Colonel ALLEN. Controlling depth in the Duluth channels is 25 feet. Mr. MACK. Do the engineers consider a 25-foot depth here adequate?

Colonel ALLEN. For the commerce and what the local interests have requested. All they have asked for is an extension of the existing 25-foot project.

Mr. MACK. What is the size of Erie and vicinity?

Colonel ALLEN. Erie has a population of 130,000.

Mr. MACK. That is all.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any other questions of Colonel Allen?

Mr. BECKER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Becker.

Mr. BECKER. You said the cost would be $174,000 for the widening of that channel from 600 feet to 1,200 feet?

Colonel ALLEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BECKER. I see in this report here of the Secretary of the Army that it mentions, unless I do not have it entirely correct, a cost to the United States of $154,000 for construction, with no increase in the annual cost of maintenance.

Colonel ALLEN. That was as of the date of the report. The $174,000 is as of October 1953.

Mr. BECKER. That is present costs?
Colonel ALLEN, Yes, sir.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Auchincloss.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. This project has only to do with the deepening of this channel. Is that correct?

Colonel ALLEN. And widening. Yes, sir.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSs. It has nothing to do with the erosion problem which is also present in this area?

Colonel ALLEN. No, sir.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Could you tell us if there is a study being made of that erosion problem? Because I was up there 4 or 5 years ago and I believe that there was one there.

Mr. ANGELL. Is that the next project listed which is to be heard? Colonel ALLEN. Yes.

Mr. ANGELL. That is listed and is to be taken up next.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Excuse me. I did not realize that.

Mr. MACK. Will this project be of increased benefit if the St. Lawrence project should be built?

Colonel ALLEN. There is no direct tie to the St. Lawrence Waterway. No benefits were taken, let me say, with respect to the additional commerce from the St. Lawrence Waterway. The only benefits that were taken were derived from savings due to reduction of maneuver time and an adequate mooring area.

Mr. MACK. Are there any further questions of Colonel Allen? (No response.)

Mr. MACK. If not, we will call on our colleague Carroll Kearns, of Pennsylvania, who is very much interested in this project.

We will hear from Mr. Kearns any statement he desires to make and hear any witnesses he desires to introduce.

39263-54-vol. 148

STATEMENT OF HON. CARROLL D. KEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. KEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.

I want to say at the outset, I am grateful for the courtesy of the committee in hearing this project, which is of great need up in northwestern Pennsylvania. We have had the statement here of the colonel, in which he clearly defined the dredging problem, and we also have with us the chairman of the park and harbor commission, who will also add some information which will give you a better insight into our dredging problem.

I know you gentlemen who are familiar with the lakes realize now that the small ore boats have almost been eliminated. They have larger boats there which leave the port of Erie und go to Duluth with coal and return with ore and do it in a rou id trip of 5 days' duration. It took 3 weeks with the smaller boats. That is one reason why it is so important that we have this dredging job done, because the larger boats can do it much more rapidly, and this will enable the larger boats to use the port of Erie.

Also, a year ago in the strike up there concerning the ore boats, Erie being one of the most natural harbors on the Great Lakes, we moored all of the boats in the harbor. There were some 38 of them, I think. It was certainly a great protection to the property of those shipping companies during that trouble they had.

As I understand it, you are now hearing this project first and then the erosion project afterward?

Mr. MACK. That is correct.

Mr. KEARNS. Along with this project I would like to introduce at this time Mr. Robert Parker, chairman of the Park and Harbor Commission of Erie.

Mr. MACK. Mr. Parker, we will be pleased to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT PARKER, PARKER WHITE METAL CO., CHAIRMAN OF THE PARK AND HARBOR COMMISSION, ERIE, PA.

Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in regard to the dredging of the harbor at Erie, I think one point that should be brought out is the fact that the Erie Harbor is not just supplying the Erie area. The shipments of iron ore going in at Erie from the Duluth area are covering not only down into Pennsylvania into the Bethlehem area, but they are shipped out of Erie all down through the Ohio Valley and down into Pittsburgh. In return the coal from the Pittsburgh area and the other areas of Pennsylvania and West Virginia are shipped out of Erie, some of the coal going even to Canada.

Our main problem in the harbor actually is this turning basin. There are many steamboats now going into Ashtabula because of our turning situation in the basin itself. Under adverse weather conditions these boats cannot maneuver safely in the basin area that we have for turning at the present time, particularly because these boats are being built so large after the war. The smaller ore boats are

pretty much extinct now. We are running boats now that are approaching 800 feet in length, and 900 feet in length.

The unloading and loading of these ore vessels is done in about 4 or 5 hours. You can see very definitely what takes place when a boat has to lay there for 8 or 10 or maybe 24 hours in the turning basin before it can be handled.

I think that is the main point that should be considered in the. dredging of this channel area. Thank you.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any questions from the witness?

Mr. NEAL. What is the percentage of locally used ore compared with that which is transshipped? The largest part of the ore coming into Erie is transshipped, is it not?

Mr. PARKER. The greatest part is transshipped out of Erie. It is about 2 million tons of coal and about 5 million tons of ore.

Mr. SCUDDER. What percentage of the ore shipped out of the Mesabi Range comes into Erie?

Mr. PARKER. What percentage of the ore shipped out of there comes into Erie?

Mr. SCUDDER. Yes.

Mr. PARKER. 90 million tons, we would say, moves on the Great Lakes. It is a little better than 10 percent, actually.

Mr. ANGELL. If there are no other questions, Congressman Kearns, we will be glad to have you call your next witness.

Mr. KEARNS. That concludes the witnesses on the dredging. If you want to take the erosion problem next, the colonel would like to speak first on it, I believe.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any other witnesses on this project? (No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. If not, we will proceed to the next project on the agenda.

PRESQUE ISLE, PENINSULA, ERIE, PA., BEACH EROSION

CONTROL STUDY

Mr. ANGELL. The next project on the agenda is the Presque Isle Peninsula at Erie, Pa., which is a beach erosion project.

Inasmuch as this is the first beach erosion project the committee has heard this session, if it is agreeable with the rest of the committee I think it would be well to have Colonel Allen give us a little statement on the status of the law with reference to the beach erosion projects, as we have quite a number of them that are ready now for hearing by our committee.

Colonel Allen, if that is agreeable to you we will be very glad to

hear you.

Colonel ALLEN. The beach erosion control project is initiated in a somewhat different fashion from a navigation report. The beach erosion control report is approved by the Chief of Engineers after application has been made by a State or local agency which is faced with a short protection problem. They are made on a 50-50 cooperative basis. In other words, the local agency which requests the study puts up half of the money for the study and the Federal Government matches that with the other 50 percent. So it is a cooperative venture from the beginning.

As soon as the local agency makes application and assures the Chief of Engineers that funds are available for the prosecution of the study, the Chief of Engineers approves the study and the district engineer proceeds with the work, subject to the availability of Federal funds. Public Law 727 of the 79th Congress, 2d session, recognizes the interest of the Federal Government in the cost of constructing beacherosion-control works. I would like to quote from a part of it:

That with the purpose of preventing damage to public property and promoting and encouraging the healthful recreation of people, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to assist in the construction but not maintenance of works for the improvement and protection against erosion by waves and currents of the United States that are owned by States and municipalities or other political subdivisions, provided that the Federal contribution toward the construction of the protective works shall not in any case exceed one-third of the total cost.

In other words, the Federal Government is authorized to participate to the extent of one-third of the cost of protecting publicly owned shores. Authorization of a beach erosion control project will permit a State or local agency to go ahead with the work if they want to proceed with it, subject to approval of the plans and specifications by the Chief of Engineers, even prior to appropriation of the funds by the Federal Government.

Before I proceed with the Presque Isle study, do you have any questions?

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any questions by members of the committee of Colonel Allen?

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Yes; I do have some.

Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Auchincloss.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Is there not a publicly maintained highway down this strip of land?

Colonel ALLEN. There is a highway on the peninsula; yes, sir. Mr. AUCHINCLOss. Does not one of the public laws provide for Federal aid in the protection of a State-owned highway, Colonel?

Colonel ALLEN. There is a provision in the law that where a political subdivision has heretofore erected a seawall to prevent erosion by waves and currents to a public highway considered by the Chief of Engineers sufficiently important to justify protection, Federal contribution toward the repair of such wall and the protection thereof by the building of an artificial beach is authorized at not to exceed onethird of the original cost of such wall.

In other words, where a highway can be considered by the Chief of Engineers to be sufficiently important to justify protection, the Federal contribution can be authorized up to one-third of the cost of a seawall which has already been built to protect that highway.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Was that provision of the law taken into consideration in this study?

Colonel ALLEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Has the Chief of Engineers certified that this is an important highway?

Colonel ALLEN. It has not been considered to fall in that category. Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. One other thing, Colonel. In this study has any thought been given to the construction of a barrier or a breakwater to break the force of the waves?

Colonel ALLEN. No, sir. Because of the extremely high cost of such a structure.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Thank you.

Mr. ANGELL. Colonel, as I understand, is that participation of the Federal Government sharing a part of the cost of the seawall to protect a highway only to apply where a seawall has already been built and has been damaged?

Colonel ALLEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANGELL. But not to new construction?

Colonel ALLEN. Where it has already been built, to protect the highway.

Mr. ANGELL. Are there any further questions of Colonel Allen? (No response.)

Mr. ANGELL. If not, thank you, Colonel. You may proceed with the discussion of the project itself now.

Colonel ALLEN. The State of Pennsylvania applied for this cooperative study pursuant to the conditions I have previously mentioned, having given assurances to the Chief of Engineers that funds were available for the completion of the study. The study has been completed and approved by the Chief of Engineers after the concurrence of the Beach Erosion Board.

The study in essence was to investigate protective measures to prevent the breaching of this small neck of the peninsula.

Since the time we have records-about 1831-the history of this neck of land has been one of continual recession and one of continual narrowing because of the high force and extreme wave action which comes from the west and north.

The material which was formerly on the neck of land has worked its way toward the distal end of the peninsula. So over a period of years the neck has continually narrowed and there is a history of the breaching of this spit of land on the permitting of waves to enter Erie Harbor.

Various methods of protection have been used throughout the years. Various types of seawalls and groins have been constructed but have not proved efficacious, and the need for the cooperative study was recognized by the State. The desire to treat the entire Presque Isle Peninsula as an entity rather than piecemeal was the reason for the cooperative study.

The cooperative study recommends the construction of a series of groins at the most critical portion of Presque Isle; the construction of bulkheads and restoration of the seawall in the neck, and the pumping of what we term a feeder beach to provide material for the waves to work on and protect the shoreline, and thereby nourish or continue feeding material down along the shore.

I would like to point out that a beach, in addition to providing a desirable place for recreation, also is the best dissipater of wave energy. If you have a beach in front of a community you have the finest device which man or nature can produce to dissipate the force of the waves. The purposes of providing this feeder beach is to continue to nourish this shore and keep it well protected.

The plan calls for periodic nourishment by placing sand as a maintenance item.