Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

SOUTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,
Columbia, S.C., June 4, 1964.

Hon. GAYLORD NELSON,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: Reference is made to your letter of May 29, 1964, in which you request information concerning proposed legislation directed toward the utilization of unemployed workers in conservation programs.

This department would be highly receptive to the offer of a labor force in several fields of endeavor. The possible applications include, but are not limited to (1) preimpoundment clearing of public fishing lakes ranging in size from 50 acres to 600 or 700 acres. The department operates four such lakes and has another under construction. Several others are in the planning stage. (2) Transplanting desirable aquatics as a means of speeding up plant succession in newly developed waterfowl marshes; (3) clearing underbrush from midage timber as a means of extending quail range; (4) trout stream improvement; (5) access road to trout streams; (6) water diversion canals; (7) renovation of hatchery ponds.

It is presumed from your letter that local matching funds would not be required. In the event matching funds are necessary, our interest will be considerably dampened since we have just recently committed practically all our surplus in the accelerated public works program and would therefore not be in position to utilize any new allocations under a similar arrangement.

If the nonmatching assumption is correct, the previously mentioned activities would effectively provide approximately 25 man-years employment, and this with a minimum of planning or delay.

Please feel free to call on us at any time, and if you need further information, we shall be glad to furnish it.

Very truly yours,

JAMES W. WEBB, Director.

SOUTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,
DIVISION OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES,
Charleston, S.C., June 8. 1964.

Senator GAYLORD NELSON,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR NELSON: Thank you very much for your letter of June 3. Your proposed legislation sounds very interesting.

In my own department, which deals solely with the commercial fisheries of South Carolina, your proposal may fit in with oyster conservation. However, practically all the oyster lands in South Carolina are State owned but are leased out to the industry. The industry rather than the State is responsible for planting shell and cultivating these lands. The use of labor for this type of cultivation in the past decade has declined since mechanical means are now almost universally employed. For the State to take over the planting of these lands with Federal funds would be more of a subsidy to the oyster industry rather than an aid to unemployed workers. In our case here we would need funds to purchase shell from the oystermen for replanting or we would need statewide legislation for the State to take the shell from the industry. (This is done in several other States.)

There are some but not many acres of State owned, but unleased, oyster bottoms which could be improved by shell planting or the transplanting of seed oysters. In this respect your proposal would be very helpful. Such a project would require the use of a dragline, barges, pumps, and a small tug. In our case the latter could be supplied by our research laboratory. The other equipment would have to be rented. Under your bill would such cost be the responsibility of the State on a matching fund basis, or would the entire project be federally financed?

I appreciate your letting me have the opportunity to comment and I shall greatly appreciate it if you would keep me informed as the bill is worked out. Sincerely yours,

G. ROBERT LUNZ, Director.

Hon. GAYLORD NELSON,

SOUTH CAROLINA STATE COMMISSION OF FORESTRY,
Columbia, June 11, 1964.

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR NELSON: Mr. C. H. Flory retired last March. However, I will attempt to answer the questions contained in your letter of May 29.

As you are probably aware, our State parks are open only on a limited basis at present due to some integration problems. As a result, State park improvement work is suspended.

Most landowners who carry out timber stand improvement work on private lands in South Carolina are receiving help through the ACP with the actual work being done either by the landowners themselves or through contract with jobbers or consulting foresters. Work on State forest areas is already financed by the State with some soil bank, title IV assistance.

We do have some boundary survey work necessary on a 45,000-acre State forest area which would require some 5 years of technical time (engineer) and 25 manyears of labor.

The present programs of CM-2 and CFM could be more adequately financed which would increase employment some. For example, a 10-percent increase in Federal CM-2 funds to South Carolina would amount to approximately $30,000 and would increase part-time employment of nonskilled flexible forest fire crews plus possible employment of one or two full-time men.

We have a large reforestation job in South Carolina on private lands. This job is proceeding too slowly although about 60,000 to 70,000 acres per year are being planted. Additional funds for forestry practices through the agricultural conservation program (ASCS) would speed this job and afford some additional employment. The same approach would help with the necessary timber stand improvement work.

I have no estimate of man-years or dollars needed to accomplish any of the above. I am not in favor of a crash program which quite often spends large amounts with small accomplishments.

Very truly yours,

JOHN R. TILLER, State Forester.

SOUTH CAROLINA,

STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT,
Columbia, S.C., June 10, 1964.

Hon. GAYLORD NELSON,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.O.

DEAR SENATOR NELSON: I was delayed in replying to your letter of May 29 because I was out of town attending a meeting. Our department does not necessarily advocate provision of funds for utilization of unemployed workers. If, however, such a program were inaugurated, our department could utilize workers of this type to good advantage if additional funds were made available. You asked for specific information relating to the activities of our department, and we would list only those services which would be worthwhile and of advantage to the State as it relates only to work of the highway department. On the highways in the Interstate System, workers could be utilized in planting trees and shrubbery which would greatly improve the appearance of the right-of-way and in many instances would increase safety for motorists. Our State does not have sufficient funds at this time to undertake extensive improvements of this type as a part of our regular maintenance program.

In certain areas of the State, safety can be improved if funds were available for the improvement of drainage. This work could be undertaken in addition to the present program which is somewhat limited because of other financial commitments. There are several hundred schools in our State where children walk to and from the school within a 1-mile radius. If funds were available, sidewalks could be built in these heavily traveled areas, thus providing for the safety of a large number of schoolchildren. In general, a number of roadsides could be widened and safety areas provided for pedestrian traffic.

Certain types of the work outlined above would probably assist in defraying future maintenance costs, particularly on roads in the Interstate System. This work would also make a contribution to the prevention of soil erosion adjacent to highways.

If funds were available, it is estimated that our department could usefully undertake approximately 2,300 man-years of work without extensive preparation for the specific projects.

Yours very truly,

S. N. PEARMAN, Chief Highway Commissioner.

COOPER RIVER PARK AND PLAYGROUND COMMISSION,
North Charleston, S.C., June 18, 1964.

[blocks in formation]

DEAR SENATOR NELSON: Received your letter of June 12 concerning the possible use of the unemployed for recreation and park improvements.

The recreation and park superintendents in South Carolina, I am sure, would welcome the use of the unemployed to supplement the maintenance staff. I am confident that we could use the additional help to good advantage in our beautification program, and in establishing more family picnic areas for family recreation areas. We could also use the additional manpower to develop and clear now undeveloped areas. Also, I am sure our beaches on the coast could use the labor to make their areas more attractive.

As to the number of man-hours, it would be almost unlimited, as maintenance of parks and recreation areas are way behind the program in my community and most other communities. We are very fortunate in this area in having an abundance of undeveloped areas that could be developed and enjoyed by the entire family. All that is needed is the labor.

I suggest that you write to Mr. Carl Hust, superintendent of recreation in Greenville, S.C., W. M. Moore, superintendent of park and recreation in Columbia, S.C., and to Jack Vaughan, Spartanburg Recreation and Park Department, Spartanburg, S.C. Also, Sim Wright, president, South Carolina Recreation Society, Sumter, S.C.

If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Yours sincerely,
DANIEL H. JONES, Superintendent.

CITY OF CAMDEN, S.C.,

June 22, 1964.

Hon. GAYLORD NELSON,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR NELSON: Thank you very much for your letter of June 15 regarding your proposed legislation concerning Federal funds to utilize unemployed workers on conservation projects such as park development, etc.

Such a program would not have much application for a town such as ours. While our recreation program is larger than most towns of similar size, we still could not make effective use of substantial (I am defining "substantial" as 25 or more) numbers of workers. Ours is a town of 7,000, with another 7,000 or 8,000 in the immediate area.

While I am personally against most Federal Government "giveaways" and welfare programs, your proposal seems to be aimed at helping people help themselves and this is what we need.

It seems to me that your idea would have its greatest application at the State and county level, with some of the larger cities also sharing the benefits.

I am afraid I have not been of much help to you but if I can be of any further assistance, please let me know and I wish you luck with your proposed legislation. Sincerely,

BEN C. BOOZER, Director of Recreation.

SOUTH DAKOTA RESPONSES

SOUTH DAKOTA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT EXPANSION AGENCY,
Pierre, S. Dak., June 15, 1964.

Senator GAYLORD NELSON,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

SENATOR NELSON: I appreciated receiving your letter inviting me to submit a summary of estimates as to the potential utilization of unemployed workers on conservation projects in South Dakota.

Inasmuch as our agency is charged with the responsibilities of preparing a master plan for recreational development and because this project is now in its early stages, it is difficult for me to ascertain with any degree of certainty how much use would be made of Federal funds of this type.

I have checked with the game, fish, and parks department and have found that you have sent a similar request to them. Inasmuch as they are the action agency responsible for specific projects of the nature in which you have evidenced interest, I am sure that their reply will provide you with the needed information.

I shall call your letter to the attention of our commission at its July meeting and will contact you following that meeting should there be any specific suggestions resulting therefrom.

Cordially,

EUGENE H. STEARNS, Director.

SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF

GAME, FISH, AND PARKS, Hermosa, S. Dak., June 2, 1964.

Mr. GAYLORD NELSON,
U.S. Senator,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR NELSON: Custer State Park could keep a camp of approximately 30 working men busy doing related services such as; engineering and park planning staff, cooks, motor maintenance, and so forth. These would keep such a camp operating.

There are 150 miles of trail work, 50 miles of road building, 70 miles of stream improvement, and 5 dams and 15 homes for employees to be built, also picnic areas and roadside improvement to be done. Approximately 30,000 acres of timber is to be thinned, along with firefighting duties and 100 miles of fence maintenance and building. Such a crew could be used indefinitely.

Hoping this is the information you seek and assuring you of our desire to be of assistance whenever possible, I am

Respectfully yours,

Mr. GAYLORD NELSON,

U.S. Senator, Washington, D.C.

LES PRICE, Superintendent.

SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF

GAME, FISH, AND PARKS,
Pierre, S. Dak., June 30, 1964.

DEAR SENATOR NELSON: In reply to your letter of June 3 requesting information as to utilization on conservation projects of presently unemployed workers. we submit for your consideration the following information:

The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks would have few work opportunities for large encampments of the CCC era. However, small crews or groups could be utilized. If at all possible we would also prefer to hire local men living in their own homes. Any such program should also provide for purchase of special or vehicular equipment needed by the crews. Within a 2-year period we could probably utilize the following:

[blocks in formation]

Erosion control and forest protection--

State forestry projects:

Thinning and pruning--.

Fire control (suppression and presuppression)_.

Road maintenance__.

Should you desire more detailed information, please let us know.

Sincerely,

[merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors]

WALTER J. FILLMORE, Director.

CITY OF HURON PARK DEPARTMENT,
Huron, S. Dak., July 15, 1964.

GAYLORD NELSON,

U.S. Senator, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR NELSON: Thank you very kindly for your letter of June 12, 1964, relative to conservation projects which could be undertaken by unemployed workers.

If Federal funds were available, there are several projects that could be implemented in and around the city of Huron, S. Dak. We have a river that runs through our city limits and a small lake adjacent thereto. Bank or shoreline stabilization is needed on both.

The river should be dredged and cleaned out; all the rough fish in our lake should be cleaned out and restocked. We also have two fair size park areas that are undeveloped where trees and shrubs could be planted, roads built, landscaping and general development of the parks, swimming pools and proper playground areas could be developed within these areas.

In my opinion there is no problem in finding something worthwhile that can be accomplished by your suggested program. It is difficult to estimate the number of man-years, but I would suggest 100 would not be unreasonable.

Respectfully yours,

Hon. GAYLORD NELSON,
U.S. Senate,

JACK KUNHART, Superintendent of Parks.

TENNESSEE RESPONSES

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION,
Nashville, June 19, 1964.

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR NELSON: Your letter of June 3, 1964, with regard to the proposed legislation to utilize unemployed workers on conservation projects would have been answered sooner had I not been engaged in getting a full and comprehensive report of the number of such workers we could use in our affected divisions and the specific kind of projects on which we could use them without extensive preparation.

Attached herewith are copies of memorandums addressed to me from our division of State parks and our division of forestry both of which, as indicated, would greatly welcome such a program.

While these two divisions would be the two to benefit in the largest degree, it is also my feeling that we could make good use of some of these employees in our division of geology and the water resources division.

Thanking you for this opportunity and hoping this material will be of assistance, I am,

Sincerely,

DONALD M. MCSWEEN.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »