depression (let's not go through that again) our department can absorb up to 2,000 extra men. The specific type of programs would vary with the seasons in order to accomplish the maximum results. All projects would fall into the conservation and recreation category; stream improvement, park rehabilitation, park development, tree disease control, etc. Sincerely yours, J. J. GACKENBACH, Superintendent of Parks. YORK RECREATION COMMISSION, Re Federal funds for park employment program. Senator GAYLORD NELSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR NELSON: York has an undeveloped natural park of 25 acres that requires development. We also have grass seeding, tree planting, and park maintenance work in the city not presently being cared for. It would be my estimate that full employment for the spring, summer, and fall program could be provided for 18 to 25 men if funds were available. The York Recreation Commission has actively sponsored "Youth on Call," an employment promotion project for youth, due to the fact that so many out-ofschool youth are unemployed. A Federal program for this age group is of prime importance. These young people learn life habits at this age. Opportunities for employment are essential to their development into responsible adulthood. I personally feel that a Government work program is most essential for youth. Enclosed are some bulletins on our local program. SYLVIA C. NEWCOMBE, Executive Director. Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, Washington, D.C. HEMPFIELD TOWNSHIP RECREATION COMMISSION, DEAR MR. NELSON: Our recreation program covers an area of 95 square miles and we serve a population of 35,000 people. If such funds would be available, we would utilize such people in maintaining our 33 playgrounds. At the present time, we depend on volunteer help for such work and most of the time these volunteers bave other work to do. We would use these unemployed people to paint equipment, cut grass, construct baseball-softball fields, construct and install baseball backstops, install equipment, and general maintenance of our facilities; such as, raking and draging ballfields. This type of work is being done now by volunteers but, if we had such a work force, the caliber of work would be much better and we would be sure that this work would be done on schedule. It is hard for me to estimate the man-years of work available. I would say that we could keep a force of 12 men working a 40-hour week for the months of April, May, June, July, August, and September. I hope that this information proves satisfactory and that such legislation will be passed. Feel free to contact me at any time if the need arises. Sincerely yours, DONALD F. MOSHER, Director. LATROBE PARK AND RECREATION BOARD, Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, Washington, D.O. DEAR SENATOR NELSON: May I apologize for not responding immediately to your communication of June 15, 1964. However, the park and recreation people are extremely busy at this time of the year. May I compliment you on your proposal to utilize unemployed workers on conservation projects. We, the Latrobe Park & Recreation Board, participated in a similar project, Pierson Act 937, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, from 1954 to 1959, and the benefits were twofold. The project accelerated the development of park and recreation areas within our municipal boundaries. It also had several apparent benefits, particularly moralwise for the assignee. The local program was terminated due to Westmoreland County, political, and big-union pressures. Several attempts to join in participating in Governor Scranton's relief works and rehabilitation program has resulted in the same type opposition. The sad commentary on the local picture is that the unemployed workers project, 1954-59, laid the groundwork for the subsequent expenditure of over $300,000 in private and tax moneys for capital improvement in the recreation areas of the community. This fact makes little or no impression on those persons sitting on the policymaking board of public assistance. We, the park and recreation board, would probably participate in such a Federal program. Our parks, playgrounds, and other facilities will require constant attention and planning to keep pace with public demand and usage. Very truly yours, HAROLD L. DEICHERT, Park and Recreation Director. MONROEVILLE RECREATION BOARD, Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR NELSON: Your request of June 15 regarding specific information on possible utilization of unemployed workers on conservation projects has been received. I appreciate your confidence in making this request of me and I hope to complete this project by the end of this next week and I shall have it in your hands soon thereafter. Good luck with your work on the bill and I am quite sure that it will answer a real need. Sincerely yours, WARREN D. PFOST. RHODE ISLAND RESPONSES STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS, Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: I believe the program you envision has tremendous merit not only from the economic angle of putting the unemployed to work, but in giving conservation activities a much needed assist. We have no up-to-date estimate of manpower required to complete pending conservation programs, but a few years ago we got together an estimate at that time. Revising that estimate slightly we came up with 85 man-years. This work would be primarily on State owned or leased areas and includes wildlife habitat improvement consisting of thinning and clearing vegetation to release desirable species, creating forest openings, planting trees and shrubs, etc.; stream improvement, consisting of bank stabilization, devices to create pools, stepovers, etc.; and shellfish management. The latter probably differs from the work of most agencies and consists of removing perfectly good shellfish from water that is contaminated by domestic pollution and placing it in clean waters where, after a period of time, the shellfish is safe for human consumption. Very truly yours, THOMAS J. WRIGHT, Chief. CITY OF PROVIDENCE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PARKS, Providence, R.I., June 22, 1964. Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR NELSON: In reference to your letter of June 15 regarding your conservation projects, the city of Providence and the Rhode Island Zoological Society are working to upgrade our displays of animals. Contemplated is a moated North American Plains exhibit and mountain lion display. These projects would require at least 100 man-years' to complete. Landscape: Another project will be the revitalizing of various areas here in the park by planting pine, hemlock, rhododendron, etc., to replace the existing overgrown, crowded material which must first be cleared out before replanting. Our Japanese gardens will also require many more labor hours as well as money before completion, at least 175 man-years would be necessary. Therefore, I would say that if funds were available, I could certainly utilize a substantial number of workers to complete and maintain our various projects. Thank you for your interest in our park. Sincerely, DEAR SENATOR NELSON: It is with deep regret that I advise that our distinguished general manager, Mr. Jefferies, died on April 20, 1964. Your letter to him requesting specific information relative to your proposed legislation to provide funds to Federal, State, county, and municipal agencies to utilize unemployed workers on conservation projects has been referred to me for answer. We list herein projects which could be done without extensive new preparations and on which unemployed workers could be utilized if funds for such programs were available. (a) Roads, trails, and bridges. Roads into forest areas for fire protec- (c) Forest development and utilization provisions, including recreation (d) Small impoundment dams-water and erosion control, recreational purposes- (e) Items of forestry improvement-reseeding, reforestation, timber Total_ $100, 000 40, 000 85,000 60,000 150, 000 85,000 520,000 If the above projects were acceptable and the program utilized, we estimate that at least 125 man-years of work could be usefully undertaken. If additional information is needed, please let us know. Yours very truly, W. CARL WALSH, Manager of General Maintenance. SOUTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, 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, 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, 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, Hon. GAYLORD NELSON, Washington, D.C. 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. |