The Chief of Engineers has studied the area and the requirements of local interests and has come to the conclusion that the provision of a channel to the south of Lowes wharf and a small turning basin in front of Lowes wharf would provide sufficient shelter for the existing fishing fleet and give them better access to the fishing grounds. That recommendation has been furnished to the State of Maryland and the State has indicated its concurrence. Likewise, the Bureau of the Budget indicated concurrence with those recommendations. The cost of the project as contained in the original document shows $29,200 Federal cost and $6,000 non-Federal cost, for a grand total of $35,200. The revised cost based on prices in the fall of 1953 shows a Federal cost of $31,200 and a non-Federal cost of $6,400, for a grand total of $37,600. The annual charges, again based on that revised cost, are $2,315. The local cooperation required is to furnish the rights-of-way and spoil disposal areas for the construction and subsequent maintenance; remove existing piling and other structures; construct an adequate public bulkhead; hold and save the United States free from damages in construction and maintenance, and such damage as may occur to the public or leased oysterbeds as a result of construction or maintenance. The benefits we have estimated would accrue to the fishing fleet in the vicinity of Lowes wharf would be due to: (1) Easier access to the fishing grounds; and (2) a shelter from the storms and ice flows that take place during the wintertime. The existing fleet at Lowes Harbor is composed of 15 to 20 boats, permanently docked there; and another 30 vessels utilize those facilities during a great portion of the oyster season. The elimination of damages is one item of benefit. The other principal item would be the fact that the vessels that are permanently based there and those that come there for occasional fishing would be able to go out into the fishing beds a greater proportion of the season. We have estimated that the permanent fleet is losing about 10 days a year. With the provision of the channel and basin they could utilize the bulk of the fishing season and increase their oyster take. So those are the two principal benefits: (1) A greater oyster take; and (2) elimination of some of the damages to the fleet that are presently taking place. Mr. ANGELL. Colonel, are those publicly owned oysterbeds also? Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir. They are. Mr. ANGELL. What arrangements do they make for parceling out those beds to various fishermen ? Colonel MILNE. By permit issued by the State. Mr. ANGELL. Are there any questions on my right? (No response.) Mr. ANGELL. Any questions on my left? (No response.) Mr. ANGELL. Thank you, Colonel. As I stated a moment ago, Representative Miller desires to be heard on these 2 projects, and also on the 5 additional projects which are listed for tomorrow. He will be here tomorrow and make a presentation covering all of the Maryland projects. Is there anyone present who desires to be heard on any of these projects we have considered this morning? (No response.) Mr. ANGELL. If not, we stand adjourned until tomorrow. (Whereupon, at 11:20 p. m. the hearing was adjourned until 10 a. m. the following day, Friday, February 5, 1954.) RIVERS AND HARBORS OMNIBUS BILL FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1954 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in room 1302, New House Office Building, Hon. Homer D. Angell (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. ANGELL. The committee will come to order, as we have quite a number of projects we want to dispose of today if it is possible. We were considering projects in Maryland when we adjourned yesterday. First I want to say that Congressman Miller is very much interested in these projects, I understand. When Colonel Milne has made his statement with reference to the projects Mr. Miller will come before. the committee and he would like to be heard at that time on all of the Maryland projects. We will give him about fifteen minutes' notice before we conclude Colonel Milne's presentation. The first project to be taken up is the Nanticoke River, in House Document 91. NANTICOKE RIVER, BIVALVE, WICOMICO COUNTY, MD. Mr. ANGELL. Colonel Milne, you may proceed, if you will, please. STATEMENT OF COL. W. D. MILNE, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY-Resumed Colonel MILNE. Mr. Chairman, the report on the Nanticoke River, Bivalve, Wicomico County, Md., is contained in House Document 91 of the 82d Congress, 1st session. This was prepared in accordance with the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945. Bivalve is a small community in Maryland located on the Nanticoke River on the east side of Chesapeake Bay. As you might expect, Mr. Chairman, the area is sparse in population which is engaged primarily in the fishing industry. There is no existing Federal project at Bivalve at this time. During the WPA days a shelter was built at Bivalve and a basin inside of this shelter was dredged out. However, that has deteriorated over the years until today it represents at best a very poor shelter for the many fishing boats in the vicinity of Bivalve. Commerce for the past several years averaged about 1,400 tons annually. It is almost entirely comprised of oysters. 39263-54-vol. 1-14 195 Navigation has experienced a considerable amount of difficulty in this area, due primarily to the lack of a harbor or anchorage area. There are some 30 to 40 fishing craft that now must moor along the shores of the Nanticoke River. That results, as you might well expect, in a great deal of damage to the craft during periods of storms, and it often results in considerable delays in getting to the fishing grounds. Local interests have considered that a channel and shelter basin, or anchorage basin, is required to enable them adequately to fish the area off the Nanticoke River. They have requested that consideration be given to a channel 7 feet in depth and an anchorage basin just inside the shoreline of the Nanticoke River in a little area known as Jacksons Gut. The Chief of Engineers made a very thorough investigation of the economics of the area, and the economics of the improved navigation project in the vicinity, and has come to the conclusion that a channel 7 feet in depth and 60 feet wide flaring into an anchorage basin just inside Jacksons Gut is economically justified. In addition it is considered that the provision of two jetties on either side of the channel is necessary to reduce what might be a very excessive amount of maintenance at a future date. The recommendations of the Corps of Engineers have been furnished to the Governor of the State and he has indicated that he was satisfied with those recommendations. The Bureau of the Budget, however, has indicated certain exceptions, and I think it might be well to read into the record that portion of the Bureau of the Budget's letter that is applicable. The report of the Chief of Engineers indicates that completion of the project including a turning basin of 550-foot length would cost $12,700 more than a project with a turning basin 350 feet long. While the incremential annual cost of an improvement with a 550-foot turning basin over an improvement with a 350-foot basin is $900, the report shows no increased annual benefits for the larger project. Although the report indicates that the additional work could be accomplished without appreciably lowering the favorable benefit-cost ratio, it appears that provision of the additional maneuvering area may not be warranted at this time. Accordingly, it is believed that the turning basin should be limited to a length of 350 feet at present and that it should not be extended to a length of 550 feet until a feasibility report has been prepared indicating that the additional work is economically justified. On this basis I am authorized by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to advise you that there would be no objection to the submission of the report to Congress. With your permission, I would like to read the comments of the Chief of Engineers into the record on that particular point. Mr. ANGELL. You may do so, Colonel. Colonel MILNE. I am just going to read one quotation from the report of the Chief of Engineers. Mr. ANGELL. On what page? Colonel MILNE. It is on page No. 7 of the report, sir, in paragraph 10 (d): And provided further, That the basin shall be constructed 150 feet wide and 350 feet long initially, and extended to 550 feet in length after its use and need is found sufficient in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers to warrant the additional expenditure involved. In other words, Mr. Chairman, there is no intent on the part of the engineers to construct that basin longer than 350 feet, and it would only be constructed to 550 feet if and when it were found desirable. Based on the original project document and the costs at that time we estimated that this project would cost $182,300. That included $10,000 of non-Federal funds. That was the 350-foot basin. For the 550-foot basin Mr. ANGELL. Is that the present cost? Colonel MILNE. No, sir. That was the 1949 cost. Mr. ANGELL. You are going to give those as corrected for November 1953 ? Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir. The 550-foot basin has a total cost of $195,000. Based on the revised costs to fall 1953, the Federal cost is $198,000, and the nonFederal cost is $10,700, for a total of $208,700. The annual charges, again based on the revised costs, are $10,700. The benefit-cost ratio, based on the revised costs, is 1.45 to 1. Local cooperation required is the furnishing of lands, easements, right-of-way, a spoil-disposal area for construction and maintenance, and holding and saving the Federal Government free from damages. Also, a public landing and approaches and relocation of a power line across the mouth of Jacksons Gut. The benefits that would be attributable to the construction of this project are a reduction in damages to the existing fishing fleet moored on the Nanticoke River in the vicinity of Bivalve, and an opportunity for the operators of the fishing boats utilizing that area to dispose of their catch without being dependent upon conditions of tide. Mr. ANGELL. Bivalve is a city, or a county, or just what is it? Colonel MILNE. It is the name of a little community on the Nanticoke River. Mr. ANGELL. An unincorporated community? Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir. Mr. ANGELL. This is a new project, Colonel; is it not? Colonel MILNE. It would be a new project, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ANGELL. There is no improvement of an existing project here and no similar project in the vicinity? Colonel MILNE. There is no existing project at Bivalve, with the exception, as I mentioned earlier, of this former WPA basin. Nanticoke Harbor, several miles southward, is fully utilized. Mr. ANGELL. Is that being utilized now? Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir; it is being utilized. When originally constructed, Mr. Chairman, it was designed to provide a shelter area for all of the boats at Bivalve. However, since it has been built the basin silted up very badly both inside and outside, so that only a small fraction of the boats moored in this area are able to take shelter inside the WPA basin. Mr. ANGELL. The project would be and has been used almost exclusively for fishing; is that true? Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir. Mr. ANGELL. Does it afford a refuge harbor? Colonel MILNE. No, sir; not in the true sense of a refuge harbor. It does provide anchorage for the boats utilizing this area, and to that extent a boat in distress could use it; but it is not primarily a harbor of refuge. Mr. ANGELL. Is there provision for anchorage of boats during 24 hours of the day there, or is it just utilized for loading and unloading of the catch? |