TYPES OF WORK INCLUDED IN ESTIMATES A. Public works, partly funded: Nurseries: (a) Construction of new nurseries. (b) Improvement and expansion of old nurseries. Fences. Cattle guards, corrals, and other stock handling facilities. (a) Springs or pond development. (b) Well development. Water storage and flood-control structures. Shelters and bath houses. Organization camps. Winter sports areas: (a) Toboggan slides. (b) Ski jumps. (c) General area development (minor improvements, parking, etc.). Camp and picnic ground development. Swimming developments. Bathing beaches and improvements. Boat landings, docks, piers, etc. Roadside vistas and overlooks. Large signs and portals-permanent. Lookout towers and observatories. Forest development and utilization roads, construction and betterment. Trails (all classes). Bridges (major) 30 feet and over in length. Airplane landing strips and fields. Helicopter landing spots. Telephone lines. Radio installations, permanent. Water systems (domestic and public camp areas). Sanitary systems. Grounds development and minor administrative site improvements. Dwellings, permanent. Dormitories and crew houses, permanent. Offices, permanent. Warehouses, garages, barns, shops, equipment and utility buildings, permanent. Temporary and portable buildings. B. Public works, not funded: Research laboratories and facilities. Installation permanent administrative study plots, range plots, and tran Restoration or improvement of land productivity. Stock driveways and driftways. Water spreading and irrigation. Stream and drainage channel improvement (drainage, erosion and flood control). Insect control. Blister rust control. Control of other tree diseases. Fire hazard reduction : (a) Snag falling. (b) Disposal slash, debris, etc. Prescribed burning. Roadside cleanup and disposal projects. Firebreak clearing and construction. ACCELERATION POSSIBILITY Senator MCGEE. We have a copy here of information that we were seeking about the acceleration possibility I think, don't we, and we can put that in the record at this time rather than recite it. Mr. WELCH. Senator, I think the letter of transmittal together with the informational material covers fairly well the points raised. INVESTMENT SCHEDULE Senator MCGEE. Yes, make that a part of the record. Can you tell me in two or three sentences the nature of the $12 billion investment schedule that you have presented in the program for national forests? Mr. WELCH. I believe I will ask Dr. McArdle to comment on that, Senator. Senator McGEE. Fine. Mr. MCARDLE. I think, Senator McGee, you are probably referring to the table in a publication prepared 2 years ago for this committee in which we showed approximately $110 billion of nonrecurrent work, This was work that would be done once and then it is completed. In addition to that we had about $155 million of annual recurrent expenditures proposed in the program. I believe I am correct that this is what you have reference to. Senator McGEE. Yes. Mr. MCARDLE. Then I simply call attention to this particular table which involved a tremendous amount of planning. It involves construction of roads and buildings; the kind of thing you generally do once and then that is an end to it. This table is a summary Senator, for the 12-year program. It would amount to about an average of $140 million a year. The recurrent work, the work that would be done every year was $155 million so those two together would come close to an average of $295 million a year which is approximately what we had in the program. I am shooting off the cuff on this but that is the point I think you wanted emphasized. Senator McGEE. That is correct. Your table that was drawn for the proposed public works report shows that in 1962 alone, a single year, if I interpret it correctly, you could do over $400 million worth of work which would provide 700,000-plus man-months of employment. Now can we assume on this basis that the 12-year program that was presented in 1959 should be compressed into a very short interval? Mr. MCARDLE. Senator McGee, I am going to ask Assistant Chief Hendee to comment on that because he is probably one of the few in the Forest Service who keeps up-to-date on this particular subject. But let me comment in general along these lines. The answer to your question is "Yes," we could compress this 12-year program but I would want to now hedge and say it could not be compressed equally in all areas or in all kinds of work. It would be physically impossible to do that everywhere and for all kinds of work. For example, we could not raise enough trees in time to do the total job in a very short interval. It would have to be less compressed in that activity. In some parts of the country there might not be some kinds of work represented in a way that you could squeeze up the total program. But in general the answer to your question is "Yes." This 12-year program can be compressed. OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT Senator MCGEE. And it would be safe to say then with those reservations that the manpower projection as an employment factor, for example, provides great opportunities for additional employment during the next 2, or 3, or 4 years? Mr. MCARDLE. The answer to that question is also "Yes." Mr. MCARDLE. I would like to have Mr. Hendee expand on anything I said. Mr. HENDEE. I think actually, Senator McGee, that Dr. McArdle has given you about all I could give you unless you want to go into more detail in connection with this. It is true that this type of employment is not only important work but it can be done at a low man-year cost, too. We were alluding to that. I believe it will be well unless you have some questions on it not to take more time. Senator MCGEE. I am only interested in the very general point that was made. Mr. HENDEE. Yes, sir. Senator MCGEE. Here is a reservoir of employment opportunity that would be useful and constructive and it is ready to go now if we wanted to put our energies to it in that category. Mr. WELCH. Senator McGee, if I may, I might say there are a number of places in the country of high unemployment where this probably provides the only real opportunity for immediate effective relief of unemployment on constructive work associated with our resource development. Senator MCGEE. It relieves unemployment with investment really. Mr. WELCH. It certainly does. It is not a matter of providing employment per se. It is a matter of relating employment to a very much needed activity, associated with one of our great natural resources. Senator MCGEE. How many areas in how many States would be affected by this approach now? Mr. WELCH. I think we have a number of different maps that have been drawn relating to levels of unemployment. I wonder, Mac, if you or some of the fellows have any suggestions. As you well know, Senator, it is a changing pattern, with employment going up in some places and unemployment in others and so on. Senator MCGEE. Yes, I am familiar with the map. I wanted to make a record here so we get this picture complete. DISTRESSED AREAS WITH SURPLUS LABOR Mr. MCARDLE. Senator, I want to make sure that one point is in the record. These estimates that I was just talking about, the total estimates for a 12-year program were for the entire country. We are now talking about economically distressed areas, singling out some of the areas in the entire country and your question just a moment ago as I understand it was how many such areas would be involved. Senator MCGEE. That is particularly where surplus labor is available? Mr. MCARDLE. Last fall we began following very closely the reports of the Bureau of Labor Statistics on unemployment and began marking areas on a map, trying to see how close national forest areas would be to some of these areas of unemployment. We began trying to find a way in addition to show those areas of rural unemployment which we know about because our people lived out there. These areas generally were not reflected by the Bureau of Labor statistics at that time. And as a result when the new administration came in and encouraged us to present to them some of these figures we did so, I see you have our map in front of you now. Senator McGEE. Yes. Mr. MCARDLE. Which we prepared. Senator MCGEE. The staff advises me we probably can't print it in color but we can get the other emphasis. (The map referred to is in committee files.) Mr. MCARDLE. We attempted to show on that map the areas reported by the Bureau of Labor statistics on unemployment which gave considerable emphasis as you might expect to the cities and towns. We tried to get in also the areas of rural low income. To answer your question specifically, we would have to study, I would imagine, any special appropriation that might be made by this committee or any directive. We would need to also study the provisions of S. 1 which is now public law. As to criteria for selection of areas, we have studied the criteria. indicated in S. 1. I think we are going to have to get some assistance from the Labor Department in interpreting these criteria. But I think the law will apply to a rather substantial area of the country. Our past studies indicate there are parts of about 32 States and Puerto Rico which would qualify near natural forests. This would involve 70-some individual national forests or about 73 million acres of national forests as I remember. We can try to correct these figures in the record, Senator McGee. I am giving them from memory now. Senator MCGEE. Yes, sir. DETERMINATION OF DISTRESSED AREAS Mr. MCARDLE. But in gist as we understand the criteria which the Congress has set up for determination of economically distressed areas and if we were to accelerate programs in those areas about half of our national forests would be involved. More than half of the States are involved and for a total of almost half of the national forest acreage. I don't know if that answers your question or not. Senator MCGEE. Yes, it does and it makes obvious the answer to another point by Senator Byrd. Some of us have submitted an amendment that would seek to step up the appropriation for use in Forest Service that would alleviate the unemployment in critical areas. The figure that we have been using in this proposal is $30 million. As you have explained it here, Dr. McArdle, if such a figure were to be approved by the Congress it obviously would not tax your capabilities to put that $30 million to good use in critical unemployment areas? Mr. MCARDLE. No, sir; it would not. POSSIBLE USE OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS Senator MCGEE. Then let me ask this. In the year 1962, how much more could you use meaningfully than the $30 million? That again would have to be kind of off-the-cuff generalization at the moment but could be corrected in the record. Mr. MCARDLE. Senator, I don't know how best to answer that question. You are getting into policy matters which are determined at a much higher level in the executive branch than I occupy. Senator MCGEE. I don't want to put you in a bind with the Bureau of the Budget. On the other hand, we are trying to run a forest program and we think that you gentlemen that have the responsibility for our forests have a kind of expert judgment that has great bearing in terms of need and capability. Mr. MCARDLE. Irrespective of this policy aspect, it is the type of question I would not want to give you an off-the-cuff answer. It is too important. FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT DISTRESSED AREAS BILL Chairman HAYDEN. I want to ask this question. We passed this distressed areas bill, this S. 1 to which you referred. Has the Department of Agriculture had any information or request made of it as to whether a special budget estimate was to be submitted by the President on account of that bill? Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, we are in contact with the Department of Commerce at the present time. We have outlined certain programs of activity in which the Department of Agriculture could be engaged fruitfully as a part of the S. 1 program. I might say that we have indicated that some work can be done in forestry in these chronically depressed areas as a part of the bill. But as you know the bill has only passed recently. The director of this program has only come in within the last 2 or 3 days. We are not in a position to know what part or phase of the program we will handle. Chairman HAYDEN. That is what I was trying to get at. It seems to me there should be some coordination between what this committee might do immediately and what might be done a little later on. Mr. WELCH. I might say, Mr. Chairman, excuse me, in connection with our resource development program the Department of Agriculture is vitally interested in S. 1. This interest is in terms of what it |