Status (Jan. 1, 1964).—Construction not started. Completion schedule.-Carolina Beach, May 1965; south of Carolina Beach, May 1966. JUSTIFICATION The project would provide shore protection from erosion and hurricane flood protection. Areas from Carolina Beach to Kure Beach experienced heavy losses in the hurricanes of 1944, 1954, 1955, and 1958. It is estimated that recurrence of those hurricanes would cause damages of $11,837,000 based on January 1960 prices. The improvement will prevent or reduce damages to the beach and property along the beach, by providing full shore protection and partial hurricane flood protection from hurricanes of equal or less intensity than that of Hurricane Hazel, provide increased area for recreational use and increase value and earning power for shore front and other property in the affected community. Fiscal year 1965.-The requested amount of $300,000 would be applied toInitiate and complete construction at Carolina Beach___ Supervision and administration___. Total_____ Non-Federal costs. Initial beach fill: Shore protection (65.3 percent of cost) – Contributions-- Beach nourishment, 10-year period: Shore protection (65.3 percent of cost). Total_____ $279, 000 21, 000 300, 000 $181,000 288, 000 469, 000 185,000 654, 000 1 Work to be accomplished by local interests. Federal share is $98,000. In addition, local interests are required to (1) provide lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including borrow areas; (2) accomplish all relocations and alterations of buildings, streets, and utilities; and (3) maintain the beach berm and dune and provide periodic nourishment in addition to that above in the interest of hurricane protection at an estimated annual cost of $43,000. Status of local cooperation.-Assurances were received from the town of Carolina Beach on October 30, 1963. Representatives of the area south of Carolina Beach have expressed their willingness to participate in the project and are now considering methods of obtaining necessary financing. Comparison of Federal cost estimates.-The current Federal cost estimate of $868,000 is an increase of $15,000 from the latest estimate ($853,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes an increase of $65,000 as a result of the application of the 1962 River and Harbor Act offset somewhat by refinement of the estimate. Summary construction program (PB-1), fiscal years 1964 and 1965 1 Includes $185,000 which is non-Federal share of 10-year nourishment for shore protection. Mr. KIRWAN. Please explain this new project and tell us how the division of cost between the Federal Government and local interests has been determined. Put it in the record, please. (The information supplied follows:) The improvement consists of a dune constructed with a berm, a feeder beach established immediately north of the project area, and periodic beach nourishment. When completed the project will provide for beach erosion control and partial flood protection from hurricanes for about 26,000 feet of the Atlantic coast of North Carolina. Project costs were allocated to hurrincane-flood protection and to shore protection (beach erosion control). The Federal and non-Federal shares were then determined for each purpose separately as follows: For hurricane-flood protection, local interests are required to pay a minimum of 30 percent of total first cost, including lands, easements, and rights-of-way, and 100 percent of maintenance cost. For shore portection, the Federal contribution is 34.7 percent of total first costs and 10-year nourishment costs. Although all of the beaches are publicly owned or open to public use, some of the benefits are considered private resulting in a Federal share of less than the 50 percent maximum allowed by law. OTHER CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL PROJECTS Mr. KIRWAN. Now place in the record the justifications for the other Construction, general projects. (The justifications follow :) HOLT LOCK AND DAM, ALABAMA (Continuing) Location. The project is located on the Warrior River 138.5 miles above its mouth and 355.5 miles from Mobile, Ala. The site is 2 miles northeast of Holt in Tuscaloosa County, Ala. Authorization.-Section 6, 1909 River and Harbor Act (River and Harbor Act of 1962 directed a study to be made with a view to providing hydroelectric power at the dam. The study has been completed.) Benefit-cost ratio.-1.8 to 1. Ratio is for a combined power and navigation project. Federal power development at the dam has not yet been authorized. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) Appropriations to June 30, 1963.. Appropriation for fiscal year 1964.. Appropriations to date.. Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1965. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1965.. 1 Excludes powerhouse costs. Local interests are providing port and terminal facilities on the Tombigbee-Warrior Waterway costing over $5,000,000. Dam: PHYSICAL DATA Type: Concrete gravity. Height: 113 feet. Length: 1,092 feet (exclusive of lock). Lock: Size: 110 by 600 feet. Maximum lift: 63.6 feet. Spillway: Type: Concrete, 680 feet long, gate controlled. Capacity: 641,000 cubic feet per second (maximum pool). Power installation: Tentative installation, 40,000 kilowatts. JUSTIFICATION The Holt lock will eliminate the multiple lockages now required and considerably reduce the time of travel in the pool above, making it possible to handle more traffic in less time and consequently reduce the cost of navigating this reach of the river. Reduction of travel time on this waterway is of great importance since it will permit the more rapid movement of critical materials along the Tombigbee-Warrior Waterway to and from the highly industrialized steelproducing center of Birmingham, Ala. This waterway is vital to the needs of both the producers and consumers of steel in the South, with iron ore from the port of Mobile moving to the steel mills of Birmingham, and steel products from Birmingham to the shipyards and other industries at Mobile and along the gulf coast. A total of 6,167,681 tons of commerce moved over the Tombigbee-Warrior Waterway in 1962 as compared with 6,031,255 tons in 1961. Some of the principal commodities were: limestone (785,920 tons), sand and gravel (624,821 tons), iron ore (576,716 tons), coal and lignite (1,719,982 tons), petroleum products (971,085 tons), iron and steel products (239,593 tons), and industrial chemicals (438.163 tons). Fiscal year 1965.-The requested amount of $8 million will be applied toContinue and complete land acquisition.. Initiate relocations_-_ Initiate reservoir clearing_. Continue main construction of dam, lock, and approaches_ Initiate reservoir access roads_ Initiate recreation facilities.. Engineering and design_ Supervision and administration_ Total--- $101, 000 155, 000 117, 000 6, 669, 000 138,000 170,000 150,000 500, 000 8, 000, 000 Early completion of Holt lock and dam is essential in order to relieve the bottleneck created by four small obsolete locks (locks 13, 14, 15, and 16) and speed up the flow of traffic in this reach of the river. Two of the old locks are 52 by 282 feet and two are 52 by 285.5 feet. When Holt is completed all locks on the waterway (with the exception of John Hollis Bankhead and William Bacon Oliver locks) will be 110 by 600 feet in dimensions. Non-Federal costs.-There are no requirements of local cooperation; however, local interests have constructed extensive terminal and transfer facilities at Port Birmingham and other locations along the Tombigbee-Warrior Waterway. The State of Alabama completed terminal facilities at Cordova (river mile 416.1) in January 1963 and is presently constructing facilities at Tuscaloosa and Demopolis. Status of local cooperation.-None required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates.-The Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $28,400,000 is a decrease of $5,300,000 from the latest estimate ($33,700,000) submitted to Congress. These changes include decreases of $5,523,700 as a result of favorable bids received and $80,000 as result of refinements of the estimate, offset to some extent by an increase of $303,700 in engineering and design based on cost to date and reanalysis of remaining requirements. Project cost estimate Summary construction program (PB-1), fiscal years 1964 and 1965 Item Location.-Channel extending from the Gulf of Mexico via Mobile Bay and Mobile River to Cochrane Bridge, U.S. 31, 90, and 98 over Mobile River at Mobile, Ala., a distance of about 34.7 miles. Authorization.-1954 River and Harbor Act. Summarized financial data 1 In addition local interests have constructed terminal and transfer facilities costing over $35,000,000. 188 |