the New York division engineer to take steps to alleviate the traffic congestion in the entrance to Kill Van Kull by widening the entrance to 1,400 feet. In October of that year, at the request of the division engineer, the institute and Maritime Association of the Port of New York jointly submitted a statement, including traffic statistics, to the district engineer which clearly showed that the foregoing improvement would contribute to safe navigation and help avert collisions in this crowded area.

The institute, therefore, urges the authorization of this much-needed improvement.

Mr. JONES. Are there any questions?

Mr. JONES. If not we shall proceed to the next project.

NEW YORK HARBOR (ANCHORAGES), N.Y.

Colonel YOUNG. "New York Harbor anchorages," sir, on page 51 of the Senate report.

New York Harbor, exclusive of its tributaries, consists of an outer harbor and an inner harbor separated by a natural deep strait called the Narrows. The total water area encompassed by the upper and lower bays and the Narrows is about 125 square miles. There are insufficient deep-draft anchorages available in both the outer and inner harbors to accommodate existing and prospective commerce.

The Chief of Engineers recommends deepening of existing anchorages and provision of additional anchorages at an estimated Federal cost of $44,852,000 subject to certain requirements of local cooperation. Local interests have indicated a willingness to meet the local cooperation requirements. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.5 to 1.

Comments of the State and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report. However, the Bureau notes that the recommended plan of improvement is based upon projected growth in commerce as well as the significant increase in vessel size. The Bureau, therefore, states that it would expect that prior to any request for funds a suitable schedule would be developed to permit work to progress in phase with actual growth in harbor traffic and, further, that thorough consideration would be given to the use of hopper dredges in the accomplishment of the work. This will be done.

Mr. JONES. Are there any questions?

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have one question. It relates to both this project and the one preceding it.

I notice in both of these New York Harbor projects, you have stated local interests have expressed a willingness to provide necessary lands, easements, and things of that type, but yet you have stated that there is no non-Federal cost estimate. How does that happen?

Colonel YOUNG. In the case of New York Harbor, sir, we dump at sea so there are no lands or easements required for the disposal.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Is spoil the only item you expect to be of cost to the local people?

Colonel YOUNG. If there are other requirements they will provide them. In the case of those two projects there are none known at this time.

Mr. EDMONDSON. No land requirements?

Colonel YOUNG. That is right.

Mr. EDMONDSON. For example, in the widening of the channel in the previous project, there is no land requirement known to exist?

Colonel YOUNG. That is right.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The statement of American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc., follows:)

STATEMENT OF AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE INSTITUTE, INC., IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPROVement of NEW YORK HARBOR ANCHORAGE AREAS

The improvements recommended by the Chief of Engineers in Senate Document 17 (89th Cong.) in anchorage areas in New York Harbor are as follows: (1) Deepen (a) the southern section of anchorage 21B (Red Hook Flats) south of the fairway for a width of about 2,000 feet and over an area of 145 acres, from the existing depth of 30 and 40 feet below mean low water to 45 feet below mean low water; (b) the middle section for a width of about 3,300 feet over an area of 187 acres from the existing depth of 30 and 40 feet below mean low water to 40 feet; and (c) the northern section for a width of about 3,900 feet over an area of 150 acres from the present depth of 30 feet below mean low water to 35 feet;

(2) Expand anchorage 21B (Red Hook Flats) north of the fairway to an average width of 2,700 feet and extend the length to the Buttermilk Channel cutoff so as to encompass 446 acres, and deepen from a natural depth of 14 feet and over at mean low water to 35 feet below mean low water including the westerly 3,200 feet of the fairway; and

(3) Deepen the entire anchorage 49C in Gravesend Bay over a width of about 2,300 feet and over an area of 334 acres, from a depth of 30 feet and over at mean low water to 47 feet at mean low water and change existing regulations to permit its use by commercial vessels and passenger liners when use of the anchorage by naval and military vessels will permit.

The estimated cost of the above improvements is $44,852,000 and the benefitcost ratio is 1.5 to 1.

We

The vessels of many of the 43 members companies of the AMMI utilize New York Harbor anchorage areas. The institute urged the improvement of these anchorage areas in a statement presented at a hearing held in March 1960 by the New York district engineer and in subsequent letters to the district engineer. wish to call attention to the fact that nearly 30 years have elapsed since improvements were made in the above anchorage areas. During this period the total waterborne commerce entering and leaving the port of New York has increased about 70 percent and the annual number of arrivals and departures of vessels of deeper draft has increased greatly. The need for the above-proposed improvements in the New York Harbor anchorage areas is undeniable.

The institute, therefore, strongly recommends the authorization of these im provements by Congress.

Mr. JONES. If there are no further questions we shall proceed to the next project.

TRED AVON RIVER, MD.

Colonel YOUNG. Tred Avon River, Md., sir, page 69 of the Senate report.

The Tred Avon River is one of numerous tidal estuaries branching out indirectly from Chesapeake Bay. Insufficient depths cause groundings and damage to vessels in addition to a considerable amount of time being lost waiting for favorable tide conditions. The Chief of Engineers recommends deepening of the existing channel and provision of a turning basin, at a Federal cost of $323,000 subject to certain items of local cooperation. Local interests have indicated a willingness to comply with the requirements of local cooperation. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 3.1 to 1. The State and Federal agencies have commented favorably. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress.

Mr. JONES. Are there questions?

Mr. HARSHA. What effect, if any, will this have on the duck hunting and goose hunting in that river?

Colonel YOUNG. Sir, we have received favorable comments on this project from the Fish and Wildlife Service. I assume, therefore, there will be no adverse effects.

Mr. HARSHA. That is fine.

Mr. JONES. If there are no further questions you may proceed to the next project.

CHANNEL TO NEWPORT NEWS, NORFOLK HARBOR, Va.

Colonel YOUNG. Channel to Newport News, Norfolk Harbor, Va., sir, is found on page 24 of the Senate report.

Hampton Roads together with the Newport News and Norfolk Harbor channels is at the southern end of Chesapeake Bay. Hampton Roads is a natural roadstead of about 25 square miles. Of particular interest to this proposed project is the existing Newport News Channel. There are no improved anchorages in Hampton Roads capable of accommodating the large deep draft vessels now in use without encroaching on adjacent project channels. In addition the movement of larger vessels in the 600-foot-wide Newport News Channel is hazardous. The Chief of Engineers recommends widening of the existing channel and the provision of four deep draft anchorage berths at an estimated Federal cost of $7,095,000 subject to certain requirements of local cooperation. Local interests have indicated a willingness to comply with the requirements.

The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.1 to 1. Comments of the State and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report. However, the Bureau of the Budget notes the possibility that construction of a pipeline from the Gulf States to the east coast may affect the economic justification of this project. The Bureau, therefore, states that in view of such possibility it would expect a reevaluation of the project prior to any request for funds for initiation of construction. This reevaluation will be made.

Mr. JONES. Colonel Young, how does the Bureau of the Budget come about this information which you did not have about the expectation of building a pipeline?

Colonel YOUNG. Sir, it was in our report and the Bureau of the Budget picked it up from our report. We did not feel in making our report it would have any effect on the economic justification, but the Bureau of the Budget chose to comment on it.

Mr. BALDWIN. As I understand it, Colonel, there must be quite a number of oil tankers coming into this particular harbor. If a pipeline were built then a portion of these oil tankers might be superseded by the pipeline, in which case with less use of the shipping means for getting oil into the area there might not be as many ships using the deepwater channel and there might be some question with regard to the costs. Is this a summary of what might be developed? Colonel YOUNG. That is right, Mr. Baldwin. However, in the case of this particular project the export of coal is a much larger percentage of the commerce in this harbor than the import of petroleum products.

Mr. JONES. The next project.

NORFOLK HARBOR AND THIMBLE SHOALS, Va.

Colonel YOUNG. Norfolk Harbor and Thimble Shoals, Va., is on page 48 of the Senate document.

Existing Federal projects in the Norfolk Harbor area consist of the Thimble Shoals Channel, the Norfolk Harbor main channel, and the Newport News Channel. Deepening of these channels is necessary to better accommodate large bulk carriers. The Chief of Engineers recommends deepening of these channels generally from 40 to 45 feet with some minor widening and extension of existing projects at an estimated Federal cost of $25,600,000 subject to certain conditions of local cooperation. Local interests have indicated their willingness to meet the requirements of local cooperation. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 5.1 to 1. Comments from the State and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report. However, the Bureau of the Budget notes that no incremental justification is presented for the deepening of the anchorage area and that, therefore, it would expect further consideration be given to this matter prior to any request for funds to initiate their construction.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Any questions?

Mr. CLAUSEN. I notice you have a number of requests for deepening of channels. Is this because of the alteration of the type of ships that are being used? Are they going into larger units throughout the country?

Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir; particularly in the large bulk carriers and more specifically in petroleum and coal-carrying colliers.

Mr. CLAUSEN. You find this throughout the country today?
Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLAUSEN. In all areas?

Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir. In many of the projects in the Atlantic region this is true.

Mr. CLAUSEN. I wanted to get that on the record.

Mr. EDMONDSON. You may proceed with the summary on that project.

Mr. HARSHA. May I ask a question while you are waiting on the

summary.

How do you derive the benefit on these projects?

Colonel YOUNG. The major portion of the benefits are in so-called transportation savings, the reduction in traveltime where ships, for example, might have to travel at half-speed in order to wait for a favorable tide to get into the port or might have to sit at anchor to wait to get into the port.

Mr. HARSHA. Do these benefits accrue to the general public or to the industry?

Colonel YOUNG. I believe they are directly attributable to the shipping industry, but indirectly to the general public in view of the increased commerce and use of the port facilities.

Mr. HARSHA. Then the benefit-cost ratio would be directly related to the accuracy of the tonnage that goes through that area, apparently Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARSHA. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Questions?

Mr. ROBERTS. Would you have a log, by any chance, showing the number of ships? Are there not very few ships with that heavy

draft and which would require this dredging? Have you any idea how many are actually involved? What would be the number of such heavy carriers? You may supply that later.

Colonel YOUNG. I might say in the case of this particular project there is a very interesting development in the construction of larger coal colliers with deeper draft requirements. In the last 3 years there has been the construction of eight new vessels, from 1962 to the present time. In addition, the French have a new collier coming off the ways in the middle of 1966 of 83,000 tons capacity with a draft of over 44 feet. The Italians, similarly, have one coming off the ways by the end of 1966 with a draft requirement of 422 feet. As to the number of deep-draft users, as of January 1965, there were about 145 bulk carriers in use of which about 10 require depths greater than 40 feet. As of May of this year, about 100 ships were under construction which require depths of 36 to 45 feet.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDMONDSON. If we are to compete in the world coal market we must have channels and harbors to accommodate the vessels which are carrying that commerce.

Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir; that is true, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Any further questions?

Mr. HARSHA. I have one other question, Mr. Chairman.

On page 2 of your report under annual benefits, the second item, "Transportation savings." $6,388,000. You have that separated from elimination of damages and savings in time. What are the transportation savings that you consider here? How do you arrive at that?

Colonel YOUNG. Sir, the $10,000 annual benefit should be elimination of damages only. It is not the savings in time. The transportation savings include the savings in time which I mentioned.

Mr. HARSHA. That is what occurred to me. Thank you.

Mr. EDMONDSON. This, it seems to me, illustrates the point that our water resources and our water transportation should be developed to fit into our economic development program. If we are to market the coal from Appalachia as a part of our overall development program, we must have the most efficient means possible to move that coal out to the world markets.

Colonel YorNG. There have been several discussions, sir, between the State Department, the Department of the Interior and the corps relative to this project. The French are building a large conventional steam generator plant at Le Havre. They plan on taking coal from this particular project in the large colliers which they are now building, for use in Le Havre for this steam generating plant. About 3 to 5 million tons a year additional export of coal is anticipated.

(The statement of American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc., follows:)

STATEMENT OF AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE INSTITUTE, INC., IN SUPPORT OF NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS IN NORFOLK HARBOR AND NEWPORT NEWS, VA. The improvements recommended by the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, as developed by the Norfolk district engineer and approved by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Habors and set forth in the following House documents of the 9th Congress are as follows:

House Document 143: (1) Widening the present 40-foot channel to Newport News from 600 to 800 feet and (2) dredging two anchorage areas opposite New