr. Bob Bloom, of the Texas Forest Service, Lufkin, Texas, in June, 1969, at the height of the recreation season, made a visual observation of the 64 underdeveloped areas being used for recreation around Sam Rayburn Reservoir. These areas were left accessible by old roads.

We quote Mr. Bloom's report: "Results-From the 64 sites examined, evidence indicated that the more remote the area, the greater the waste or apparent lack of care for proper maintenance of the area. Some of the areas examined involved areas to be developed at a later date, however, there was no indication that any effort had been made to prohibit the use in these areas. Two areas were blocked off next to private lands. One had boards across the road and another had a locked gate on the road. Neither area was being used and there was no maintenance problems. Various types of barriers had been placed on some of the roads. None were effective as can be noted on the pictures (Mr. Bloom's report included pictures). Where obstruction was formed in the road, by-passes were made around them.

Five areas were no longer useable due to the fact that the roads had washed out . . ."

According to Ian Cowan, 1966, "Conservation and Man's Environment Trend", Vol. 3, No. 2, April, "Protection of park values from increasing hoards of users is among the most challenging problems of today."

Mr. Bloom further reports that "Zoning for quality of use and the limitation of access are growing necessities."

In our opinion, then, the creation of a gigantic Big Thicket National Monument will be comparable in cost and administration to existing parks and recreational areas. The larger the area, the larger will be the cost. Will funds be forthcoming for a large project?

The Angelina County Chamber of Commerce believes this may be accomplished by the passage of HR 5378, March 2, 1971, designed to create a 35,000 acre Big Thicket National Monument.

Again, we believe that the National Park Service is correct in its 1967 report which calls for the creation of the 35,000 acre Big Thicket National Monument based on the "String of Pearls" concept. In our opinion, the National Park Service has a good record of accomplishment and should know what ought to be done. Your consideration of our views will be very much appreciated.

Sincerely,

HERMAN BROWN, Executive Vice President.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. J. B. Webster. On deck, Anella Dexter.

STATEMENT OF J. B. WEBSTER, MANAGER, CORPORATE RELATIONS, KIRBY LUMBER CORP.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Chairman

Mr. TAYLOR. If Mr. Mason comes later we will permit him to make his statement.

Go right ahead.

Mr. WEBSTER. I am Jim Webster, manager of corporate relations. for Kirby Lumber Corp., headquartered in Houston, Tex.

In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I have taken the liberty of attaching to each copy of my written testimony today a copy of my previous statement before the Senate subcommittee in 1970.

In a recent statement Secretary of the Interior Rogers Morton said:

The resources available to our Government-Federal, State, county, and cityare not unlimited, which means that hard choices among a number of otherwise desirable objectives must be made.

With that statement as a premise, I think it behooves us to seriously question just what it is we expect to achieve by the establishment of any sort of Big Thicket National Area in southeast Texas. If it is recreation we are interested in, then what recreational needs do we expect this national area to meet?

Surely such an area is not needed to meet what the ORRRC report termed the Nation's No. 1 form of outdoor recreation, driving for pleasure; the forest already adjoins the roads and at no cost to the Federal Government. We cannot expect it to meet the No. 2 outdoor recreation demand of the public, swimming, since southeast Texas 450,000 acres of reservoirs obviously meet that need. The interest of the public in walking in the outdoors (as opposed to hiking) reported by the ORRRC as being the Nation's No. 3 choice of outdoor recreation has certainly been met by the availability of two-thirds of a million acres of national forestland and hundreds of thousands of acres of State and privately owned land open to the public in the area for this and other recreational purposes.

Is it to provide hunting opportunities? I assume not, since, as I understand it, and Mr. Aspinall has pointed out, neither national parks nor national monuments are open to public hunting; and in any event, the Texas national forests are open to the public for hunting, the forest industry in east Texas makes at least a quarter of a million acres of timberland available to the general public for hunting; and my company, alone, leases more than a quarter of a million additional acres to those hunters who wish to hunt in areas not open to the general public. Presumably, it is also not needed to meet water-based recreational needs, since, as previously pointed out, there are some 450,000 acres of public water impoundments in southeast Texas, and the rivers in the area can already be canoed, fished, et cetera, at no cost to the Federal Government, especially when the water is unlike it was yesterday.

I assume that it cannot be planned to meet the demands of campers, since Federal, State, and private lands are already available for that purpose in southeast Texas. If Federal funds are available for the expansion and improvement of camping facilities, then those funds should surely be expended on those vast, undeveloped lands already owned by the Federal Government. I trust it is also not planned to provide a place for hikers, since ample Federal, State, and private lands are also already available for that purpose.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Webster.

How much land does Kirby Lumber Co. own in the Big Thicket area?

Mr. WEBSTER. We own about 127,000 acres in Hardin County. It is hard to say what we own in the Big Thicket area because the various proposals have shifted so often.

Mr. TAYLOR. I am not asking that at this point for the number of acres within the proposed park boundaries, but I would like to know the extent of your holdings in the whole Big Thicket area.

Mr. WEBSTER. Well, Mr. Taylor, this varies a little bit, too. The 1936 proposal recommended by the Agricultural Extension Service said that a 400,000 Big Thicket National Park should be placed in Polk County. Mr. TAYLOR. Let us get down to 100,000.

Mr. WEBSTER. The question is just where is the 100,000 acres going to be? In round figures, Kirby owns 127,000 acres in Hardin County. Now, where in Hardin County, where in adjoining counties the park is going to be we do not know.

Mr. TAYLOR. You heard Mr. Crawford's statement as chairman of the Texas Forestry Association. Do you agree with the statement he made and the conclusions he reached?"

Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, sir; very much so.

Mr. TAYLOR. What action is Kirby Lumber Co. taking to protect and conserve the values in the Big Thicket area?

Mr. WEBSTER. Well, since the 1967 Park Service report we have been maintaining the voluntary moratorium on the so-called String of Pearls that was mentioned by Mr. Crawford. In that case, without any return in timber cut from those lands we have already paid $50,000 in ad valorem taxes. This is an expenditure.

Mr. TAYLOR. Any other questions?

Mr. ASPINALL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have one question and one observation. I do not wish to have the statement that Mr. Webster made to the Senate made a part of the record of the House hearing. It is all right to put it in the files, but I do not want it in the record because that is already a matter of record. It concerns me when I find a statement such as this, "The forest industry does a lousy job of 'telling its story' to the public and always has. Consequently, we now have the second and, perhaps, a third generation of people who believe in the 'Gospel according to Edna Ferber' insofar as the industry is concerned." I do not like a statement like that unless I can ask a question about it. And I can't ask a question about a statement presented to the Senate.

Now, Mr. Webster, we went to the area. Part of the area we saw as we floated down was the Neches River. I noticed that there were several posted signs apparently signifying that no trespass is allowed.

I wish that you would submit for the committee a statement containing the restrictions which your company places on the use of its lands within the 100.000 or the 35,000 area suggestions relative to what usage you permit by the public.

If I can get that. I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that it be placed in the record at this point when received.

Mr. TAYLOR. In the absence of objection, the witness may submit that information to be placed in the record at this point.

Mr WEBSTER. All right.

(The information referred to follows:)

Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL,

KIRBY LUMBER CORP. Houston, Tex., June 27, 1972.

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. ASPINALL: During my June 10 testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation regarding the establishment of a "Big

Thicket National Area," you asked that I supply you with additional information regarding opportunities for recreation currently available to the public in the general vicinity of the proposed national area.

In an effort to comply with that request, I am attaching the following items: 1. A map of Kirby's properties in the area in question showing those tracts made available by Kirby and by Southwestern Timber Company (a Division of Eastex, Inc.) to the public for hunting free of charge, tracts leased to the public by Kirby for hunting, areas made available to the public by Kirby for campsite leases, the location of Texas Forestry Association sponsored woodland trails, the "Primitive Area" made available to the public by Kirby, and the location of those streams along which Kirby has set aside "environmental protective strips" our Mr. J. C. Meyers' handwritten note summarizing the data concerned is also attached.

2. A copy of Kirby's Annual Sportsman's Guide and a Xerox copy of a similar brochure published by Southwestern Timber Company outlining the rules to be followed by the public in using the public hunting areas; attached also find our Mr. Terry Curran's report of April 20 summarizing the knowledge we have regarding the use of Kirby's public hunting areas.

3. A copy of the “Hunting and Fishing Lease" form used by Kirby in its leasing program and a copy of our Mr. W. R. McDonald's report of June 16 summarizing the reported usage of these leased areas.

4. A copy of the "Campsite Lease" form used by Kirby in its leasing program. While not indicated on the attached map, those areas selected by the National Park Service in its National Monument proposal of 1967 have been protected by cutting moratorium since that date. The only use made of those lands is that conducted under previously existing hunting and fishing leases; they have also been made available as research areas for reputable scientists on request. Incidentally, since the self-imposed cutting moratorium on these lands was instituted, Texas Forestry Association members have paid a total of $117,000 in ad valorem taxes on the tracts.

While not specified in the Sportsman's Guide, Kirby does make these same areas available to campers, hikers, etc., throughout the year. We do not publicize that fact, simply because of the every present danger of having squatters move in on us, but we do make the information available in response to requests from the public for the location of such areas; in such instances, individuals are permitted to camp for a period not to exceed one week.

As indicated by the attached copy of my comments on formally opening the Kirby Primitive Area, back-pack camping for a period not to exceed one week is also permitted on that tract.

The environmental protective strips set aside by Kirby along stream banks encompass some 2,060 acres on which no cutting is done and an additional 2,060 acres on which only limited cutting is done. Where Kirby's properties touch the streams indicated on the attached map, no cutting is done for the first 100 feet back from the stream bank and only selective cutting on the second 100 feet. For your general information, I am enclosing a copy of a clipping from the Beaumont Enterprise of September 26, 1971, listing extensive areas made available to the public for hunting without charge in East Texas by the industry and by the U.S. Forest Service.

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to supply this additional information to you. Should you need further information, please do not hesitate to call on

us.

Sincerely,

J. B. WEBSTER.

(EDITOR'S NOTE.-The attachments referred to have been placed in the committee files.)

Mr. TAYLOR. According to an earlier unanimous consent request, all attachments to statements will be turned over to counsel to be placed in the file or record, as seems appropriate and your statement before the Senate will be placed in the file.

Thank you very much.

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, sir.
(Mr. Webster's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF J. B. WEBSTER, MANAGER OF CORPORATE RELATIONS, KIRBY LUMBER

CORP.

I am J. B. Webster, Manager of Corporate Relations for Kirby Lumber Corporation, headquartered in Houston, Texas.

In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I have taken the liberty of attaching to each copy of my written testimony today a copy of my Statement made June 12, 1970, to the Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

In a recent statement, Secretary of Interior Rogers Morton said, "The resources available to our government-federal, state, county, and city-are not unlimited, which means that hard choices among a number of otherwise desirable objectives must be made."

With that statement as a premise, I think it behooves us to seriously question just what it is we expect to achieve by the establishment of any sort of "Big Thicket National Area" in Southeast Texas. If it is recreation we are interested in, then what recreational needs do we expect this national area to meet?

Surely such an area is not needed to meet what the ORRRC Report termed the nation's Number 1 form of outdoor recreation, Driving For Pleasure; the forest already adjoins the roads and at no cost to the federal government. We cannot expect it to meet the Number 2 outdoor recreation demand of the public, Swimming, since Southeast Texas' 450,000 acres of reservoirs obviously meet that need. The interest of the public in Walking In The Outdoors (as opposed to hiking) reported by the ORRRC as being the nation's Number 3 choice of outdoor recreation has certainly been met by the availability of two-thirds of a million acres of national forestland and hundreds of thousands of acres of state and privately owned land open to the public in the area for this and other recreational purposes.

Is it to provide hunting opportunities? I assume not. since, as I understand it, and Mr. Aspinall has pointed out, neither national parks nor national monuments are ope nto public hunting: and in any event, the Texas National Forests are open to the public for hunting, the forest industry in East Texas makes at least a quarter of a million acres of timberland available to the general public for hunting: and my company, alone, leases more than a quarter of a million additional acres to those hunters who wish to hunt in areas not open to the general public. Presumably, it is also not needed to meet water-based recreational needs, since, as previously pointed out, there are some 450,000 acres of public water impoundments in Southeast Texas, and the rivers in the area can already be canoed, fished, etc., at no cost to the federal government.

I assume that it cannot be planned to meet the demands of campers, since federal, state, and private lands are already available for that purpose in Southeast Texas. If federal funds are available for the expansion and improvement of camping facilities, then those funds should surely be expended on those vast, undeveloped lands already owned by the federal government. I trust it is also not planned to provide a place for hikers, since ample federal, state, and private lands are also already available for that purpose.

Presumably, it is not intended merely to provide solitude for the harried city dweller since, again, that solitude is already available to those who wish to seek it, and without new expenditures of funds. For example, year before last I hunted for three days along the Neches River without seeing another living soul: on this most recent Memorial Day weekend, my family and I camped for three days on the Sabine River and saw only eight people. Six canoeists who waved as they went by, and a retired couple in a motor boat who stopped to visit for all of five minutes when they saw us on the bank.

In attempting this analysis for myself, the only answer I could come up with was that perhaps some of the land in Southeast Texas needs to be set aside for scientific purposes. If that be the case, then the Park Service's 1967 proposal for the establishment of a national monument in the area should meet our needs. By definition, a national monument can be established for its unique scientific value, the much maligned tourist will certainly travel as far to visit a national monument as he will to visit a national park, the acquisition of a 35,500 acre national monument should cost no more than 35 per cent of the amount required for acquisition of a 100,000 acre park, and 35,500 acres should provide ample area for most conceivable scientific studies (an associate professor of biology from the University of Texas whom I recently helped to locate study areas on Kirby's lands for his ecology class for doctoral candidates told me that he felt some