Steamship Dora Foster, sailed for Holland. Schooner Agnes Manding. Steamship New Minister, for United Kingdom. Steamship Lavianian, for Liverpool, cargo, salt. Steamship Yoxford, sailed for Dublin, cargo, phosphate rock. Schooner Almeda Wiley, from New York. Werneth Hall came to berth Friday with cargo, 1,500 tons of salt; went to sea drawing 25 feet bound for Liverpool, cargo, 2,000 tons of kiln-dried phosphate rock, 1,000 tons flour, 5,000 tons cottonseed meal, 500 tons of lumber and sundries, 4,000 bales of cotton. Schooner F. O. Dane for Baltimore. Steamship Glenmoris, from Philadelphia. Schooner Amanda Wily, for New York, cargo, 353,000 feet of lumber. Schooner Fannie Brown, for Richmond. Schooner James Boyce, for Jacksonville. Steamship Pontiac, arrives Friday for Havre. Steampship R. F. Mathews, from New York. Steamship Palintino, to Liverpool. Schooner Agnes Manding, for Boston. British Steamship Great Northern, from Philadelphia for Port Royal. Schooner Viola Reppard, for Boston. Steamship Raphael, for Liverpool, cargo, phosphate rock. Steamship Bellingham, for London. Schooner Blanche Hopkins, for Baltimore. Steamship Alwick, from Liverpool; cargo, cotton. Schooner Anna, from New York. Schooner Blanche Hopkins, from Baltimore. Schooner Lida J. Lewis, from Baltimore. Schooner Lydia M. Dearry, from Salem. Schooner G. M. Boyce, from Norfolk. British steamship Avalon; cargo, sulfur for Port Royal. Steamship Jerome, for Liverpool; cargo, for United Kingdom, 2,100 tons of salt, 3,500 bales of cotton, 100 tons of lumber, 220 tons of coal. Werneth Hall went to sea October 13, 1895. Bark Mr. Vernan cleared for Boston. Schooner John R. Holiday, sailed for Savannah. Steamship Sylvia, for Holland; cargo, phosphate rock. British steamship Blue Jacket, Cape DeVerde for Liverpool. Steamship Oakdale, for United Kingdom; cargo, phosphate. British steamship Empire for Port Royal. Steamship Knight of St. George, for Liverpool; cargo, phosphate rock. Steamship Norfolk, from New York. Steamship Teran, from Barbadowes. Steamship Laurianna, sailed for Liverpool; cargo, 3,300 tons phosphate rock, 200 tons of cotton, 600 tons of general cargo. Draft of 24 feet 4 inches. Steamship Lauscrieve, from Philadelphia. James Turpet. City of Port Royal, 25 feet. New Castle, 23 feet. PELTIER CREEK, N. C. Mr. ANGELL. The next project we have listed for consideration is Peltier Creek, N. C. Our colleague, Mr. Barden, is present. Is it agreeable to you, Mr. Barden, to have Colonel Milne of the Corps of Engineers present his views on the project first? Mr. BARDEN. It is perfectly all right. Mr. ANGELL. That is the usual procedure. May I say there are three projects we have listed here-Smiths Creek, N. C., the Intracoastal Waterway, Peltier Creek, N. C., and Wallace Channel, Pamlico Sound, N. C. Are you interested in all three of them? Mr. BARDEN. Yes, sir. All 3 of them, although more in 2. Mr. ANGELL. Is it agreeable that we will have the Corps of Engineers' statement on all three of them and you will reserve your comments until they are all finished? Mr. BARDEN. That is perfectly all right. Mr. ANGELL. Colonel Milne you may proceed when you are ready. Colonel MILNE. Mr. Chairman, the report on Peltier Creek, N. Č., is contained in House Document 379, of the 81st Congress, 1st session, as authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House of Representatives on November 30, 1945. Peltier Creek is a small tidal estuary located on Bogue Sound, which is off the coastline of North Carolina near Morehead City. The surrounding area is predominantly one of commercial, fishing, and recreational activities. There is no Federal project at Peltier Creek at the present time. Peltier Creek is primarily a harbor of refuge. It is in the vicinity of the Intracoastal Waterway which is a Federal project 12 feet in depth and of varying width that passes along this coastline. Navigation people experience considerable difficulty in Peltier Creek due to the fact that the basin is shoaling up and has a controlling depth of approximately 1 foot. Local interests requested that consideration be given to the provision of a channel 10 or 12 feet in depth and some 90 feet wide from the Intracoastal Waterway into Peltier Creek, and a further provision at the upper end of the channel for a small anchorage area. The Chief of Engineers has investigated the area and recommends that a channel 12 feet in depth and 90 feet wide be provided from the Intracoastal Waterway; and that, further, a provision be made for an anchorage area at the upper end of the channel within Peltier Creek. Those recommendations were furnished to the State of North Carolina, and they indicated their concurrence. They were likewise furnished to the Bureau of the Budget. I believe it might be well to read just a portion of the comments of the Bureau. I am reading now from a letter of the Bureau of the Budget dated September 29, 1949. While the incremental annual cost of the 12-foot channel and basin over the 10-foot channel and basin is estimated at only $593, the reports show no in39263-54-vol. 1-18 creased annual benefits for the 12-foot improvement. It appears, therefore, that the provision of a 12-foot depth may not be warranted and, accordingly, when construction is undertaken, consideration should be given to limiting the initial dredging of the project to a depth of 10 feet. 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. Based on the original document we estimated the cost of this improvement to be $32,000 Federal cost and $1,250 non-Federal, for a total of $33,250. Those costs revised to the fall of 1953 show a Federal cost of $43,000 and a non-Federal cost of $1,500, for a total of $44,700. The annual charges based on the revised costs are $3,480, of which approximately $1,800 represents an annual maintenance charge. The benefit-cost ratio again based on the revised cost is 1.29 to 1. Peltier Creek is primarily a harbor of refuge for the vessels located in the nearby vicinity. There are actually 12 vessels that moor in Peltier Creek year-round, but there are many more vessels that are located in the adjacent waters and which seek shelter at Peltier Creek during storms. Particularly that is true of Morehead City where approximately 180 boats are moored all of the time. In periods of storm those boats attempt to get into Peltier Creek to seek shelter. Of those 180 boats-about 70 can now get into Peltier Creek; but the remaining boats cannot except on favorable tide. Consequently, when a storm comes up those boats that are unable to get into the creek suffer a rather considerable amount of damage. Our analysis indicates if this channel is improved to 12 by 90 feet that the bulk of all the boats presently mooring in Morehead City would seek shelter in this area. We have come to the conclusion that the damages now suffered by those boats, which average from $50 to $100 a year would largely be eliminated by the provision of that shelter. There is one other point, Mr. Chairman, that does require discussion, and that is a 12-foot channel as opposed to a 10-foot channel. The Bureau of the Budget indicated there were rather doubtful benefits from a 12-foot channel over a 10-foot channel. We recognize that is true when you try and break it down into a dollar-and-cents proposition. However, we must bear in mind that the Intracoastal Waterway goes in front of this area. It is a heavily traversed waterway and has been improved to 12 feet. The boats that are using that are designed for that type of channel depth. We think since this is a part of the Intracoastal Waterway that the deph from the waterway into Peltier Creek should be comparable. For that reason we recommend that a 12-foot channel be adopted. Of course, if this project is authorized, prior to any construction we would, as is our practice, reanalyze those benefits. If it appears at that time that the 12 foot channel is not required, we would not go to that depth. Mr. ANGELL. Are there any questions on this project? (No response.) Mr. ANGELL. If not you may proceed to the next project, Colonel Milne. SMITHS CREEK, N. C. Mr. ANGELL. The next project is Smiths Creek, N. C. We will be glad to hear you on that project, Colonel Milne. Colonel MILNE. The report on Smiths Creek, N. C., is contained in House Document No. 170 of the 83d Congress, 1st session, as authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House of Representatives, adopted on April 1, 1946. Smiths Creek is a nontidal stream about 21⁄2 miles long which rises in Pamlico County of North Carolina and flows generally south to the town of Oriental, which is on the Neuse River some 12 miles above Palmlico Sound itself. The area in the vicinity of Oriental is predominantly devoted to agriculture and fishing. There is at the present time a Federal navigation project at Oriental. In 1952 there were some 1,700 tons of edible fish and shellfish in 4,500 vessel trips transported into Oriental, and they traversed the authorized channel there. Navigation interests haven claimed that this harbor is open to storms or winds from the south, southwest and the southeast. There is a 5-mile sweep across the Neuse River. In wind storms this results in building up rather sizable waves in the harbor. Local interests have requested consideration be given to the provision of a breakwater across the entrance, which would reduce that wave action. They have also requested that consideration be given to the provision of a larger mooring basin adjacent to any breakwater that might be built. The Chief of Engineers considered the requirements as indicated by the local interests and has come to the conclusion that provision of a breakwater and a larger turning area is economically justified. That report was furnished to the State of North Carolina and they have indicated their concurrence. Likewise it was furnished to the Bureau of the Budget. Generally the Bureau of the Budget indicated its concurrence. They took some exception to certain of the benefits we claimed would accrue if this project were improved, but basically considered that the real benefits were sufficient to warrant the construction of the project. I might also point out that the Public Health Service mentioned that our report does not indicate the point of discharge of wastes from the fish and seafood processing plants at Oriental. If these processing plants discharged directly into the present harbor or boat basin, the construction of the proposed breakwater partially across the month of the Smiths Creek could possibly create a pollution nuisance because of the waste from the packing plants which might not be swept as readily into the open sound on a falling tide. We have checked that since the Public Health Service made their comment and find these processing plants at Oriental do not discharge any wastes into Smiths Creek. Therefore, the comment of the Public Health Service would not be applicable to this project. The cost as contained in the original document shows a Federal cost of $97,900 and a non-Federal cost of $625, for a total of $98,525. Those costs revised to the fall of 1953 show a Federal cost of $102,000 and a non-Federal cost of $700, for a total of $102,700. Based on the revised costs, the annual charges are $4,370. The benefit-cost ratio, again based on the revised costs, is 1.77 to 1. Local cooperation would be required to furnish all lands, easements, and rights-of-way; hold and save the Federal Government free from damages. Local interests have indicated they would comply with the requirements of local cooperation. Mr. ANGELL. What is the annual maintenance, Colonel Milne? Colonel MILNE. The annual maintenance would be approximately $750. That would be the increased annual maintenance due to the provision of a breakwater and a small mooring basin. There are presently some 54 vessels which operate out of Oriental the year around. In addition, at the height of the shrimping season. generally, in August and September, there are an additional 150 vessels that are attracted to this area, and which moor in the harbor at Oriental. As a result of this very large concentration, and the relatively small provision made for mooring those vessels, there exists a great deal of congestion. You find the vessels hitting one another in periods of windstorms with resulting damage. There is also a great deal of damage to the vessels in unloading their catch and in getting back out to the fishing grounds. We have estimated if the project is improved by the provision of a breakwater and a larger turning basin that the damages to the vessels which are permanently based at Oriental would be reduced. These damages are presently estimated in the neighborhood of $25 per year per vessel. We believe that would be eliminated almost entirely by the improvement. Also, the delays that are occasioned to the boats, amounting to as much as 7 hours for each vessel trip, would be eliminated. The result would be a greater catch of both edible fish and shellfish. I believe it might be of interest to the committee to have me very briefly read a few of these figures on the shrimp industry. A question was raised the other day about the possible depletion of the fish industry. These are records from the State of North Carolina. They show that in 1880 with a population in the United States of approximately 50 million, some 10 million pounds of shrimp were taken from the waters of the United States for a pounds per capita of 0.2 pound. In 1940, with a population of 131 million, 150 million pounds of shrimp were taken for a per capita consumption of 1.14 pounds. In 1950, with a population of 150 million, 210 million pounds of shrimp were taken, and the per capita consumption increased to 1.39. In spite of that increase of shrimp there is no evidence of depletion of the shrimping grounds. The State of North Carolina goes on to say in discussing the question of the depletion of the shrimp: It is stated a single female may lay 1 million eggs in a season. Within 6 months the eggs produce marketable shrimp. It states further that: Shrimp indicate considerable ability to withstand exploitation, and the available literature reveals no danger to the species. Mr. ANGELL. That is very interesting. Is there any question by any member of the committee of Colonel Milne on this project? (No response.) will Mr. ANGELL. If not you may proceed to the next project if you because time is rather short and we want to hear from Congressman Barden if we can. |