yet provide effective erosion control, roadside beautification with other possible values such as wildlife food and cover. 2. Techniques for establishing adapted plant matrials on adverse sites. Problem C. Stabilization of Waterways on sloping farm lands 1. Lack of adapted grass species for use in waterways on sloping erodible soils. 2. Difficulty of establishing and maintaining vegetation on erodible soils requiring waterways for disposal of excess water. Needs 1. Improved species which afford quick establishment, high resistence to water velocities and low maintenance requirements. 2. Improved planning practices which will reduce cost, but insure establishment. Problem D. Windbreaks 1. Crops are damaged and excessive soil loss results from wind storms particularly in the Tanana and Matanuska Valleys. Needs 1. Woody and herbaceous plants adapted for windbreak use under Alaska conditions. Should require minimum maintenance for height control, have proper porosity and height, and be con-competitive with adjoining crops while giving the desired protection to soils and crops. 2. Plants having supplemental wildlife value in addition to high value for windbreaks. E. Stabilization and screening of recreational and rural fringe areas Problem 1. Vegetation is difficult to maintain on acres of concentrated traffic such as playgrounds, parking areas, nature trails, highway dividing strips, etc. Increasing demand for and use of these facilities represent a major stabilizing problem. 2. Plants having esthetic value that are tolerant of poor sites and heavy use. 3. Property owners often want screening plants that will attract wildlife. Needs 1. Species which provide wear-resistant turf. 2. Species with low maintenance requirements for ground cover and other conservation use on cleared and regraded camp sites, and similar areas where conditions are variable. 3. Screening plants tolerant to a variety of sites. In addition, these plants should have high esthetic and wildlife value. Problem F. Wildlife and cover plants 1. Food supplies and cover for game and birds are scarce during certain seasons, particularly winter. 2. Plants for wildlife use must compete with native vegetation and thrive under low level of management on a wide variety of soil conditions. Needs 1. Plants which provide erosion control as well as seasonal food and cover, and which are acquired to persist under adverse conditions of soil, climate and management. 2. Plants that, when properly located and used, will attract and concentrate birds and animals in areas where they may be easily observed by wildlife enthusiasts or be available to hunters. 3. Plants which resist lodging under snow and ice pressures. G. Supplemental Considerations 1. Correlate the relationship of plant-soil-climate, which will assure maximum spread and efficient use of plants in the conservation program. 2. Develop techniques to maintain or improve the natural, in-place cover at low costs. MEANS AND FACILITIES The system outlined in Plant Materials Memorandum SCS-1 (revised) for collecting, selecting, evaluating, and releasing plant materials will be adhered to in meeting the stated needs and problems. Studies relating to improved techniques for establishment, culture, management, seed or stock production, harvest, and storage will be carried on simultaneously with the selection and evaluation of improved plant materials. The State Conservationist will formally approve Field Evaluation Planting plans and sites and may support such planned and approved outlying plantings with funds and/or personnel. Planting stock and seed will be provided from the Center. The work of the Center will include the following general functions: 1. Plant materials potentially adapted to one or more of the aforementioned needs will be collected from all available sources, assembled into use groups, and initially evaluated with standards under controlled conditions. 2. Accessions showing promise will be selected and initially increased, using standard seed or stock production techniques. The increase will be used for further study in Advanced Evaluations or Field Evaluation Plantings. 3. Advanced Evaluations will be made on selected accessions in plots at vary ing treatment levels, by use groups. A standard plant will be used for comparison. Requirements of the cooperating agency as to design, measurements and statistical analysis will be followed, when possible. 4. Adaptation, conservation value and cultural requirements of plant materials will be studied in Field Evaluation Plantings on specific, selected problem sites off the Center. 5. Necessary and practical cultural requirements of new plant materials will be determined at the Center. Studies may include techniques of establishment, propagation, and utilization. 6. Accessions selected for their superior performance in advanced and field evaluation plantings will be supplementally increased in quantity for inclusion in the field planting program. Field Plantings are the final test of superiority on a management unit basis under actual use conditions on lands of Subdistrict cooperators. 7. When superiority of new accessions has been established under actual use conditions in Field Plantings, selections will be proposed to the Agricultural Experiment Station for joint release as a named variety. 8. Breeder and foundation seed blocks or other propagules of improved plant materials will be maintained at the Center under the joint supervision of the Center Manager and a designated representative of the cooperating agency. 9. Foundation quality seed or other propagules will be produced in accordance with standards accepted by certification agencies. This material will be made available to commercial districts or other agencies cooperating with the Soil Conservation Service. Production will be maintained as long as needed for the furtherance of soil and water conservation programs. 10. A technical report will be prepared annually on the calendar year basis by the Center Manager. It will be composed of a narrative section on the highlights of the year with selected photographs and a section of appendices which contains a detailed record of observations and measurements. The report will be submitted to the Alaska State Conservationist by the first of March. 11. An Annual Plan of Operations will be prepared by the Center Manager: concurred in by the Regional Plant Materials Specialist; reviewed by the Admin istrator's Plant Materials Committee by October 15, and approved by the State Conservationist for Alaska. This annual plan will list specific objectives set forth in the Long-Range Program. Insofar as possible, jobs will be described in quantitative terms. 12. The Annual Plan of Operations will be supplemented by detailed Work Plans developed by the Center Manager and appropriate specialists. Each plan will be systematically numbered, descriptively titled and tied to a specific section of the Long-Range Program. These projected plans will guide the Center Manager on planned procedures and may carry through more than one year. OTHER PHASES OF CENTER WORK A. Information A summary report will be prepared on all studies as they are completed. This information can be published or included in technical guides, as may be appropriate. A concerted effort will be made to prepare news stories, feature articles, exhibits, etc., to keep Service personnel, cooperators, and the general public informed as to accomplishments at the Center. All types of information media will be utilized. B. Training All facilities at the Center and all plantings in the field are locations where both Service personnel and other interested people can be trained in plant materials. Scheduled training sessions at the Center are the most effective method of presenting results and training personnel. The Center will be used for training personnel in the Plant Materials discipline. C. Cost-return information Cost and return information will be accumulated for species and techniques which may go into commercial production or use. These data will be computed for each major species or techniques and will be included in annual and summary reports. D. Relations It is the intention to conduct this work, wherever possible, in cooperation with other concerned state and Federal agencies. Such cooperation offers opportunities for joint development and release of improved varieties, and for exchange of information, seed or planting stock. Exchanges will be designed for mutual benefits. To further these aims a cooperative agreement will be developed between the Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station and the Soil Conservation Service and with other experiment stations as needed. Informal, local cooperation with the Extension Service and other State and Federal agencies, will be continued. MEETING THE NEED In recognition of the need for solving vegetative problems in soil and water conservation, since 1953 the Congress of the United States has authorized and specifically provided funds to the Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, for the establishment and operation of 18 Plant Materials Centers. Working cooperatively with state experiment stations and other state and federal agencies, these 18 Centers serve major land resource areas of the United States. Not any, however, are located so that they have the soils and climate to serve Alaska. To meet the need and aid in developing Agriculture, it is proposed that the Soil Conservation Service be authorized and provided funds to establish a Plant Materials Center in Alaska. The Center would consist of about 40 acres of crop land. It would be located on a soil representative of the area. The Center would require a set of buildings. A small office building with attached greenhouse is needed for housing the staff and conducting plant propagation or other plant experimentation. Suitable outbuildings are needed for housing equipment; for drying, cleaning, storing seed, and for plant grading, storing and shipping. It is important that the Center will have suitable equipment for conducting the many phases of its work. A list of needed equipment and its estimated cost is shown as follows: 1. Wheel-type tractor, hydraulic controls, w/cultivators, cutter-bar mower, 2-way plow, side-dressing attachment__ Estimated cost $9,000 2. Garden tractor (gravelly type), w/cutter-bar mower, cultivators rotary plow, 100-gal. power sprayer_. 3. Swather 1,050 2,200 4. Combine, 6 ft. (Allis-Chalmers or equiv.), self-powered, tractordrawn 5,500 5. Harrow, spiketooth, 10 foot-. 6. Disk, tandem, 10 foot--- 7. Cultipacker, double, 10 foot--- 8. Grain drill, w/fertilizer attachment, 8 foot-- 1,000 490 1, 100 9. Fertilizer spreader, 8 foot_--- 10. Irrigation system, portable, w/pump-- 11. Pickup truck, 4 ton---. 12. Station wagon, 6-passenger__ 13. Slipper seed cleaning mill w/elevators, bin hopper_. 14. Small hammer mill w/variable speed transmission___. 15. Miscellaneosu items: a. office furniture___ b. small tools___. c. other small equipment (includes office equipment). Total equipment cost--- 450 15,000 2,650 2,700 2, 600 1,100 1,500 1,000 1,500 49, 255 A compilation of costs involved in intial purchase of land, construction of buildings, and equipping the Center is shown in the following estimate: 1. Land (40 acres at $600/Ac) - The Center will be staffed initially with two professional, one secretarial, and two sub-professional employees. During periods of peak workloads, two to four part-time employees would be hired from local labor sources. The annual cost of operation is estimated at $70,000. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge the immense help of Mr. Mason La Zelle. General Manager, Matanuska Electric Association, Inc., from whom much of the statistical information was obtained. Other Sources of Information were: Leaman S. Ellis, Agricultural Extension Service, Kotzebue Frank T. Bailey, United States Forest Service, Branch of State and Private Forestry State Department of Natural Resources Federal Field Committee Agricultural Task Force Report Mr. RESNICK. At this time, Mr. Montgomery, administrative assistant, but no relation to Congressman Montgomery, will read a letter into the record. Mr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Bob Montgomery is coming forward, this pertains to a matter in which I think the committee will be vitally interested in, that when we first started these hearings, you stated and it was so stated by committee members, that one of the main objectives of this committee was to look into the new Federal projects and see how they are working in rural America. We have a situation here about which we have written Mr. Shriver. I sent Mr. Montgomery-he was on his vacation actually in Mississippi-to investigate these complaints that we had from three counties which are rural counties in my district. STATEMENT OF BOB MONTGOMERY, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO CONGRESSMAN G. V. MONTGOMERY Mr. BOB MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, as the Congressman stated, this letter refers to a matter which might be considered limited in scope and the fact that it does apply to three particular counties in the Fourth Congressional District of Mississippi. Further, it refers to the problem of compliance with civil rights regulations of the Office of Economic Opportunity and as to whether or not the compliance or noncompliance with these regulations is substantially hindering the application and effectiveness of Federal programs, in particular, the Headstart program operated by the Office of Economic Opportunity within these three counties. I have personally visited in one of the counties and made the inspection and talked with school officials in all three of the involved counties. This letter was written to Sargent Shriver on June 23 and is a conclusion on the conversations and correspondence we have had with Congressman Montgomery's office over a period of 2 months: DEAR MR. SHRIVER: In the past several weeks I have been advised of some alarming events in connection with the Office of Economic Opportunity's programs in Mississippi. Summer Head Start applications for Sharkey County Board of Education; Madison County Board of Education; Canton Separate School District, and Yazoo Community Action, Incorporated, have been denied funds because, in the words of the Regional Director of OEO, "because the local organization is unable to secure facilities that would be available to white children;" because "the Head Start Program would again be held in historically Negro schools." The refusal to fund these districts also made reference to the local organizations' insufficient efforts to recruit white children for the Summer Program. The facts indicate that each local organization involved has publicized the Head Start Program and in many cases has made good faith attempts to personally inform the relatively few white children who are eligible, of the existing benefits of the programs. Certainly, in light of local feelings within the white community, which are not in sympathy with the efforts of the local organizations, should have been sufficient. The records of the Atlanta Office of OEO will indicate in detail what steps were taken to comply in this regard. In regard to the location of the Head Start Centers. They have been located in legally desegregated schools, by and large, geographically located in the area where the vast majority of the children reside and they are located in schools that have completely acceptable facilities and are conducive to the success of the program. Two local organizations vertified that the locations used were the only ones available because of summer classes and remodeling in the other available facilities. All of the above-mentioned programs have been conducted by qualified people and in many instances by the very teachers the students will have when they enter the first grade. Evaluations and conclusions are available to indicate that these programs have been a great success in preparing economically deprived students for entry into school. School officials as well as Community Action Officials have travelled to Washington, and Atlanta in an effort to receive approval and at all times evidenced |