In 1951, a total of 41,303 tons of commerce passed through Crisfield Harbor. Traffic consisted primarily of fish, petroleum products, and fertilizers. The difficulty that is being experienced by navigation interests in the vicinity of Crisfield is due to almost a complete lack of anchorage in the harbor area. The result is that the fleet is crowded very, very close together, and in periods of storm it suffers rather extensive damage.

At the present time the fleet is moored in this area in the harbor. It is not adequate to take care of the 225 fishing vessels of 5 tons or over that operate out of Crisfield.

Local interests have requested that consideration be given to providing a suitable mooring area. The Chief of Engineers has examined the requirements and considers that they are economically justified, and recommends that an anchorage area 10 feet in depth, 600 feet wide and 1,000 feet long be provided in Somers Cove, and in addition a channel 10 feet in depth and approximately 100 feet wide be cut across the land to provide access to Somers Cove.

There were two possible routes for this channel. One solution would be to dredge a channel through the existing opening into Somers Cove; a second solution would be to dredge across the fast land. We recommended this latter method. The reason why we chose this method rather than going through the existing opening was because the latter would require the construction of a new drawbridge, and the cost of that bridge, coupled with the cost of dredging, would be far in excess of the cost of proceeding along the lines as recommended by the Chief of Engineers.

The recommendations of the Chief of Engineers have been furnished to the Governor of the State of Maryland, and he has concurred. The Bureau of the Budget has likewise concurred in its recommendations.

I should like to say that although the Bureau of the Budget has concurred in our recommendations, they did suggest that we reanalyze the benefits and costs prior to starting any construction. It is a standard procedure of the Corps of Engineers prior to starting the construction of any authorized project to do just that. We thoroughly investigate the benefits and costs that exist at the time and if the project is no longer justified then it will not be recommended by the Corps of Engineers for construction.

The cost as contained in the document shows a Federal cost of $78,750 and a non-Federal cost of $53,000 for a total of $131,750. Those costs revised to the fall of 1953 show a Federal cost of $103,000 and a non-Federal cost of $74,000 for a total of $177,000.

The annual charges based on the revised costs are $8,240 of which approximately $2,000 represents annual maintenance. The benefitcost ratio again based on the revised costs is 2.79 to 1.

Local cooperation provides that local interests furnish all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, as well as spoil disposal areas; hold and save the United States free from damages; that they remove the existing structure from the area to be dredged, and construct a suitable road across, connecting the lower portion of Jersey Island to Crisfield; and make a cash contribution of $43,200 toward the cost of the improvement.

I think it would be well if I explained just briefly why the local contribution is so high. The Federal cost of dredging, if we utilized

the existing opening into Somers Cove was approximately $103,000. The large additional cost of utilizing this site was occasioned by the bridge replacement which is a local responsibility. However, the cost of dredging on the recommended site was quite a few thousand dollars more. Accordingly we feel that that extra cost of dredging should be borne by the local interests since the only reason for selecting the recommended site was to make the overall cost of the project

less.

The cash contribution of $43,200 is due to the increased cost of dredging. Other costs involved are the provision of a road, and the furnishing of lands and rights-of-way. The benefits that will accrue as a result of this project are solely due to reducing the damages now occasioned to the fishing fleet. There are approximately 225 vessels moored at Crisfield. And they are fairly sizable ships. As I recall many of those ships are 5 tons or larger. They are moored within a few feet of one another. During periods of storms they hit one another and are badly damaged. It is estimated that the average damage suffered by each boat in the Crisfield area is $200 a year. The provision of this sheltered area in Somers Cove will greatly reduce that damage.

One other point I would like to clear up, Mr. Chairman, is that in the project document under the terms of local cooperation we recommended that local interests pay an item of $28,000 for the cost of this dredging. That was based on the cost at the time the project document was prepared. Our cost estimate now is $43,200, and, if this project is authorized, to be consistent language should be inserted in the bill which would make it clear that local interests would be required to reimburse or pay for the cost of extra dredging, whatever that cost might be.

Mr. ANGELL. Colonel, will you submit the appropriate language for that purpose so that it can be considered at the writing of this bill? Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. Is there any considerable tonnage other than fish using that area?

Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir. There is. As a matter of fact tonnagewise petroleum represents the largest single item. Dollarwise I would imagine that the fish tonnage is worth more.

Mr. ANGELL. Is there any question on my right?

(No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. On my left.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Mack.

Mr. MACK. Colonel, these 8 projects located over an area of 100 miles up and down Chesapeake Bay would serve all of the fishing boats that use the entire bay. It might be helpful to the committee if at the conclusion of these eight projects you would insert into the record a statement of the number of fishing boats operating on Chesapeake Bay, and the value of the oyster industry of the area, and a statement as to what shore installations there are, and how many people they employ, if those figures are available.

Colonel MILNE. All right, sir.

(Information requested, is as follows:)

In 1950, statistics for Chesapeake fisheries indicate that over $25 million was received for over 170,000 tons of finfish and shellfish. About one-third of

this tonnage was shellfish including oysters. This catch was made in over 12,000 boats, of which 500 were over 5 tons. In addition, over 600 buy-boats operated in the area. There are 583 wholesaling and canning establishments in this area employing in season about 12,500 people, in addition to 18,300 persons in the fishing fleet.

Mr. NEAL. Only in relation to these ports considered, and not on the other side of the bay.

Mr. MACK. These boats go back and forth, do they not, to different ports?

Colonel MILNE. Generally the oyster fishing boats stay fairly close to their home port.

Mr. MACK. Then I think we should have the number of boats that use these facilities so that the committee if it desires can consider all of these projects, or several, as one project.

Colonel MILNE. Very well, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any other projects now under consideration by the Corps of Engineers that have not reached the committee, in this area?

Colonel MILNE. There are other projects under consideration by the Corps of Engineers that have not been transmitted to the committee, and there are projects in the same area that have previously been authorized.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there some projects under consideration not reported to us that may be cleared before we reach this omnibus bill? Colonel MILNE. We have a list, Mr. Chairman, of the projects coming up.

Mr. ANGELL. If you do not have the information available you can supply it for the record.

Colonel MILNE. It does not look like there are any, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. Why is such a large number of projects being considered at this particular time in this area?

Colonel MILNE. It has been 4 years, Mr. Chairman, since there has been an authorization bill. Many of the surveys were authorized by this committee in 1945, or maybe even earlier. As funds became available in the survey program the reports were put in study, and have been completed over the 4 years since the last omnibus bill. So, while it seems there is a rather heavy concentration of reports in this particular area, I think it is primarily due to the length of time elapsed since you last considered an authorization bill.

Mr. ANGELL. If there are no further questions of Colonel Milne, and if there are no further witnesses desiring to be heard, we will proceed to the next project.

RHODES POINT TO TYLERTON, SOMERSET COUNTY, MD.

Mr. ANGELL. We will proceed to the next project, which is the Rhodes Point to Tylerton, Md., project, House Document No. 51 of the 82d Congress.

Colonel Milne, we will be glad to hear from you on that project.

Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir. The report on Rhodes Point to Tylerton, Somerset County, Md., is contained in House Document No. 51 of the 82d Congress, 1st sess., as authorized by the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945.

Rhodes Point and Tylerton are two small communities located approximately a mile and a half apart in the lower Chesapeake Bay area on the east side of the bay, on Smith Island.

The predominant industry in the area, as you might well imagine, is the fishing industry. There is no Federal project at the present time.

The people in Rhodes Point have requested that consideration be given to the dredging of a channel from Tylerton across Rhodes Point Gut, and then continuing in a northerly direction through Sheep Pen Gut out into Chesapeake Bay.

They feel under the present conditions that they have very limited access to Tylerton. They are unable to transport their fish catch from Rhodes Point to Tylerton unless they are willing to transfer the fish from fishing vessels to very shallow skiffs; that is a time consuming operation.

The Chief of Engineers has investigated the area thoroughly and has come to the conclusion that there is no economic justification for a channel extending from Rhodes Point through the Sheep Pen Gut into the Bay. He does feel however that there is economic justification for the provision of a channel from Rhodes Point across Rhodes Point Gut to Tylerton.

That channel as recommended by the Chief of Engineers is 4 feet deep and 50 feet wide. Those recommendations were transmitted to the Governor of the State of Maryland, who indicated his concurrence; and the Bureau of the Budget has likewise concurred in those recommendations.

Mr. ANGELL. What is the distance across there, Colonel Milne? Colonel MILNE. A mile and a half, sir. Based on the costs as contained in the project document, the dredging will cost $42,000. Those costs, revised to the fall of 1953, show a Federal cost of $45,100.

The annual charges, again based on revised costs, are $2,310. Of those annual charges approximately $500 would be maintenance charges.

Based on the revised costs the benefit-cost ratio is 1.86 to 1.

Under existing conditions the fishing fleet that operates out of Rhodes Point must transfer its catch to the shallow bottom boats in order to get to Tylerton and up the Tylers River. The transfer and rehandling represents a material loss in money and time. The provision of a relatively small channel across Smith Island would eliminate the necessity for that transfer.

In addition it would be possible-and we feel this would be donefor petroleum products from Tylerton to be transported by boat to Rhodes Point. They could be transported for about 12 cents per gallon cheaper in that manner.

Those represent the principal savings that would accrue to the area if that one small channel were to be dredged.

Mr. ANGELL. Is that area where the channel would be, utilized now by craft?

Colonel MILNE. Smith Island is an extremely marshy area, and the only way to go from Rhodes Point to Tylerton is by a flat bottomed skiff which will draw just a few inches; under certain conditions of tide they do use that particular area.

Mr. ANGELL. What is the population of Tylerton?

Colonel MILNE. The population of the three communities on Smith Island, which are Tylerton, Rhodes Point and Ewell is as follows: Tylerton 260, Rhodes Point 261 and Ewell 731.

Mr. ANGELL. Occupied largely by fishermen?

Colonel MILNE. Almost entirely by fishermen. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. Is it a year around operation of fishing there? Colonel MILNE. More or less. It would be interesting to the committee to know that the people who live on Smith Island are virtually dependent on water for their transportation. I have not been able to verify this, but I understand on the entire island there are only two cars.

Mr. ANGELL. What is the size of the island?

Colonel MILNE. I will have to furnish that for the record, sir. I do not know. But it is several miles long.

Mr. ANGELL. Is it suitable for agricultural use?
Colonel MILNE. No, sir. It is a marshy island.

Mr. ANGELL. It is largely devoted to the fishing industry?

Colonel MILNE. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any questions to my left?

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Are there any oysters down there near Smith Island?

Colonel MILNE. Yes, there are, sir.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.)

Colonel MILNE. The island group is 8 miles long and 4 miles wide. Mr. ANGELL. Are there any further questions to my right?

(No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. To my left?

(No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. If not we will proceed with the next project unless there is someone present who desires to be heard on this project.

WEBSTER COVE, SOMERSET COUNTY, MD.

Mr. ANGELL. The next project is Webster Cove, Somerset County, Md., House Document No. 619 of the 81st Congress. Representative Miller, we have concluded all of these projects but one. As soon as Colonel Milne finishes this next project we will hear from you. Mr. MILLER. All right.

Mr. ANGELL. Colonel Milne, we will be glad to hear from you on this project.

Colonel MILNE. Mr. Chairman, the report on Webster Cove, Somerset County, Md., is contained in House Document No. 619 of the 81st Congress, second session, as authorized by the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945.

Webster Cove is located on the Wicomico River, which is in the southern part of the Chesapeake Bay area on the east shore. It is in an area which gains its livelihood from the fishing industry.

The existing Federal project provides for a channel 6 feet deep and 60 feet wide extending from that depth in the Wicomico River and then widens into a turning basin 6 feet in depth and approximately 100 feet wide.

There are some 80 fishing vessels that moor in this area. The existing anchorage basin can only handle about 20 of those 80 vessels. The