ANNUAL REPORT, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1962 ANNUAL/REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS ~ / or) 't F US. ARMY, r. ON CIVIL WORKS ACTIVITIES 1962 IN TWO VOLUMES Vol. 2 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1962 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price $5.75 _ ____ NO R IH ATLANTIC DIVISION DIVISION& DISTRICT BOUNDARIES FOR RIVER 8 HARBOR THEALASKADISTRICT. ANoFLOODGONTROL ANCHORAGE HEADQUARTERS. IS INCLUDED ALASKA. IN LEGEND THENORTHPACIFICDIVISION. THE TERRITORYOFPUERTO RICO SOU1V '.DSTRICT THESTATEOF HAWAII ANDADJACENT ISLANDS IS O DIVsONNEAOVUARERS " DISTRICT NEADOUTERS INCLUDEDIN JACKSONVILLEDISTRICT AND NoRS. DISTNCT SDIVISION AND ISLANDS AREINCLUDED IN THEPACIFIC IN SOUTH ATLANTICDIVISION. HONOLULU OCEAN PACIFIC DISTRICT. DIVISION. AT HONOLULU.HAWAII 1 JULY 1962 WITHHEADQUARTERS _ CONTENTS / *42 Page NEW ENGLAND DIVISION ........................................... 1 NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION: New York, N.Y., district ........................................ 131 Philadelphia, Pa. district. ................................... 209 Baltimore, Md., district ...................................... 263 Norfolk, Va., district............................................ 339 SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION: Wilmington, N.C., district................................... 383 Charleston, S.C., district..................................... 421 Savannah, Ga., district ...................................... 439 Jacksonville, Fla., district .................................... 465 Mobile, Ala., district .......................................... 541 LOWER MISSISSIPPI VALLEY DIVISION: New Orleans, La., district..................................... 601 Vicksburg, Miss., district............................... ...... 683 Memphis, Tenn., district ..................................... 701 St. Louis, Mo., district....................................... 709 SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION: Galveston, Tex., district....................................... 735 Fort Worth, Tex., district.................................... 803 Albuquerque, N. Mex., district ................................. 847 Little Rock, Ark., district..................................... 871 Tulsa, Okla, district......................................... 913 MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION : Kansas City, Mo., district.................................... 967 Omaha, Nebr., district........................................ 1015 OHIO RIVER DIVISION: Ohio River............................................ 1055 Nashville, Tgin., district.................................... 1069 Louisville, Ky., district .................................... 1109 Huntington, W. Va., district................................ 1151 Pittsburgh, Pa., district.................................... 1189 NORTH CENTRAL DIVISION : St. Paul, Minn., district........................ .............. 1243 Rock Island, Ill., district..................................... 1305 Mississippi River between the Missouri River and Minneapolis, Minn.......................................... 1347 Chicago, Ill., district......................................... 1361 Detroit, Mich., district....................................... 1431 Buffalo, N.Y., district ........................................ 1511 United States Lake Survey ................................... 1583 SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION: a\ Los Angeles, Calif., district............. ..................... 1595 San Francisco, Calif., district............ ................... 1687 Sacramento, Calif., district................ .................... 1729 PACIFIC OCEAN DIVISION: . Honolulu, Hawaii, district................................ 1825 "--. ,, " -III. IV Page NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION: Portland, Oreg., district.......... ............................ 1845 Seattle, Wash., district ........ ...................... 1933 Walla Walla, Wash., district ................................... 1981 Alaska, district ........................................... 2011 The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors........... ...... 2033 Mississippi River Commission .................................. 2037 The Beach Erosion Board...................................... 2103 California Debris Commission.................................... 2107 Waterways Experiment Station ................................ 2121 Peimanent International Association of Navigation Congresses...... 2123 Investigations and supervision of projects under the Federal Water Power Act.......................................... 2127 Miscellaneous Civil Works ..................................... 2129 IMPROVEMENT OF RIVERS AND HARBORS IN THE NEW ENGLAND DIVISION The New England Division, an operating division with both district and division functions, comprises all of New England ex- cept western Vermont and small portions of Massachusetts and Connecticut along their western boundaries, and includes small portions of southeastern New York, all embraced in the drainage basins tributary to Long Island Sound and the Altantic Ocean east of the New York-Connecticut State Line. It also includes Fishers Island, N.Y. IMPROVEMENTS Page Page Navigation Navigation-Continued 1. Eastport Harbor, Maine ... 1 and condition surveys 2. Penobscot River, Maine .... 4 only were conducted 3. Southwest Harbor, Maine 6 during the fiscal year ... 58 4. Matinicus Harbor, Maine 7 33. Other authorized 5. South Bristol Harbor, navigation projects ..... 58 Maine ................. 8 34. Navigation work under 6. Portland Harbor, Maine 9 special authorization .... 62 7. Scarboro River, Maine, (between Prouts Neck Alteration of Bridges and Pine Point) ........ 11 35. Chelsea Street Highway 8. Kennebunk River, Maine .. 12 Bridge ................ 63 9. Wells Harbor, Maine ...... 13 10. York Harbor, Maine .... 15 Shore Protection 11. Pepperell Cove, Maine ... 17 36. Quincy Shore Beach, 12. Rye Harbor, N.H. ........ 18 Mass ................ 64 13. Newburyport Harbor, 37. Silver Beach to Cedar Mass.................. 20 Beach, Conn ........... 65 14. Gloucester Harbor and 38. Compo Beach, Westport, Annisquam River, Mass.. 21 Conn . ................ 66 15. Salem Harbor, Mass. .... 23 39. Other authorized 16. Boston Harbor, Mass. .... 25 shore protection projects. 67 17. Cape Cod Canal, Mass. .... 28 18. Chatham (Stage) Flood Control Harbor, Mass. ......... 33 40. Merrimack River Basin, 19. Hyannis Harbor, Mass. .... 34 N.H. and Mass. ........ 69 20. Cotuit Harbor, Mass ....... 35 41. Franklin Falls Reservoir, 21. Harbor of Refuge, Merrimack River Nantucket, Mass,....... 37 Basin, N.H........... 70 22. Cuttyhunk Harbor, Mass. .. 38 42. Blackwater Reservoir, 23. Fall River Harbor, Mass. . 39 Merrimack River 24. Sakonnet Harbor, R.I. ..... 41 Basin, N.H..... ........ 71 25. Apponaug Cove, R.I. ...... 42 43. Hopkinton-Everett 26. Point Judith Harbor of Reservoir, Merrimack Refuge and Point River Basin, N.H. ...... 72 Judith Pond, R.I. ...... 43 44. Edward MacDowell 27. Harbor of Refuge at Reservoir, Merrimack Block Island, R.I .... 46 River Basin, N.H. ...... 74 28. Pawcatuck River, R.I. 45. Blackstone River Basin, and Conn. ............. 47 Mass. and R.I. ........ 75 29. Connecticut River below 46. Worcester Diversion, Hartford, Conn......... 50 Blackstone River 30. Bridgeport Harbor, Conn. .. 52 Basin, Mass............ 76 31. Southport Harbor, Conn... 56 47. West Hill Reservoir, 32. Navigation projects on Blackstone River which reconnaissance Basin, Mass........... 77 2 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Page Page Flood Control--Continued Flood Control-Continued 48. Woonsocket, Backstone 70. 'Chicopee Falls, River Basin, R.I:,.... 78 :Connecticut River 49. Lower Woonsocket, Basin, Mass............ 105 Rlackstone River 71 Westfield :River . . p Bsi,, . ...... .. .. 79 Connecticut kiver 50. 'Thlanies River Basin, Basin, Conin. .. . ... 107 Conn., R,, and Mass. .. 80 72. Littieville Reservoir, 51L Hodges. Village Reservoir, Connecticut River . Thames River Basin, Mass. .......... 108 81 73. Conant Brook Reservoir, 52..Eain~ Mass .... stUmvlleReservoir, .. .... Connecticut River Thames River Basiii, Mass. 109 ....... Basin, Mass .......... 82 74. Colebrook River 53. East Brimfield Reservoir, Thames River Reservoir, Connecticut Basin, Mass. .......... River Basin, Conn...... 110 84 54. Westville Reservoir, 75. Mad River Reservoir, Thames River Connecticut River Basin, Mass.. ....... 85 Basin, Conn.. . . . . 111 55. West Thompson 76. Sucker Brook Reservoir, Reservoir, Thames Connecticut River River Basin, Conn. . . ... . 86 Basin; Conn. ........ 112 56. Mansfield Hollow 77. Hall Meadow Brook Reservoir, :Thames Reservoir, Housatonic River Basin, Conn...., 87 River Basin, Conn. . 113 57. Connecticut River Basin, 78. East Branich' Reservoir, Vt., N. H., Mass., Housatonic River and Conn. ............ 88 Basin, Conn.......... 114 58. Union Village 79. Thomaston Reservoir, Reservoir, Connecticut Housatonic River River Basin, Vt. . ....... 911 Basin, Conin. 115 59. North Hartland 80. Northfield Brook Reservoir, Connecticut Reservoir, Housatonic River Basin, Vt. ..... .. 92 River Basin, Conn... 116 60. North Springfield. 81. Black Rock Reservoir, Reservoir, Connecticut. HousatoniC River River Basin, Vt....... 93 Basin, Conn. ......... . 117 61. Ball Mountain 82. Hancock Brook Reservoir, Connecticut Reservoir Housatonic River Basin, Vt........ 94 River Basin, Conn. 118 62. Townshend Reservoir, 83. Hop Brook Reservoir, Connecticut River Housatonic River Basin, Vt. ..... ...... 96 Basin, Conn. ......... 119 63. Surry Mountain 84. Fox Point Barrier, Reservoir, Connecticut Narragansett Bay, R.I.. River Basin, N.H. ... 97 120 64. Otter Brook Reservoir, 85. New Bedford, Fairhaven, Connecticut River and Acushnet, Mass. 121 Basin, N.H..... . .. . 98 86. Pawcatuck, Conn.. ....... 122 65. Birch Hill Reservoir, 87. Stamford, Conn........... 124 Connecticut River 88. Floodwall rehabilitation .. 125 Basin, Mass. ......... 99 89. Other authorized 66. Tully Reservoir, flood control projects ... 125 Connecticut River. 90. Inspection of completed Basin, Mass........ . 101 flood control works . 127 67. Barre Falls Re ervoir, 91. Flood control work Connecticut River under special Basin, M1ss............ 102 authorization ......... 128 68. Knightville Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, Mass.. ......... 103 General Investigations 69. Three Rivers, 92. Surveys ............... 129 Connecticut River 93. Collection and study Basin, Mass........... 104 of basic data .......... 129 RIVERS AND HARBORSNEW ENG+TANBIIVIVISON 3. EA..PORT HARBOR, MAIN T. Location .Eastport Harbor, ion ;the east side of Moose :Island, Maine, in on Friar Roads, an international boundary- passage be, itween Moose Island and Campobello Island, NewaBrunswick. The harbor is an open waterfront about-3 miles north of Lubec, and 40 miles northeast of Machias, gaine. (See U.S. Coast-and Geodetic Survey Chrt No. 810.) Edisting projeet. This.lprovides fora :breakwater 500 feet long, parallel to the icentral waterfront, and an anchorage basin .of 1;4 acres with depths of 10 and 14 feet. The project depths refer to mean low water. The mean range of tide at Eastport is 18.2 feet and the spring range is 20.7i f t. The extreme recorded tides were 23.2 feet above and 4.2 feet below mean low water. The latest approved estimate of Federal cost of new work is $634,000 (July 19 2). The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of July 14, 1960 (S. Doc. 98, 86th Cong., 2d sess.). The latest pub- lished map is contained in the project document. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including non-Federal contributions, amount to $150,000 (July 1962),. Terminal facilities. Approximately 17 wharves are located along the easterly shore of Eastport, on the westerly side of Friar Roads, extending for a distance of about one mile from north to south, with depths at their ends varying from 0.0 to 18 feet at mean low water. The most active of these are 8 used in the handling of fish, 5 used by ferries and in the handling of freight and general cargo, one used as a customs wharf, one used in the handling of oil and tar, one used by the American Can Co., and the Wadswvorth wharf at which ships chandlery, fuel, and supplies are available. In addition, there are 2 fish wharves in Prince Cove south of the main harbor area, 2 wharves at reduction plants in Broad Cove on the southerly side of Moose Island, and 2 cannery wharves on the north side of the island. .Two- harves owned by the Maine Central Railroad and used: by the;Passamaquoddy Ferry and Navigation C., are equipped with rail sidings: and transit sheds. Repairs to machinery are made off the ddcks by 2 marine repair shops, and machinery is installed: in Canadian built ships. There 'are numerous, undeveloped areas along the waterfront that are available for future use. Operationsand results during the fiscal year. New work: Con- struction, by contract, of a breakwater 500 feet long, :parallel to ithe central waterfront, and an anchorage basin of 1.4,acres with depths of 10 and 14 feet was commenced in July 1961 and was substantially completed in June 1962. In accordance with terms of local coopera- tion, construction, by contract, of a fish pump, a public landing joining: the breakwaters to shore, and mooring facilities in. the Federal anchorage were substantially completed in June 1962. Federal costs during the fiscal year from regular funds: amounted to $542,996, all for new work. In addition, contributed funds expended for the public landing amounted to $129,952, all for new work. Conditionat end of fiscal year. Construction of the existing proj- 4 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 ect was commenced in July 1961 and substantially completed in June 1962. To complete the project there remain dredging and cleanup operations. The controlling depths at mean low water were as follows: 10 feet in the 10-foot anchorage (1962), 10 feet in the 14-foot anchorage due to rock shoals. (1962). Total Federal costs for the existing project from regular funds amounted to $583,978, all for new work. In addition, contributed funds expended for the public landing amounted to $132,952, all for new work. Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to year Fiscal 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: ... Appropriated .. .. ............. ...... $323,000 $300,000 $623,000 Cost...... ....... ........ .......................... 30,450 542,996 583,978 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962.............................$ 7,030 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 80, 1963...............7.......,030 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ...................... .11,000 CONTRIBUTED FUNDS-OTHER ' Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated............ ....... 147,500 ........... .... ....... ........... $)147,500 Cost................ ...... 3,000 $129,952 132,952 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962................................ $4,182 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. .. 4,182 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project......................... 2,500 1 Construction of public landing under supervision of the Corps of Engineers and reimbursed by local interests. 2. PENOBSCOT RIVER, MAINE Location. This river drains a large number of lakes and small streams in north, central and eastern Maine and, after assuming definite character as a stream, flows about 100 miles in a southerly direction through the middle of the State, discharging into Penob- scot Bay, about 90 miles northeast of Portland, Maine. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 311.) Previous projects. Adopted by the River and Harbor Act of July 11, 1870, and modified by the River and Harbor Acts of March 3, 1899, and July 11, 1947. For further details of previous projects, see page 1732 of Annual Report for 1915, page 48 of Annual Report for 1938, and page 31 of Annual Report for 1949. Existing project. This provides for dredging to a depth of 22 feet between Winterport and Bucksport, about 16 miles below Bangor; for straightening, widening, and deepening to 15 feet the channel near Stearns Mill and near Crosbys Narrows from 3 to 4.5 miles below Bangor; and for deepening the harbor at Bangor to 14 feet and widening it along the Bangor front, giving an additional width of from 100 to 300 feet for a length of about 2,000 feet. The project depths refer to mean low water which is 3 feet above RIVERS AND HARBORS - NEW ENGLAND DIVISION extreme low tide. The mean range of tide at Bangor is 13.1 feet, and the extreme about 15 feet. The Federal cost of new work for the completed project was $292,020, exclusive of amounts expended under previous projects. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $28,977. The existing project was authorized by the following : Acts Work authorized Documents July 5, 1884 Widening the channel at Bangor and Crosby's Narrows.... S. Ex. Doc. 44, 48th Cong., 1st sess., and Annual Rept. 1884, p. 475. Aug. 11, 1888 Dredging between Winterport and Bucksport ............. H. Ex. Doc. 133, 50th Cong., 1st sess., and Annual Rept. 1888, p. 425. July 31, 1892 Widening the channel at Bangor ........................ H. Ex. Doc. 37, 52d Cong., 1st sess., and Annual Rept. 1892, p. 553. Mar. 2, 1907 Further widening of the harbor at Bangor. ....... ..... H. Dec. 739, 59th Cong., 1st sees. (Contains the latest published map. Other maps are in H. Doc. 652, 71st Cong., 3d sess.) Local cooperation. None required. Terminal facilities. The river front of Bangor has 12 wharves, most of which are of the timber-crib stone-ballasted type. Exten- sive improvements and alterations have been completed at all the oil terminals to handle increased receipts of petroleum products. Eleven of the wharves have physical connection with a railroad. On the east side of the river at Brewer, opposite Bangor, there is one water terminal, a coal handling plant having mechanical ap- pliances and three petroleum products storage plants. The re- mainder of the terminals on the east side of the river are in poor condition. At South Brewer there is a large pulp and paper plant which has water connections, oil pumping and storage facilities. There are a number of private wharves open to the public at moderate charges. At Bucksport on the north side of the river there are three important terminals, one a coal handling plant and two used by a large paper manufacturing plant which has terminal facilities for the receipt and storage of oil products and pulpwood. The terminal facilities are considered adequate for existing needs. Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance: U.S. Government hopper dredge Hyde was employed at Penobscot River. Work was commenced on August 15, 1961, and completed on September 11, 1961. During the period of operations approxi- mately 114,000 (bin measurement) cubic yards of ordinary material were removed. Federal costs during the fiscal year from regular funds amounted to $78,734, all for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in 1913. The controlling depths at mean low water are as follows: 14 feet from Bucksport to Winterport (1937); channel opposite Lawrence Cove about 19.5 feet (1959) ; channel at Frank- fort Flats 20.4 feet (1959) ; thence 15 feet to Stearns Mill; thence 14 feet to Bangor, except for a shoal area in Bangor Harbor on the Brewer side, where the least depth is 4.6 feet (1937). Total Federal costs for the existing project from regular funds amounted to $566,876, of which $292,020 was for new work, and $274,856 was for maintenance. 6 : CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 19 62 REPORT OF .iTE Cost and, financial statement Total to Fiscal year 958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30,1962 New work: Appropriated .......... . .. ........... ................ . . " .$501,020 ....................... Cost................. 501,020 Maintenance: Appropriated........ .......... ......... $66,153 ......... 78,734274,856 Cost............... ...................... 66,153.......... 78,734 274,856 1 Includes $209,000 for new work for previous projects. 3. SOUTHWEST HARBOR, MAINE Location. Southwest Harbor is a small cove indenting the south- westerly shore of Mount Desert Island, on the coast of Maine, about 13 miles southwest of Bar Harbor and 2 miles southwest of North- east Harbor. It is located on the eastern side of the westerly neck of Mount Desert Island at the mount of Somes Sound. Just to the east and directly north of the harbor entrance is Greening Island. Farther to the east and slightly southerly are located Sutton Island and the Little and Great Cranberry Islands. (See U.S.. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No.'206 and No. 306.) EXisting project. This provides for dredging two adjoining anchorage areas of 5 acres each westerly of Clark Point, the inner, or westerly, area dredged to .a depth of 6 feet and the outer, or easterly, area to a depth of 10 feet below mean low water.. The mean range of tide is 10.2 feet. The harbor is exposed to easterly winds and moderate wave action. The Federal cost of new work for the completed project was $190,612. •The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of July 14, 1960 :(H..Doc. 408, 85th Cong., 2d sess.). The latest published map is contained in the project: document. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total actual costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, incuding non-Federal contributions, amount to $7,501 for new work, . Terminal facilities. There are nine commercial terminal facilities in Southwest Harbor. Two of these facilities belong to large com- mercial fisheries, five belong to builders-lof commercial and;recrea- tional boats, and two-belong to wholesale. lobster dealers. All of these terminal facilities can be serviced by commercial; trucking lines. SOperationsand results during fiscal year. New work: Dredging, by contract, of two adjoining anchorage areas westerly of Clark Point; one to. a depth of 6 feet and one to a depth of 10 feet, was commenced in July 1961 and completed in October 1961. During the dredging process rock was encountered in the 10-foot anchor- age Work on rock removal was commenced in February 1962 and was completed in April 1962. Federal costs during the fiscal year from regular funds amounted to $168,822, all for new work. In addition, contributed funds in the amount of $7,501 were expended for new work. : Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the existing proj- ect was commenced in July 1961 and completed in April 1962. The RIVERS AND HARBOR=}-NEW ENGLANDDIVISION controlling depths in the 6-foot :westerly anchorage area were 6 feet, and 10 feet in the 10-foot easterly, :anchorage area, at mean low water ( Total Federal costs for the etisting project from :1962). regular funds amounted to $190,612, all for new work. In addition, the sum of $7,501 was expended for new work from contributed funds. Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30,1962 New work: Appropriated................... ....... .... $151,000 $29,036 190,612 Cost....... ......... . ... ..... .......... 11,214 168,822 190,612 CONTRIBUTED FUNDS 4. M1ATINICUS HARBOR, MAINE Location. This harbor lies on the easterly side of Matinicus Island, about 20 miles outh f Rockland HIrbor, Maine. (See U.S. Coast Geodetic yeand Surve Charts Nos. 225 and 1203.) Existing project. This proyides for the construction of a rui. blestone breakwater extending from Youngs Point on Matinicus I land to Indian Ledge, a distance of about 450 feet: The iaan range of tide is 9 feet. The Federal cost of new work for the ompleted'project was $14,000. The breakwater was completed in 1911. Recent survey reveals that rehabilitation to restore the breakwater to its ddsigned purpose is required. The latest approed estimate of FederlI cost for rehabilitati6n is $106,000 (July'1961), The: existing projectwas authorized by the 'River and Harbor Act of June 25, 1910. The latest published mnp is in the project doctimernt (H. Doc.653, 60th Cong. 1st sess . . L ocal eoopeadion. Fully complied ith-. T tit*nial facilities. There aMr t12 privately owned wharves-in the harbor variously oonstructed of wood piles, stone and crib work, and all are: in fairiy~'good condition. There is no publicly owned wharf, but bne privatewharf is available for landing of mail, freight and passengers. The berths at these wharves are cry at row water. One harf has:facilities. Operations and results, - durig fiscal year. Repairs-to ' break- w~ter, by contract, were c mm4enced in August, 1961. Approxi- matelyr 5,930 tons of stone were placed and the work was completed in: 'June 1962. ..Federal 'costs during the fiscal year from regular funds amounted to $111,534, all for rehabilitation. Condition at end of fiscal year.: The existing project was com- pleted=in 1911. Rehabilitation required to restore the breakwater to its designed purpose was commenced in August 1961 and com- 8 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 pleted in June 1962. Total Federal costs for the existing project from regular funds amounted to $135,940, of which $14,000 was for new work, $8,413 for maintenance, and $113,527 for rehabilita- tion. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .............. .......... ...... . ..... ............... $14,o0 Cost................. I .... ..................... ... .......... ...... 14,00 Maintenance: I......... Appropriated.......... .. . . ......... ................. . . .8,413 Cost. ................. I........... I........ ..........i ........................ 8,413 Rehabilitation: Appropriated ......... ........ ............ ....... $106,000 $17,243 123,243 Cost................. 1,993 111,534 113,527 5. SOUTH BRISTOL HARBOR, MAINE Location. South Bristol Harbor is on the coast of Maine about 40 miles northeast of Portland and 28 miles southwest of Rockland. It is a section of a short waterway known as The Gut which separates Rutherford Island from the mainland and extends from Damari- scotta River on the west to Johns Bay on the east. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 314 and the Boothbay Quand- rangle.) Existing project. This provides for removal of projecting ledges in the channel through the bridge to a depth of 2 feet; dredging a channel through The Gut, 5 feet deep over a width of 25 feet through the swing bridge and 50 feet in the approaches. All depths refer to mean low water. The mean range of tide is 9 feet and the spring range is 10.4 feet. The extreme low tide is minus 3.5 feet. The latest approved estimate of Federal cost for new work is $142,500 (July 1962). The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of July 25, 1912, (H. Doc. 564, 62d Cong., 2d sess.) which provided for the removal of obstructing ledge; and by the River and Harbor Act of July 14, 1960 (S.Doc. 30, 86th Cong., 1st sess.). The latest published map is contained in S. Doc. 30. Local cooperation. The existing project was authorized subject to the conditions that local interests agree to: contribute in cash 3 percent of the cost of construction, and that such contribution, presently estimated at $4,000 (July, 1962), be paid in a lump sum prior to commencement of construction, the final allocation of cost to be made after actual costs have been determined; furnish with- out cost to the United States all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and suitable spoil-disposal areas necessary for the construction and subsequent maintenance of the improvement, when and as re- quired; and hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and maintenance of the improvement. Assur- ances that these conditions will be met were requested in fiscal year 1962, and have been received. Terminal facilities. There are four commercial terminal facili- ties located in South Bristol Harbor, three of which can be serviced by trucking lines; and two of the docks have fuel available. The RIVERS AND HARBORS - --NEW ENGLAND DIVISION town of South Bristol maintains one public landing in the harbor and two public landings in Christmas Cove in the southern end of Rutherford Island. The public landing in the harbor is located on the south shore west of the bridge. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work.: Oper- tions consisted of engineering studies, completion of design memoranda and preparation of plans and specifications for dredg- ing of a channel through The Gut. Federal costs during the fiscal year from regular funds amounted to $11,433, all for new work. Conditionat end of fiscal year. Projecting ledges yin the channel through the bridge were removed in 1914 toa.depth of 2.feet, mean low water. Work remaining to complete the project consists of dredging a channel through The Gut, 5 feet deep over a width of 25 feet through the swing bridge and 50 feet in the approaches. The controlling depths at: mean low water were as follows: Channel from the western approach, 2 feet deep through the narrow bridge passage and into the wide channel to the east of the: bridge. The total Federal costs for the existing project from regular funds have been $24,387, for new work. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated........... .......... ........... ......... .......... $12,000 $24,954 Cost................. .... ....... ...... .... . .. .11,433 24,381 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962. .......................... $ 567 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963................... 567 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project...................... 117,546 6. PORTLAND HARBOR, MAINE Location. This harbor is on the southwestern coast of Maie about 100 miles northeast of Boston, Mass. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 325.) Previous projects. Adopted by joint resolution of June 5, 1868, and River and Harbor Act of June 10, 1872., For further details see, page 1736 of Annual Report fori 915, and page 40 of An;tual Report for 1936. Existing project. This provides, for' an anchorage area 35~feet :deep at mean low water, approximately 170 acres in area, north- west of House Island; and anchorage area off the eastern end of the -city, with a minimum depth of 30 feet; dredging a 35-foot channel from the westerly side of the Maine State pier in the lower part of the main harbor through i~s channel of approach toi the seA; dredging to 35' feet the: present 30-fot channel from -the Maine State pier to Portland Bridge for its full width, thence to Vaughan Bridge for a width of 400 feet, thence to the Boston & 'Maine Railroad bridge for a width of 300 feet; dredging a 35-font turning basin easterly of Vaughan Bridge; and construction of stone breakwater about 900 feet long from Spring Point to Spring Point Light; for a channel 80 feet deep and 300 feet wide fromnthe anchorage to the Grand Trunk Bridge at the mouth of Back Cove; for. rock excavation to give a depth of 14 feet between the Gratd 10 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Trunk and Tukey's Bridges, and a channel 12 feet deep and 300 feet wide to a point about 2,500 feet upstream from Tukey Bridge; for the removal of obstructing ledges in the main ship channel to a depth of 40 feet; for a stone breakwater about 2,000 feet long on the southerly side of the mouth of the inner harbor; and the maintenance of Soldier Ledge Channel in Hussy Sound, Casco Bay, at a depth of 40 feet. The project depths refer to mean low water. The mean tidal range is 8.9 feet, extreme 10.2 feet, though variations as great as 16 feet have been observed under storm conditions. The Federal cost of new work for the completed project was $4,406,275, ex- clusive of amounts expended on previous projects. The portion of the project for ledge removal off Portland Head Light is consid- ered to be inactive and is excluded from the foregoing cost for new work. The estimate for this portion was last revised in 1954 and was estimated at $133,000. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $21,307. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documnts July 4 1836 Breakwater on southerly side of mouth of inner harbor..... H. Doc. 491, 23d Cong., 1st seas. June 2, 1886 Extension of breakwater. June 3, 1896 Dredging to 30 feet over greater part of inner harbor ...... S. Doc. 271, 54th Cong., 1st seas. Mar. 3, 1905 Extension of 30-foot depth up Fore River to Boston & Maine (sundry civil) R.R. bridge and in channel of approach to Back Cove. July 25, 1912 30-foot anchorage; 14 feet at entrance to Back Cove; res- H. Doc. 489, 62d Cong., 2d seas. toration of 12-foot depth in Back Cove and 30-foot depth in the approach as well as in lower part of harbor. Aug. 8, 1917' 35-foot depth in lower part of main harbor and the channel H. Doc. 71, 65th Cong., 1st sess. of approach, and removal of 2 obstructing ledges in main channel. 1 Mar. 2, 1945 35-foot anchorage, approximately 170 acres in area north- H. Doc. 560, 76th Cong., 3d seas. west of House Island. Do........ Maintenance of Soldier Ledge Channel in Hussey Sound, H. Doc. 730, 79th Cong., 2d seas. at depth of 44 feet. July 24, 1946 Deepening 30-foot channel to 35 feet; 35-foot turning basin H. Doc. 510, 79th Cong., 2d sess. easterly of Vaughan Bridge; breakwater at Spring Point. Aug. 13, 1957 Abntidonment of upper end of 12-foot channel from 2,500 P. L. 126, 85th Cong., 1st seas. 71 Stat. feet upstream of Tukey Bridge to the head of Back Cove. 344. 1Contains the latest published maps. 1 RemovaLofi i ledge inactive. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Terminal facilities. There are 51 waterfront facilities, of which 3 are not used. Five of the wharves are publicly owned, three by the US. Government, one by the State of Maine, and one by the city of South Portland. Mechanical-handling facilities are avail- able -at 15 of the wharves. Railroad connections have been made t 29 of them. The facilities are considered adequate for the needs of existing commerce. (For a further description of terminal faciis, see the Ports of Portland and Searsport, Maine, and Ports uth, N.H., Port Series No. 1, revised 1953). Opertion and results during fiscal year. Maintenance: Engieering studies were commenced late in the fiscal year for 'maintenance dredging to be performed in the 35-foot fore river cl annel .andturning basin. Federal costs during the fiscal year from regular funds amounted to $1,042, all for maintenance. Cindiitionati end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in September 1958 with the removal of small isolated rock RIVERS AND HARBORS - --NEW ENGLAND DIVISION 11 areas in the 35-foot inner harbor channel. The controlling depths at mean low water in the various improved channels of Portland Harbor were as follows: 33 feet in the northerly quarter, 35 feet in the remaining three-quarters of the 35-foot channel from the sea to abreast Maine State pier (1959); thence 32 feet in the southerly quarter, 33 feet in the middle half, and 32 feet in the northerly quarter of the 35-foot channel to Portland Bridge (1959); thence 33.2 feet in the middle half, and 31 feet in the outside quarters, 28,9 feet in the turning area, to the Boston and Maine Railroad bridge (1962); 18 feet in the entrance channel to Back Cove (1945) ; 13 feet between the Grand Trunk and Tukey's Bridges (1945) ;,28 feet in the 30-foot anchorage (1951) ; 35 feet in the 35-foot anchorage except for a rock ledge shoal having a 20-foot depth along north limit (January 1958). The total Federal costs under the existing project from regular funds have been $5,563,075, of which $4,406,275 was for new work, and $1,156,800 was for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to year Fiscal 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 . June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.......... .......... -$4,123 ......... ......................... $5,098,710 Cost .................. $82,755 122,063 .................... ............. ,08,70 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... -4,685 $4,000 .................................1,159,758 Cost ...... ........... 105,496 .......... ....... ..... 1,042 1,156,800 1 Includes $692,435 for new work for previous projects. 7. SCARBORO RIVER, MAINE BETWEEN PROUTS NECK AND PINE POINT Location. This river, about 21/2 miles long, is a small and generally shallow stream which rises in the town of Scarboro, Maine, and empties into the north end of Saco Bay, immediately west of Prouts Neck. It is 17 miles by water southeast of Port- land, Maine. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Charts Nos. 231 and 1205.) Existing project. This provides for a channel across the bar 200 feet wide and 8 feet deep at mean low water, and a channel 2,40) feet long, 100 feet wide and 6 feet deep at mean low water, leading to an anchorage of the same depth 1,350 feet long and 300 feet wide, and a jetty 800 feet long at the tip of Pine Point. The mean range of tide is 8.8 feet and the spring range is 10.1 feet. The Federal cost of new work for the completed project was $398,339. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $23,178. The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of May 17, 1950, and the Chief of Engineers March 8, 1960. The latest published map is contained in the project document (H. Doc. 69, 81st Cong., 1st sess.). Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total costs for all requirements of local cooperation under the terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, amount to $10,000. 12 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEFRS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Terminal facilities. There is one wharf of pile and =timber construction on Scarboro River, extending northerly from Pine Point almost to the southerly limit of anchorage. The facility is owned by the town of Scarboro and is considered adequate for the present requirements of: commerce. : Opeationsand results during fiscal year. New work: Construc- tion, by 'contract, of a jetty 800 feet long at the tip of Pine Point was commenced on July 1, 1961. During the fiscal year 25,400 tolns of stone were placed; and the jetty was completed on May 11, 1962. Federal costs during the fiscal year from regular funds amounted to $178,347, all for new work. Maintenance: Dredging for the removal of shoals in the project channel was commenced, by contract, on May 30, 1962 and was still in progress at the close of the fiscal year. During the period of operations approximately 80,000 cubic yards of ordinary material were removed. Federal costs during the fiscal year from regular funds amounted to $115,891 for maintenance. Total costs during the fiscal year from regular funds amounted to $294,238, of which $178,347 was for new work, and $115,891 was for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in May 1962. Dredging of an entrance channel and inner harbor basin was completed in October 1956. Subsequent thereto the channel across the bar shoaled and shifted until the controlling depth in the best channel was plus 0.1 foot. Because of the excessive shoaling rate, the project design was modified under authority delegated to the Chief of Engineers to include construction of a jetty at the harbor entrance. Construction of the jetty was com- menced in July 1961 and completed in May 1962. The controlling depths at mean low water were as follows: 8 feet in the 8-foot entrance channel, 6.3 feet in the 6-foot channel and 6.8 feet in the 6-fort anchorage (:1962). The total Federal costs for the existing project from regular funds have been $514,230, of which $398,339 wakforflew work, and $115,891 was for maintenance. In addition, the sum of $10,0000 from contributed funds was expended for new work. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 eiwwork: 4ppropriated.......... $15,000 ............. $4,124 $117,000 $64,065 $398,339 tCost :............... 10,870 4,082 $740 6,614 178,347 398,339 Maintenane. Appropriated......... ............. .......... .. . 221,361 221,361 Cost................ ... ......... ... ...... 115,891 115, 891 In addition, the sum of $10,000 was expended for new work from contributed funds. 8. KENNEBUNK RIVER, MAINE Location. The source of Kennebunk River is in the central part of York County in southwestern Maine. The stream flows about 15 miles in a southeasterly direction and discharges into the At- lantic Ocean about 30 miles southwest of Portland, Maine. (See U,S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 1205.) Existing project. This provides for the construction of a stone RIVERS AND HARBORS - --NEW ENGLAND DIVISION 13 breakwater on the easterly side of the mouth of the river about 550 feet long, a pier or jetty on the westerly side of the mouth about 290 feet long, the construction of a wharf about 700 feet upstream from the shore end of the breakwater (transferred to Treasury Department in 1936), the construction of a jetty on the east bank a short distance farther upstream, and securing a depth of 4 feet at mean low water for an average width of 100 feet up to Kenne- bunkport, a distance of about 1 mile, by dredging and rock removal. The mean tidal range is 9 feet; the extreme 13.5 feet. Work appears to have been commenced by the State of Massachusetts in 1798, since which date a number of small appropriations have been made for maintenance and further improvement. The cost of new work for the completed project was $83,584. Those portions of the existing project adopted since 1829 were authorized by the following river and harbor acts: Acts Work authorized Documents Mar. 2, 1829 Repair of pier on east side of channel entrance. Aug. 14, 1876 Deepening at Wading Place and Mitchells Point ......... Annual Report 1875, p. 115. Sept. 19, 1890 Jetty at Wading Place .......... ...................... H. Ex. Doc. 136, 51st Cong., 1st seas., and Annual Report 1890, p. 471. Local cooperation. None required. Terminal facilities. There are a total of 10 wharves in the river. Nine of these are privately owned and one is publicly owned by the Town of Kennebunkport, Maine. None of these have railroad con- nections or mechanical handling facilities. All are in poor condi- tion. The facilities are considered adequate for existing traffic. Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance: Engineering and design was performed during the fiscal year for repairs to the east and west breakwaters. A contract for per- formance of the work was awarded late in June 1962. Federal costs during the fiscal year from regular funds amounted to $1,628, all for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in 1893. The controlling depth at mean low water was 3 feet in 1961. The total Federal costs for the existing project from regular fundshave been $235,758, of which $83,584 was for new work and $152,174 was for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: ......... Appropriated......... ....... ............ . ........... .... ..... $83,584 Cost ........... ................ ....... ... ........ 83,584 Maintenance: ......................................... Appropriated................. 13,000 163,546 ...... Cost................. ............ . ..... ......... 1,628 152,174 9. WELLS HARBOR, MAINE Location. Wells Harbor is located in the town of Wells at the mouth of the Webhannet River about 20 miles northeast of Ports- 14 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 mouth Harbor and about 34 miles southwest of Portland Harbor (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No, 1205.) Existing project. This provides for repairs to an old Govern- ment pier about 750 feet long, made of cribwork ballasted with stone extending seaward from Drakes Island,; andi anchorage basin 7.4 acres in area and 6 feet deep; a channel 100 to 150 feet wide, extending from deep water in the Atlantic Ocean to the inner end of the basin, with seaward section 8 feet deep, and the harbor section 6 feet deep; and 2 converging stone jetties,;one extending 940 feet easterly from Wells Beach and the other 640 feet southerly from Drakes Island, separated so as to provide a clear opening 400 feet wide. The project depths refer to mean low water. The mean range of tide is 8.7 feet and the spring range is 9.9 feet. The highest tide is estimated as 13.5 feet above and the lowest tide as 3.5 feet below the plane of mean low water. The latest approved estimate of Federal cost for new work is $368,000 (July 1961). The existing project was authorized by an act of Congress ap- proved June 10, 1872 for repairs to the Government pier; and by the River and Harbor Act of July 14, 1960 (H. Doc. 202, 86th Cong., 2d sess.) for the anchorage basin, channel and jetties. The latest published map is contained in H. Doc. 202. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. The latest approved estimate of cost to local interests is $212,000 (July 1961). Terminal facilities. There are no terminal, transfer, or any other navigational facilities in Wells Harbor or any portion of the Webhannet River. Full utilization of Wells Harbor, if improved, would require the provision and maintenance of moorings and a public landing with suitable supply facilities and utilities. Operationsand results during fiscal year. New work: Opera- tions, by contract, were commenced in November 1961, for con- struction of jetties at Wells Harbor. The work was essentially completed in June 1962. During the period of operations approxi- mately 20,000 tons of stone were placed. Improvement dredging, by separate contract, was commenced in June 1962, and at the close of the fiscal year the construction of dikes was in progress. Federal costs during the fiscal year from regular funds amounted to $86,796, all for new work. Conditionat end of fiscal year. The existing project is 28 percent complete. Repairs to old Government pier about 750 feet 1ong made of cribwork ballasted with stone extending seaward from Drakes Island was completed in 1873. At the present time only the piling of the pier remains. Construction of jetties was commenced in November 1961 and was essentially completed in June 1962. Im- provement dredging for the channel and anchorage was commenced in June 1962 and was in progress at the close of the fiscal year. The total Federal costs for the existing project from regular funds have been $107,767, of which $102,767 was for new work, and $5,000 was for maintenance. In addition, the sum of $46,881 from contributed funds was expended for new work. RIVERS AND HARBORS - -NEW ENGLAND DIVISION 1V Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: SAppropriated :...... Cost. .. ................. ..... ......... ..... . . . $..... ,458 8,028 $262,500 86,796 $279,901 102,767 Maintenance: Appropriated................... .. .. .... .... ........ .... ... .. .. 5,000 0 o:.:.. Cost. ............... ........ . ... ......... ... ........ ......... 5,000 Othern -ew work data: Inobligated balance for year Unobligated balances available ending June 30,. 1962 ....................... for year ending June 80, 1968. ....... $45,780 45,780 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project............. ..... ...... 88,099 CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962, June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .............. .. ...... ... ....... ..... ...... 2,000 $212,000 Cost . ... .... i i .......... .46,881 . 46,881 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962... . ........... ....... . $79,446 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................... 79,446 10. YORK HARBOR, MAINE Location. York Harbor is at the mouth of York River, a small stream emptying into the Atlantic Ocean, about 12 miles northeast of Portsmouth, N.H.,' and 41 miles southwest of Portland, Maine. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Charts Nos. 228 and 1205.) Previous projects. Adopted by the act of August 5, 1886. For 'firther details see page 40 of Annual Report for 1907. $ iting project. The existing Federal project provides for widening by 170 feet the channel off Bragdons Island to a depth f i:i feet at mean low water, and for removing to the same depth the ;point of a projecting shoal just above the island; an 8-foot deep anchorage basin, north of Bragdons Island, .with an average width f'320 feet and average length of 700 feet, approximately 4.2 acres in area; and an 8-foot deep anchorage basin, south of Bragdons Itand, with an iverage width of 450 feet and average length of The existing project was authorized: by the following: Acts Work authorized .Documents Mar. 3, 1905 Channel off Bragdons Island 170 feet wide, 10 feet deep.. H. Doe. 301, 58th Cong., 2d sess. Removing to the same depth projecting shoal just above H. Ex. Doe. 243, 48th Cong., 2d sess. the island. Mar. 3, 1905 Channel off Bragdons Island 170 feet wide, 10 feet deep... H. Doc. 301, 58th Cong., 2d sess. July 14, 1960 Anchorage 8 feet deep north of Bragdons Island....... . H. Doe. 395, 86th Cong., 2d sess.* Anchorage 8 feet deep south of Bragdons Island.......... H. Doe. 395, 86th Cong., 2d sess.* * Contains latest published map. 550 feet, approximately 5.6 acres in area. The project depths refer to mean low water. The mean range of tide is 8.7 feet. Infrequently, tides range from about 2 feet below to about 11 feet aboveinean low water. The Federal cost of new work for the completed project was $205,729. 16 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total actual costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, incuding non-Federal contributions, amount to $32,161. Terminal facilities. There are eight wharves in York Harbor. Six are situated on the east side of the harbor. One, the combined hotel, yacht club, and.Vinal's boat wharf is located on the northwest side of Stage Neck. Berth depth at this wharf is 13 feet. Five wharves and floats are located on the northeast side of the harbor. All have depths of 13 feet in their berths, and are open to the public without charge. Gasoline, water and supplies are available. There are two wharves on the west side of the harbor, the York Marine Service on Harris Island and the town wharf on Bragdon Island. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: Opera- tions were commenced on May 25, 1961 and continued into fiscal year 1962 for dredging, by contract, a channel and removal of shoals to a depth of 10 feet; and an anchorage 8 feet deep. Work was continued in fiscal year 1962, and completed in July 1961. During the period of operations approximately 200,419 cubic yards of ordinary material were removed, making a total of 74,219 cubic yards removed under the contract. Federal costs during the fiscal year from regular funds amounted to $25,372, all for new work. In addition, contributed funds in the amount of $32,161 were expended for new work. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in 1961. Widening of the channel off Bragdons Island about 170 feet by dredging to the depth of 10 feet at mean low water and for removing to the same depth the point of projecting shoal just above was completed in 1960. Dredging a channel and removal of shoals to a depth of 10 feet; and construction of an anchorage 8 feet deep was commenced in May 1961 and completed in July 1961. The controlling depths of mean low water were as follows: 8.4 feet in the 8-foot south anchorage except 7.1 feet due to rock shoals at north and south limits; 8.2 feet in the 8-foot north anchorage, except 0.0 foot due to rock shoal along southwest limit (1961). The total Federal costs for the existing project from regular funds have been $226,629, of which $205,729 was for new work and $20,900 was for maintenance. In addition, contributed funds in the amount of $32,161 were expended for new work. Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 19601 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: ropdated......... .............. ........ .. 241,000 - 58,745 $249,729 Cost . . .......... .......... ......... 150,883 25,372 249,729 Maintenanne: : :.d...... ..... ........... ..... .. : : .20,900 1 Includes $44,000 for new work for previous projects. RIVERS AND HARBORS - --NEW ENGLAND DIVISION 17 CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to year Fiscal 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 80,198 Juine New wok: Appropriated... ........... ... .... .......... ......... $69,000 -$36,839 $32,161 Cost ............................. 32,161 32,181 11. PEPPERELL COVE, MAINE Location. Pepperell Cove, on the eastern side of Portsmouth Harbor, Maine and New Hampshire, at the mouth of the Piscataqua River, covers an area of about 100 acres. Chauncey Creek enters Pepperell Cove from the northeast. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey:Chart Nos. 329 and 1206.) Existing project. This provides for an anchorage area 12 feet deep, 1,450 feet long, and 1,250 feet wide; a channel 60 feet wide and 6 feet deep from Pepperell Cove to a point 4,000 feet above the mouth of Chauncey Creek; a turning basin of the same depth at the head of the proposed channel; 3 acres of anchorage 6 feet deep north of the proposed channel near Pepperell Cove; and 2 acres of anchorage 6 feet deep extending along the south side of the channel. The mean range of the tide is 8.7 feet and the spring range is 10 feet. The latest approved estimate of Federal cost for new work is $343,000, (July 1961). The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents July 1910 Anchorage area 12 feet deep, 1,450 feet long, and 1,250 1081, 60th Cong. 2d sess. H. Doec. feet wide. July 14, 1960 A channel 6 feetdeep and 60 feet wide extending from H. Doe. 284, 86th Cong. 2d seas. Pepperell Cove about 4,000 feet up Chauncey Creek. A turning basin opposite the Whitham Lobster Company wharf; and five acres of anchorage 6 feet deep. Local cooperation. Fully complied with for the completed portion of the project. The new modification to the project was authorized subject to the conditions that local interests contribute in cash 8 percent of the first cost of dredging, and that such cost, presently estimated at $15,000 (July 1961), be paid in a lump sum prior to initiation of construction, the final apportionment of cost to be made after the actual costs have been determined; provide a suita- ble public landing open to all on equal terms to serve the Chauncey Creek area; provide without cost to the United States all necessary lands, easements, and rights-of-way for the construction and maintenance of the project; and hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and maintenance of the project. Assurances of local cooperation were requested in 1962, but have not been received. Terminal facilities. There are two wharves in Pepperell Cove. The public town landing on the northeast -side of the cove has a depth of 12 feet at mean low water along side the 20-foot square float at the outer end. A small private wharf just east of the town landing is used for the handling of fish and lobsters. Food, fuel, water, and a paved boat launching ramp, are available at the town 18 . REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 landing. The landing is used by the Kittery Point Boat Club, transient recreational and fishing craft and by the local lobstermen during low tide periods when they cannot reach their usual land- ings. In Chauncey Creek there are three private wharves and two lobster dealers. The Whitham Lobster Company has two wharves at about 2 feet above mean low water, and five marine railways. Fuel and water are available. All the Chauncey Creek wharves are used by lobster fishermen. These facilities are generally sufficient to meet the needs of existing traffic but their use is restricted due to lack of depth of water alongside and in the approach channel from Pepperell Cove. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: Engineer- ing studies for construction of the 6-foot channel, anchorage and turning basin were commenced during the fiscal year. Studies have been deferred pending completion of actions by local interests to comply with requirements of local cooperation. Federal costs dur- ing the fiscal year from regular -funds amounted to $12,235, all for new work: Con ition at end of fiscal year: The existing piroject is about 45 percent complete. An anchorage area iffeet deep, 1;450 feet long and 1,250'feet wide was completed in 1916. Required to complete the project is the construction of a channel 6 feet deep and 60 feet wide extending from Pepperell Cove about 4,000 feet up Chauncey Creek; a turning basin opposite the Whithatf Lobster Company wharf; and 5 acres of anchorage 6 feet deep. The controlling depths at mean low water were as follows: 11 feet in the 12-foot anchorage (1916) plus 1.9 feet in the 6-foot turning basin (1926) plus 1.8 feet in the 6-foot anchorage south of the channel (1962), 0.7 feet in the 6-foot anchorage north of the channel (1962) and generally from 2:6 feet near the entrance to plus 2 feet at the upper end of the 6-foot channel (1962). The total costs under the existing project from regular Federal funds have been $179,073, of which $178,935 was for new work and $138 was for maintenance. Cost and financial statement to Total year Fiscal 1958 1959 1960 , 1961 : 962 - Ju.e 30, 1962 New work: dal bf............ Appropriated.... . ..... .... ..... ... . $182,700 .$16,000 n iat e bln a ibe;.f.....o ... g J n 8. 19. 6......... ea.. edn. 12,235 178,935 Maintenance: Appropriated . .............. ................. ....... ....... ... ..... 138 CotL... ... ... . ................ . . ... ''"" ... .. ' ' " . . . . 138 Otler new work data: •.Unobligated balance' for year ending June 80, 1962........? .................. $ 8 3,765 r Etnobligate balances avaijable for -year ending June 30, 1963............. ..... 3,765 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project............................. 160,300 12. RYE HARBOR, N.H. Location. Rye Harbor is on the Atlantic coast of New Hampshire, about 5 miles south of Portsmouth Harbor. It is a natural cove of about 39 acres, protected by two breakwaters. (See U.S. Coast: and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 1206.) Existing project. This provides for dredging a channel 100 feet wide and 10 feet deep for a distance of 600 feet through the RIVERS AND HARBORS - --NEW ENGLAND DIVISION 19 entrance, thence 8 feet deep for a distance of 1,700 feet within the harbor; dredging two 5-acre anchorages, one 8 feet deep and the other 6 feet deep; and maintaining the existing breakwaters. The project depths refer to mean low water. The mean range of tide is 8.4 feet. The latest approved estimate of Federal cost ;for new work is $118,000 (July 1962). The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of. July 14, 1960 (H. Doc. 439, 86th Cong., 2d sess.). The latest published map is contained in the project document. Local cooperation. Fully complied with.' Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation amount to $88,000 (July 1962). Terminalfacilities. Much of the shore line around Rye Harbor is undeveloped State property. Private ownership is limited to about 500 feet on the north shore west of Ragged Neck State Park, and to the south shore between the bridge and the breakwater. The only landing in the harbor is owned by the Rye Harbor Yacht Club. This pier is about 260 feet long and in good repair. The float, eached by ladder, rests on mud flats at low tide. Operationsand results during fiscal year. New work: Engineer- ing studies and plans and specifications for dredging of an 8-foot and 6-foot channel and anchorage were completed during'the fiscal year. Contract to perform the work was awarded late in June 1962. Federal costs during the fiscal year from regular funds amounted to $13,192, all for new work. In addition, contributed funds in the amount of $6,163 were expended for new work. Condition at end of fiscal year. No construction work has been done on the existing project. The total Federal costs for the existing project from regular funds have been $22,455 for new work. In addition, contributed funds in the amount of $6,163 have been expended for new work. Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30,1962 New wprk: Appropriatd ..... ................ .. ... ........ ......... $109,000 $118,262 Cost.. ......... ... ...... .............. ........... 13,192 22,455 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 80, 1962.......................... $25,245 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963... ............... 25,245 CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30,1962 Cost. .............. ...................... 6,163 6,163 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962................. ............. $62,680 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963................ . . .. 62,630 20 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 183. NEWBURYPORT HARBOR, MASS. Location. Newburyport is on the south bank of the Merrimack River, about 2.5 miles above the mouth, and about 48 miles by water north of Boston. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 331.) Existing project. This provides for two jetties, one projecting 4,118 feet from the north shore, the other projecting 2,445 feet from the south shore, converging until 1,000 feet apart, then extending seaward 1,000 feet parallel to axis of channel; partially closing Plum Island Basin by a timber dike; a channel 12 feet deep and 400 feet wide through the bar, thence 9 feet deep and 200 feet wide to and including a widened turning basin in front of the wharves. The mean range of tide is 7.9 feet at the bar and 7.8 feet at Newburyport. The Federal cost of new work for the completed project was $569,225. The continuous channel from the sea to the wharves at Newburyport, 15 feet deep and 400 feet wide through the bar, thence 12 feet deep and 200 feet wide to and including a widened turning basin in front of the wharves portion of the proj- ect is considered to be inactive and is excluded from the foregoing cost for new work. The estimated additional Federal cost of this portion was last revised in June 1955 and was estimated to be $106,000. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $9,900. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents June 14, 1880 Construction of rubblestone jetties................ June 25, 1910 Dredging the bar at entrance to harbor .................. Annual Report 1910, p. 59. Mar. 2, 19451 Dredging channel from sea to wharves and a widened turn- H. Doc. 703, 76th Cong., 3d sess. ing basin. (contains latest published map). 1 15- and 12-foot channel and basin inactive. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Terminal facilities. The terminal facilities consist of 16 wharves extending along a frontage of about 3,500 feet of the south bank of the Merrimack River below the highway bridge and one small pier on the north side of the river. The terminal facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. For full description see Port and Terminal Facilities of the Ports of Northern New England, 1941. Operationsand result during fiscal year. Maintenance: Hopper dredge Hyde was employed at Newburyport Harbor during the period of July 26, 1961 through August 12, 1961. Work accom- plished consisted of removing approximately 250,000 cubic yards (bin measurement) of ordinary material from the harbor channel. Federal costs during the fiscal year from regular funds amounted to $47,677, all for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in August 1958, with the improvement dredging in the 12- foot channel and outer harbor. The north jetty was completed in 1914; the south jetty was completed except for a length of about 30 feet at its outer end in 1905. These jetties are in good condition and completion of the south jetty is not now considered necessary. RIVERS AND HARBORS NEW ENGLAND DIVISION 21 Plum Island basin was partially closed in 1883 by the construction of a timber dike. North Rock was removed in 1901. The controlling depths were as follows: About 10 feet in the river from inside the jetties to the wharves at Newburyport (1958); 12 feet over the bar at the entrance to the river except 10 feet on south limit (1961) and 9 feet in the turning basin in front of the wharves (1957). The total Federal costs for the existing project from regular funds have been $912,362, of which $569,225 was for new work, and $343,137 was for maintenance. Cost and financial statement ''Total to year Fiscal 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated....... .... ...... 341,618 ..................... ........ . $569,225 Cost ... .. $71,931 24,071........................ ......... 509,225 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... ......... ... ... ............ 40,000 $9,500 343,187 Cost. ................ ........ 1............ 1,823 47,677 343,137 14. GLOUCESTER HARBOR AND ANNISQUAM RIVER, MASS. Location. Gloucester Harbor is situated at the southern ex- tremity of Cape Ann, about 23 miles northeast by water from Boston Harbor. Annisquam River is a narrow tidal waterway extending across the base of Cape Ann from Gloucester Harbor on the south side to Ispwich Bay on the north side, a distance of ap- proximately 4 miles. A reach of this waterway, at the Gloucester Harbor end, for a length of about 1,800 feet, is known as the Blynman Canal. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 243.) Previousprojects. Projects for Gloucester Harbor were adopted by River and Harbor Acts of June 10, 1872, August 5, 1886, and June 3, 1896. There were no previous projects for Annisquam River. For further details see page 1740 of Annual Report for 1915, and page 50 of Annual Report for 1937. Existing project. This provides: Gloucester Harbor: a. For a rubblestone breakwater 2,250 feet long, surmounted by a superstructure of dry walls of heavy split stone inclosing a core of rubblestone from Eastern Point over Dog Bar to Cat Ledge. b. For the removal of three ledges in the inner harbor, 1 to 12 The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Aug. 11, 1888 Removal of ledges and boulders, and dredging in Gloucester Annual Report, 1887, p. 503. Harbor. Aug. 18, 1894 Construction of breakwater at entrance to Gloucester H. Ex. Doe. 56, 48th Cong., 2d ses., Harbor from Eastern Point to Round Rock Shoal. and Annual Report, 1885, p. 534. June 13, 1902 Termination at Cat Ledge of breakwater authorized by Annual Report, 1902, p. 89. act of Aug. 18, 1894. June 25, 1910 Removal of 8 ledges in Gloucester Harbor................ H. Doc. 1112, 60th Cong., 2d seas. Aug. 30, 1935 Dredging in Annisquam River and removal of a ledge in Rivers and Harbors Committee, Doc. Gloucester Harbor near the entrance to Annisquam River. 39, 72d Cong., 1st sess. Mar. 2, 1945 Dredging 8-foot anchorage area in Lobster Cove, Annis- H. Doc. 329, 77th Cong., 1st sess.' quam River. 1 Contains latest published maps. 22 REPORT OF TH ECHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 feet and 2 to 15,feet depth at mean low: water, and five ledges in the outer harbor 4 to 18 feet and 1 to 25 ;feet depth at mean low water, aggregating a total of 2,206 cubic yards, place measurement. C. FFor removal :to depth of 15 feet below means low, water of ledges axid boulders obstructing the approach to.!the wharves be- tween 'Harbor Cove and Pews wharf, near te he ad of the inner harbor; dredgingito the same depth the channel leading past the Wharves and dredging Harbor Cove to the, depth of 10 feet at mean low water. Annisquam River: For a.channel 8 feet deep at mean low water 60 feet wide from Gloucester Harbor to the Boston & Maine Rail- road, bridge, 100 feet wide from the railroad bridge to the mouth of the river, and 200 feet wide across the bar in Ispwich Bay, including the removal of a ledge near the Gloucester Harbor entrance; and for a dredged anchorage area about 17.acres in extent and 8 feet deep at the entrance of Lobster Cove. The project depths refer to mean low water. The mean range of tide in Gloucester Harbor is 8.7 feet; the extreme range is 12.6 feet. The mean range of tide in Annisquam River is8.5 feet; the extreme range is about 10 feet. The Federal cost of new work for the completed project was $737,850, exclusive of amounts expended for previous projects. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $44,990. Localcooperation. Fully complied with. Total actual costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, incuding required non-Federal contributions, amount to $25,000. Terminal facilities. There are in Gloucester Harbor 61 wharves worthy of mention. The depth beside the wharves varies from 0 to 20 feet at mean low water. Except for 3 wharves, 2 owned by the city anrd the fish pier which is leased by the city from the Com- monwealth of Massachusetts, all are private and 'are not available to the public. There are two commercial wharves on Annisquam River on the east bank. These facilities are considered adequate for the existing commerce of the port. For full description see Port and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Northern New England, 1941. Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance: Dredg- ing in the project channel, by contract, was commenced on July 31, 1961 and completed on November 8, 1961. During the period of operations approximately 28,000 cubic yards of ordinary material were removed. Federal costs during the fiscal year from regular funds amounted to $84,231, all for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project was completed in November 1958, with the dredging of an anchorage area at the entrance of Lobster Cove in the Annisquam River. The removal of all ledges and boulders in Gloucester Harbor between Harbor Cove and Pews Wharf and other obstructing rocks was completed in 1894; and the removal of a pinnacle rock in the outer harbor in 1896. The breakwater which was completed in 1905, was repaired in 1940 and is in good condition. The removal of all ledges to project depth was completed in 1916. The improvement of RIVERS AND HARBORS - NEW: ENGLAND DIVISION 23 Annisquam :River was completed in 1936 at a cost of $33,976.: The controlling depths over the ledges in the outer harbor in, 1916 were from 18 to 25 feet; in the Inner Harbor 15.5 feet over ledge C (1959), 15:2 feet over ledge A, and 15.3 feet over ledge B :(1959:); 16 feet in the. channel leading past the wharves (1959), and 15 feet in Harbor Cove; 8 feet in the channel from Ipswich Bay to Gloucester Harbor with the exception of encroachments on the west dide of the channel abreast Pearce Island, having a depth of 7.4 feet, and on the east side of the channel.just north of Rust Island, having a depth of 71/2 feet, 10.8 feet through Ipswich Bar except 9.6 feet on west linit at inner end- (1962); and 8 feet in the Lobster Cove area (1958). The total costs under the existing project from regular funds have been $1,149;512, of swhich $737,850 was for new work, and $411,662 was for maintenance. In addition, the sum of $25,000 was expended from contributed funds. Cost and financial statement Fisal year 1958. 1959 1960 1961 1962 Jue 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.. :....... 205,000 -$3,304 .............. ... . $758,850 Cost........... ........ 6,284 195,412 ......... .......... . 75 6......... 0,85 Maintenance: Appropriated ........... 9,024 ............ -$991 $85;250 $11,759 422,084 Cost... ... 129,719 ........... 8,648 2,356 84,231 411,662 1 Includes $21,000 for new work for previous projects. 2 In addition, the sum of $25,000 was expended from contributed funds for new work. 15. SALEM HARBOR, MASS. Location. This harbor is located on the north shore of Massachu- setts Bay, about 12 miles by water generally north of the entrance to Boston Harbor.. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Charts Nos.,240 and 1207.). Previous projects. Adopted by the-River and Harbor Act of March 3, 1873, and extended by the River and Harbor Act of September .19, 1890. For further details see.page 1741 of Annual Report for 1915. Existing project. The project provides for a channel 32 feet deep and generally 300 feet wide, widened to 400 feet at bends and at the inner ,end, extending about 1.5 miles from deep water in the outer harbor to a point about 1,500 feet from the Salem Terminal wharf, where it joins the locally dredged approach channel of the same depth leading to the wharf. The project also provides for a channel 10 feet deep in South River, 300 feet wide at the 10-foot depth in the harbor, gradually narrowing to 200 feet at a point opposite the outer end of Derby wharf, thence 150 feet wide to the bend at the outer end of Derby wharf, thence 90 feet wide to the turn near the inner end of Derby wharf, and thence 50 feet wide to the upstream end of Pickering wharf, for a branch channel on the east side of Derby wharf, 8 feet deep, 100 feet wide, and about 700 feet long, widening into a basin of the same depth, 500 feet long and 200 feet wide. The project depths: refer to mean low water. The mean range of tide is 9 feet and the extreme range is 12.7 feet. The Federal cost of new work for the completed project was 24 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 $1,409,058, exclusive of amounts expended on previous projects. The portion of the project for dredging of an 8-foot channel, an 8- foot basin, and a 10.foot channel is considered to be inactive, and is excluded from the foregoing cost. The Federal cost of this portion of the project was last revised in 1955 and was estimated to be $177,000. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $1,950. The existing project was authorized by the following River and Harbor Acts: March 3, 1905 (H. Doc. 303, 58th Cong., 2d sess.); July 3, 1930 (H. Doc. 701, 76th Cong., 3d sess.) ;and July 3, 1958 (H. Doc. 31, 85th Cong., 1st sess.). The latest published map is contained in the project document. Local cooperation. Fully complied with, except for the inactive portion of the project. Total estimated costs to local interests for requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project au- thorization amount to $420,000 (1960), for construction and main- tenance of a terminal approach channel and maneuvering and berthing areas, all having depths equivalent to that of the Federal project, and for removal of abandoned sewer line. In addition, local expenditures in connection with port development directly related to deep-draft shipping have amounted to $836,000 including $65,000 expended for dredging in 1931 in fulfillment of require- ments of local cooperation. Terminal facilities. The extensively developed waterfront of Salem Harbor, which includes South River, is a little more than 1 mile in extent and is owned for the most part by private individu- als. There are nine wharves in this area; the largest, Salem Ter- minal, serves New England Power Co. generating station and serves as principal terminal for receipt and distribution of coal and petroleum products in Salem and the tributary area, two belong to the National Park Service, and one of these is being used by the De- partment of the Navy for a Reserve Training Center. There are nine other wharves in Salem Harbor which are located outside of the extensively developed area. Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance: Opera- tions for the removal of two rock pinnacles from areas near the north and south limits east of Fort Pickering Light were com- menced in January 1962 and completed in March 1962. Federal costs during the fiscal year from regular funds amounted to $6,750, all for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in August 1960, with the completion of rock removal from the 32-foot channel. The 10-foot channel has been partly dredged, the section to a point opposite Derby Wharf Light having been dredged in 1906. This same section was restored to project depth in 1915. Dredging of ordinary material in the 32-foot channel was commenced in May 1959 and completed in November 1959; and the removal of rock was commenced in July 1960 and completed in August 1960. The controlling depths are as follows: 32 feet in the 32-foot channel (1960); 0-0 to 1 foot in the 8-foot channel and basin (1939) ;7 feet in the 10-foot channel (1950). Total: Federal costs under the existing project have been $1,427,851 of which $1,409,058 was for new work, and $18,793 was for maintenance. RIVERS AND HARBORS - -NEW ENGLAND DIVISION Cost and financialstatement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ...................... $1,220,000 $110,000 $30,970 ............... 1,461,427 ...... ....... Cost.............. 189,414 832,158 339,398 ............ 1,461,427 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... $3,000 ................................. $6,750 18,793 Cost,. ............. . 3,000 .......... ........................ 6,750 18,793 1 Includes $52,369 for new work for previous projects. 16. BOSTON HARBOR, MASS. Location. This harbor includes all the expanse of tidewater lying within a line from Point Allerton to Point Shirley and extending from that line westward to the mainland. This comprises an area of about 47 square miles, exclusive of the islands. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Charts Nos. 246 and 248. Previous projects. Adopted by the River and Harbor Acts of March 2, 1867; June 14, 1880; September 19, 1890; June 3, 1896; and July 25, 1912. For further details see page 1743 of Annual Report for 1915, page 81 of Annual Report for 1917, and page 63 of Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for the following: a. A channel 40 feet deep in general, but 45 feet deep through rock, from the sea to President Roads through Broad Sound, 2 miles, 900 feet wide except at the outer edge where it is widened to 1,100 feet. b. Deepening to 40 feet the main ship channel from President Roads to about 200 feet northerly of the site of Mystic Pier No. 1 Charlestown; having widths varying from 600 to 1,200 feet with suitable widening at the bends. Length about 5.5 miles. c. An anchorage area 2,000 feet wide, 5,500 feet long, and 40 feet deep, on the north side of President Roads. d. Extension of President Roads anchorage 700 feet to the north and 500 feet to the west at a depth of 40 feet, and dredging an area to 35 feet lying west of the anchorage. e. Deepening to 40 feet that part of the approach channel to the U.S. Navy drydock No. 3 at South Boston between the main ship channel and the U.S. harbor line. f. A channel 35 feet deep along the same line as the 40-foot main ship channel in the following manner: Adjacent to the westerly side of the 40-foot main ship channel through Broad Sound 600 feet wide, a distance of about 2 miles; adjacent to the northerly side of the 40-foot main ship channel from President Roads to abreast the Fish Pier 600 feet wide, a distance of about 3 miles; adjacent to the westerly side of 40-foot main ship channel from abreast Fort Point Channel to the Mystic River and Charlestown Bridges and the en- trance to the Chelsea River, having widths varying from 100 feet to 1,000 feet, a distance of about 2 miles. g. A channel 2 miles long, 30 feet deep, and 1,200 feet wide from the sea to President Roads through Broad Sound by a less direct route than the 35- and 40-foot channels. 26 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 h. A channel 27 feet deep and 1,000 feet wide from Nantasket Roads to President Roads known as the "Narrows" Channel, 3 miles. i. A channel 15 feet deep, 300 feet wide, and 550 feet long through the bar which extends from the north head of Long Island to,Nixes Mate Shoal, known as "Nixes Mate" or "Nubble" Channel. j. A channel in Chelsea River 30 feet deep and generally 200 feet wide, from the mouth of the river, at the head of the 35-foot channel in Boston Harbor, to a point about 1 mile upstream of the Chelsea Street Bridge, a distance of about 2 miles, thence a channel 8.4 feet deep to the Boston & Maine Railroad bridge 150 feet wide, a distance of about one-half mile. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Mar. 2, 1825 Preservation of islands by seawalls. June 14, 1880 Weir River (Nantasket Beach 'Channel) 9 ft.: deep, 100 ft. wide to Steamboat wharf at Nantasket........... ........................... Sept. 19, 1890 Weir Riven (Nantasket BeacChCbannel) 9% ft. deep, 10. ft. wide to Steamboat wharf at Nantasket............... .............................. July 25, 1892 Weir River (Nantasket Beach Channel) from the mouth of the Weir River to the Steamboat wharf at Nantasket Beach 12 ft. deep, 150 ft. wide.. ........... ................................ Aug. 5, 1886 Fort Point Channel...................... , ........ .... H. Ex. Doc. 206, 48th Cong., 2d sess. Annual Report, 1885, p. 543. Channel 15 feet deep from Long Island to Nixes Mate Annual Report, 1887, p. 517 Shoal (Nixes Mate or Nubble Channel). July 13, 1892 Channel 27 feet deep from Nantasket Roads to President Annual Report, 1893, p. 766 Roads. Mar. 3, 1899 For 30-foot channel from' sea to the President Roads H. Doe. 133, 55th Cong., 2d sess. through Broad Sound by less direct route than the 35- Annual Report, 1898, p. 886. and 40-foot channels. June 13, 1902 For 35-foot channel from the;sea to Boston NavaLShipyard, H. Doc. 119,, 56th Cong,, 2d sess. Chelsea and Charles River Bridges Annual Report, 1901, p. 1096. Elimination from the project of the removal of Finns Authorized by Chief of Engineers Ledge at the outer entrance. Mar. 11, 1913. . Aug. 8, 1917 Depth of 40 feet (45 feet in rock) in Broad Sound Channel.. H. Doc. 931 63d Cong.. 2d sess. Aug. 30, 1935' Present project dimensions of channel from President H. Doc. 244, 72d Cong., 1st sess. 1 Roads to Commonwealth pier No. 1, East Boston and anchorage area north side of President Roads. Do........ Present project dimensions of that part of approach channel Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. to U.S. Navy drydock No. 3, at South Boston betweenk 29, 74th Cong., ist sess.' Main Ship Channel and U.S. harbor line. Aug. 26; 1937 ChelseaiRiver Channel, 30 feet deep ................ Rivers: and Harbors :Committee Dec. 24, 75th Cong., 1 sess. Oct. 17, 1940 Reserved channel 30 feet deep. .......... . ... H. Doc. 225, 76th Cong., 1st sess.' Sept. 7, 1940 Abandons seaplane channel authorised in River and Harbor Public Law 420, 78th Cong. Act approved Oct. 17, 1940 (H. Doc. 262, 76th Cong., 1st seas.). Mar. 2, 19453 Extension of 40-foot channel .......................... H.Doc. 733, 79th Cong., 2d ses. 1 July 24, 1946 Extension of President Roads anchorage................. H. Doc. 244, 80th Cong., 1st sess. July 3, 1958 Reserved channel 35 feet deep, 430 feet wide, extending H. Doc. 349, 84th Cong.' 1 mile from 40-foot main channel to L St. 1 Contains latest published maps. See also Annual Report, 1911, p. 1178 (seawalls and Nixes Mate Channel) and Annual Report, 1903. p. 770 (Fort Point Channel). Authorized in part by. Public Works Administration Sept. 6, 1933. A portion deferred for restudy. k, Deepening and widening of Reserved Channel to a depth of 35- feet and width of 430 feet extending about 1 mile from the 40-foot main ship channel to the L-Street Bridge. 1. The Fort Point Channel, 23 feet deep and 175 feet wide from its entrance in Boston Harbor, about four-fifths of a mile to the Dorchester Avenue (old Federal Street) Bridge, m. Seawalls of coursed stone and. riprap protecting the most exposed headlands and islands. n. A channel 12 feet deep and 150 feet wide from the mouth of the Weir River to the Steamboat wharf at Nantasket Beach, All depths are referred to mean low water. The mean range of RIVERS AND HARBORS - NEW ENGLAND DIVISION 27 tide is9 feet at Boston Light, and 9.5 feet at Commonwealth Pier, in Chelsea Creek, and in Fort Point Channel. The extreme range is aboUt 4 feet greater. :The Federal cost of new work for the completed project was $22,300 429 exclusive of amounts expended on previous projects of seawalls for which no estimate was given. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $32,666. toni :A 300-foot width of the project at the upper end of the channel, the East Boston side, which was included in the 40-foot channel extension Winery Canyon ................... ..................... .................. 3,945 3,945 .............. 36,000 36,000 39,945 z San Gabriel River basin: " Coyote Creek............. ........... ...................... 297,659 .............. 297,659 96 5,836,804 5,836,900 6,134,559 Emerald Wash and Live Oak Wash........ ................... ............. 522,794 .............. 522,794 50,210 68,390 118,600 641,394 M Marshall Creek ................ .................................. 26,608................ 26,608 ........... ............................ 26,608 , San Gabriel River Channel: Santa Fe flood control reservoir to Whittier Narrows flood control reservoir... 5,939,112 .............. 5,939,112 745,207 863,893 1,609,100 7,548,212C) Whittier Narrows flood control reservoir to Pacific Ocean ................. 2,366,100 .............. 2,366,100 794,790 293,210 1,088,000 3,454,100 - Thompson Creek and San Jose Wash ....................................... 763,329 .............. 763,329 46,799 233,901 280,700 1,044,029 Walnut Creek system ... ............ ................... .............. 16,413,367 ............. 16,413,367 4,091,850 4,770,950 8,862,800 25,276,167 r Walnut Creek inlet channel.................. .......................... 2,869,424 .............. 2,869,424 727,516 554,684 1,282,200 4,151,624 Whittier Narrows flood control reservoir.................................. 32,253,916.............. 32,253,916 35,239 3,061 38,300 32,292,215 Rio Hondo basin: Arcadia Wash system ..................................................... 5,063,273 .............. 5,063,273 1,264,448 781,352 2,045,800 7,109,073 Eaton Wash................. ................... ....................... 4,225,068 .............. 4,225,068 932,388 396,612 1,329,000 5,554,068y Rio Hondo channel: Peck Rd. to Rosemead Blvd. (upper) ............. ...... ........ 4,411,995 .............. 4,411,995 970,312 497,488 1,467,800 5,879,795 (- Whittier Narrows flood control reservoir to Los Angeles River (lower) ........ 8,164,705 ............. 8,164,705 1,429,175 693,025 2,122,200 10,286,905 Rubio Canyon diversion....................................... 1,066,825 .............. 1,066,825 90,523 156,677 247,200 1,314,025 Santa Anita Wash........ .. .. ................... .................... 3,045,713 .............. 3,045,713 412,879 158,521 571,400 3,617,113 Sierra Madre Wash.... ...................................... Sawpit Wash...... ..... ...................... .... 2,337,809 ............. 2,337,809 252,731l 438,569 691,300 3,029,109 Sierra Madra Villa channel ...................................... .......... 846,442 .............. 846,442 4,368 321,332 325,700 1,172,142 See footnotes at end of table. CTI i Non-Federal funds' 0 Units Regular funds Emergency Total Total 0 relief funds Federal funds Spent Spent all funds - by Federal by local Total Government 2 interest2 O Ballona Creek basin: Ballona Creek channel.... ... .................................... $600,582 $600,582 $600,582 Benedict Canyon system: Benedict Canyon channel........... ... ......................... 6,343,847 6,343,847 $510,972 $703,228 $1,214,200 7,558,047 Higgins and Coldwater Canyons channel ...................... Rexford-Monte Mar channel .................. ......................... 178,459 178,459 5,364 1,336 6,700 185,159 - Centinela Creek .................. .................................. 4,110,923 4,110,923 1,625,022 2,155,678 3,780,700 7,891,623 Sawtelle-Westwood system.............. ................................... 9,627,650 9,627,650 1,185,802 500,798 1,686,600 11,314,250 _________1- _ _ - I- I I- Subtotal-new work ....... ................................. 191,250,815............. 191,250,815 26,553,307 32,972,193 59,525,500 250,776,315 Subtotal-maintenance .............. ........................... 316,001 ............. 316,001 ............ 316,001 T -- - -I - - 1-- i-- - -I Subtotal-all work (outside $70 million project) ........................ 191,566,816 191,566,816 26,553,307 32,972,193 59,525,500 251,092,316 .r I i I Total-new work ...................................... ............ 260,837,065 $11,008,935 271,846,00026,809,421 32,972,193 59,781,614 331,627,614Z Total-maintenance .................. ............................. 3,447,982 .............. ............. 3,447,982 3,447,982 M - 1----I---- - l i- Total-all work (inside and outside $70 million project)............... 264,285,047 11,008,935 275,293,982 26,809,421 32,972,193 59,781,614 335,075,596 l Preauthorization studies ............................. ............. 100,000 .............. 100,000.............. ..................... 100,000 Grand total-all work ................. .................... ............. 264,385,047 11,008,935 275,393,982 26,809,421 32,972,193 59,781,614 335,175,596 00 1 ci Includes $9,448,100 for betterments, some of which were constructed by local interests and some by the Federal Government out of non-Federal funds rV deposited by local interests. 2 Other contributed funds (non-Federal funds) spent by the Federal Government for required items of local cooperation under the terms of the project authorization and betterments desired by local interests. Does not include $4,238,000 of non-Federal funds spent by the Federal Government in con- nection with the previous project. s Non-Federal funds spent by local interests for required items of local cooperation under the terms of the project authorization and betterments desired to by local interests. Includes non-Federal funds of $1,819,174 on deposit with the Federal Government on June 30, 1962, but not yet spent as of that date. t, 4Includes funds for permanent construction of Los Angeles River at Long Beach Blvd. FLOOD CONTROL---LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DISTRICT 1647 Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.......... $16,365,000 $14,855,900 $14,475,180$15,080,306$17,922,420 $272,475,235 Cost..... .......... 15,383,617 15,498,973 14,357,105 14,813,798 19,294,863 271,946,000 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... 237,443 233,616 198,581 251,250 353,100 3,449,321 Cost................. 191,139 193,699 281,302 239,962 9368,538 3,447,983 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .......................... $88,176 1 Includes $11,008,935 emergency relief funds for new work. 2 Does not include $26,809,421 of non-Federal funds (other contributed funds) spent by the Federal Government for replacements required as part of local cooperation and betterments desired by local interests. 8 Does not include $16,726,888 of emergency relief funds and $4,238,000 of non-Federal funds (other contributed funds) spent by the Corps in connection with the emergency relief project. 'Includes pending adjustments of $79 not reflected under "Operations and Results During Fiscal Year." CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 1 New work: Appropriated ..........$1,959,646 $1,852,397 $2,806,486 $4,354,323 $1,481,123 $28,628,595 Cost............... 2,959,779 2,877,438 1,795,572 2,361,663 4,074,972 26,809,421 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $742,715 1 Non-Federal funds spent by the Federal Government up to June 30, 1962, for replacements required as part of local cooperation and betterments desired by local interests. Does not include $4,238,000 of non-Federal funds (other contributed funds) spent by the Corps in connection with the emergency relief project. Does not include $32,972,193 of non-Federal funds spent by local interests up to June 30, 1962, for replacements and rights-of-way required as part of local cooperation and betterments desired by local interests. 13. SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN (AND ORANGE COUNTY), CALIF. Location. The site of the improvements is on the Santa Ana River and tributaries and on other streams in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, Calif. 'The general plan of improvement. Although a single compre- hensive plan for flood control has been developed for the Santa Ana River basin, improvements provided under this plan are divided into two projects in accordance with congressional authorizations. The Santa Ana River basin (and Orange County) project, the first of these two projects, provides for (a) protection of the metropoli- tan area of Orange County, which includes some areas outside the Santa Ana River basin; and (b) flood control on San Antonio, Chino, Lytle, and Cajon Creeks. The Santa Ana River basin proj- ect, the second of these two projects, provides for flood control in other areas of the basin. Pertinent information on the second proj- ect is given under a subsequent heading, "Santa Ana River Basin, Calif." All units of the first project, together with the latest approved estimates of Federal first cost, are listed in the following table; and pertinent information on the existing project, the local cooper- ation, the operations and results during fiscal year, the condition at end of fiscal year, the project costs, and the cost and financial statements is given in subsequent paragraphs and tables for all active units. Pertinent information on the authorizing acts for the 1648 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 entire project is also included. Pertinent information on the inac- tive units is given under a subsequent heading, "Other authorized flood control projects." The latest approved estimates of Federal first cost for all units in the project are given in the following table: Estimated cost Project Latest Total revision date ACTIVE UNITS' Completed: Brea Dam .............................. ................................... $1,189,068 (2) Fullerton Dam ............... ................................................ 411,076 (2) Prado Dam ................... ...................................... 9,473,273 (2) San Antonio Dam ................... ........................................... 7,001,176 (2) Completed except for minor completion items: Carbon Canyon Dam and channel .................. ............................. 5,150,000 1961 Lytle and Cajon Creeks channel improvements ........... ................... 7,612,000 (s) San Antonio and Chino Creeks channel .......................................... 10,900,000 1960 INACTIVE UNITS4 Aliso Creek Dam ....................................................... 340,000 1954 San Juan Dam ............................ ................................ 5,960,000 Do. Trabuco Dam ...................................................................... 2,190,000 Do. Villa Park Dam ..................................................................... 2,270,000 Do. 1For details, see following paragraphs. SPlant in service. S Includes $5,000 working funds. ' For additional information, see under a subsequent heading. "Other Authorized Flood Con- trol Projects." Note. Not including estimated cost of Code 710 recreation at Brea, Fuller- ton, Prado, San Antonio, and Carbon Canyon Dams. Existing project. All active units of the Santa Ana River basin (and Orange County) project are described in following para- graphs. (a) Brea Dam. The improvement, which is on Brea Creek about 8 miles upstream from its mouth at Coyote Creek and about 1.5 miles north of the city of Fullerton, consists of a rolled-earth- fill dam with a crest length of 1,765 feet and a maximum height of 87 feet above streambed and a flood control reservoir with a capac- ity of 4,100 acre-feet (Oct. 1949) at spillway crest. The opera- tion of the reservoir regulates the runoff from a tributary area of 23.4 square miles, reducing the design flood from an inflow of 8,300 cubic feet per second to an outflow of 1,330 cubic feet per second. (b) Carbon Canyon Dam and channel. The improvement, which is on Carbon Canyon Creek near the mouth of Carbon Canyon and about 4 miles east of the city of Brea, consists of: (1) A rolled- earthfill dam with a crest length of 2,610 feet and a maximum height of 99 feet above streambed; (2) a flood-control reservoir with a capacity of 7,050 acre-feet (Mar. 1961) at spillway crest; and (3) a 4,080-foot-long reinforced-concrete outlet channel with a capacity of 1,000 to 2,000 cubic feet per second. The operation of the reservoir regulates the runoff from a tributary area of 19.3 square miles, reducing the design flood from an inflow of 9,300 cubic feet per second to an outflow of 1,000 cubic feet per second. (c) Fullerton Dam. The improvement, which is on EastFuller- ton Creek about 4 miles upstream from its mouth at Brea Creek and FLOOD CONTROL---LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DISTRICT 1649 about 2 miles northeast of the city of Fullerton, consists of a rolled- earthfill dam with a crest length of 575 feet and a maximum height of 47 feet above streambed and a flood control reservoir with a capacity of 706 acre-feet (Mar. 1962) at spillway crest. The opera- tion of the reservoir regulates the runoff from a tributary area of 5.05 square miles, reducing the design flood from an inflow of 4,600 cubic feet per second to an outflow of 240 cubic feet per second. (d) Lytle and Cajon Creeks channel improvements. The im- provements, which extend along Lytle and Cajon Creeks for about 12 miles from northwest of the city of San Bernardino to just south of that city, consist of: (1) Collecting levees and groins on Lytle and Cajon Creeks upstream from Foothill Boulevard; (2) an im- proved channel generally along the West Branch of Lytle Creek from Foothill Boulevard to Warm Creek; (3) bank protection at Warm Creek; and (4) a diversion structure to bypass excess flows down the existing East Branch of Lytle Creek. (e) Prado Dam: The improvement, which is on the Santa Ana River about 30 miles upstream from the mouth, consists of a rolled- earthfill dam with a crest length of 2,280 feet and a maximum height of 106 feet above streambed and a flood-control reservoir with a capacity of 217,000 acre-feet (Aug. 1960) at spillway crest. The operation of the reservoir regulates the runoff from a tributary area of 2,233 square miles, reducing the design flood from an in- flow of 193,000 cubic feet per second to an outflow of 9,200 cubic feet per second. (f) San Antonio Dam: The improvement, which is on San An- tonio Creek near the mouth of San Antonio Canyon and about 7.5 miles north of the city of Pomona, consists of a rolled- earthfill dam with a crest length of 3,850 feet and a maximum height of 160 feet above streambed and a flood-control reservoir with a capacity of 9,285 acre-feet (Aug. 1956) at spillway crest. The operation of the reservoir regulates the runoff from a tribu- The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents June 22, 1986 Reservoirs and flood channels for flood control and related None. purposes for the protection of the metropolitan area of Orange County, at an estimated construction cost not to exceed $13 million. June 28, 1938 San Antonio and Chino Creeks channel portion of im- H. Doe. 688, 75th Cong., 3d scll. provement. Authorized to be appropriated $6,500,000 for initiation and partial accomplishment of the plans for those creeks. Rescinded provisions of Flood Con- trol Act of June 22, 1936, providing that local interests pay for relocations, lands easements, and rights-of-way. (Estimated resultant additional cost to the United States, $3,500,000.) Aug. 18, 1941 Authorized to be appropriated, in addition to previous None. authorizations, the amount of $2,500,000 for the pros- ecution of the projects approved in the above-mentioned flood control acts. Dec. 22, 1944 Authorized to be appropriated, in addition to previous H. Doe. 534, 78th Cong., 2d seel authorizations, the amount of $10 million for the pros- ecution of the projects adopted in the above-mentioned flood control acts, including the projects on Lytle and Cajon Creeks for local flood protection at San Bernardino and Colton, Calif. July 3, 1958 Authorized to be appropriated, in addition to previous None. authorizations, the amount of $8 million for the pros- ecution of the projects approved in the above-mentioned flood-control acts. 1650 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 tary area of 26.7 square miles, reducing the design flood from an inflow of 19,000 cubic feet per second to an outflow of 8,500 cubic feet per second. g. San Antonio and Chino Creeks channel: The improvement, which extends along San Antonio and Chino Creeks for about 16 miles from San Antonio Dam to Prado Reservoir, consists of: (1) A rectangular, concrete-lined channel with a length of about 10.5 miles and a width ranging from 20 to 30 feet; (2) a trapezoidal channel with a length of about 5.2 miles and a bottom width ranging from 60 to 336 feet; and (3) 29 highway bridges, 4 railroad bridges, and 1 combination highway and railroad bridge. Local cooperation. No local cooperation is required for the fol- lowing active units of the Santa Ana River basin (and Orange County) project: Brea Dam. Carbon Canyon Dam and channel. Fullerton Dam. Prado Dam. San Antonio Dam. San Antonio and Chino Creeks channel. Local interests are required to furnish all lands, easements, and rights-of-way; to bear the expense of all highway and highway- bridge modifications; to hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction work; and to maintain and operate all works after completion for Lytle and Cajon Creeks channel im- provements. Operations and results during fiscal year. Information on oper- ations and results during the fiscal year is given in following paragraphs for all active units of the Santa Ana River basin (and Orange County) project. (a) Brea Dam: Operations consisted of maintaining the dam in good operating condition and administering real estate. Costs were $24,270 from regular funds for maintenance performed by hired labor. On February 11, 1962, during the storm period, February 7-21, the maximum mean hourly inflow was 280 cubic feet per second and the peak outflow was 217 cubic feet per second. Maximum reservoir storage was 14 acre-feet, or less than 1 percent of gross storage at spillway crest. (b) Carbon Canyon Dam and channel: Operations consisted of continuing construction of minor completion items, maintaining the dam in good operating condition, continuing acquisition of rights-of-way, administering real estate, and continuing prepara- tion of the reservoir regulation manual. Costs were $86,403 from regular funds, comprising $37,251 for new work performed by contract, $25,247 for new work performed by hired labor, and $23,- 905 for maintenance performed by hired labor. Inflow into and outflow from the reservoir were minor, the maxi- mum storage being less than 1 percent of gross storage at spillway crest. FLOOD CONTROL--LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DISTRICT 1651 (c) Fullerton Dam: Operations consisted of maintaining the dam in good operating condition and administering real estate. Costs were $24,693 from regular funds for maintenance performed by hired labor. On February 11, 1962, during the storm period, February 7-21, the maximum mean hourly inflow was 104 cubic feet per second; the outflow peak was minor. The maximum reservoir storage was 58 acre-feet, or 8 percent of gross storage at spillway crest. (d) Lytle and Cajon Creeks channel improvements: Operations consisted of acquisition of real estate. Costs were $44 from other contributed funds for new work performed by hired labor. (e) Prado Dam: Operations consisted of maintaining the dam in good operating condition and administering real estate. Costs were $42,260 from regular funds, comprising $3,053 for mainte- nance performed by contract and $39,207 for maintenance per- formed by hired labor. During the storm period, February 7-21, 1962, the maximum mean hourly inflow was 1,100 cubic feet per second on February 8, and the peak outflow was 650 cubic feet per second on February 20. Maximum reservoir storage was 540 acre-feet, or less than 1 per- cent of gross storage at spillway crest. (f) San Antonio Dam: Operations consisted of maintaining the dam in good operating condition and administering real estate. Costs were $27,345 from regular funds for maintenance performed by hired labor. On February 12, 1962, during the storm period, February 7-21, the maximum mean hourly inflow was 154 cubic feet per second; outflow was minor. Maximum reservoir storage was 435 acre- feet, or 5 percent of gross storage at spillway crest. (g) San Antonio and Chino Creeks channel: Operations con- sisted of continuing acquisition of rights-of-way, maintaining the project in good operating condition, and administering real estate. Costs were $18,862 from regular funds, comprising $2,727 for new work performed by contract, $7,217 for new work performed by hired labor, and $8,918 for maintenance performed by hired labor. Floodflows were negligible during the year. Condition at end of fiscal year. Information on condition at end of fiscal year is given in following paragraphs for all active units of the Santa Ana River basin (and Orange County) project. (a) Brea Dam: The dam was completed in March 1942. All acquisition of rights-of-way has been completed, and the operation and maintenance manual has been completed. Work remaining to be done consists of completing the reservoir regulation manual. (b) Carbon Canyon Dam and channel: Construction of the proj- ect was started in May 1959 and, except for minor completion items, was completed in the spring of 1961. Work remaining to be done consists of completion of the acquisition of rights-of-way, the operation and maintenance and reservoir regulation manuals, and master plan. 1652 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 (c) Fullerton Dam: The dam was completed in May 1941. All acquisition of rights-of-way and the operation and maintenance manual has been completed. Work remaining to be done consists of completing reservoir regulation manual and preparing master plan. (d) Lytle and Cajon Creeks channel improvements: The existing project was completed in 1948 and was turned over to local in- terests for maintenance on September 26, 1949. Work remaining to be done consists of completion of acquisition of real estate. (e) Prado Dam: The dam was completed in May 1941. All ac- quisition of rights-of-way and the operation and maintenance man- ual has been completed. Work remaining to be done consists of completing reservoir regulation manual and master plan. (f) San Antonio Dam: The dam was completed in October 1956. All acquisition of rights-of-way and the operation, maintenance and reservoir regulation manuals have been completed. No work except preparing master plan remains to be done. (g) San Antonio and Chino Creeks channel: The project was completed in November 1960. Work remaining consists of com- pleting acquisition of rights-of-way and initiating the preparation of the operation and maintenance manual. The total costs from regular funds for the existing project to June 30, 1962, were as follows: Units New work Maintenance Total Completed: Brea Dam............................................. $1,189,068 $349,664 $1,538,732 FullertonDam .................................... . 411,076 260,249 671,325 Prado Dam......................................... 9,473,273 725,615 10,198,888 San Antonio Dam .................................. 27,001,176 142,914 7,144,090 Subtotal-all completed units ....................... 18,074,593 1,478,442 19,553,035 Completed except for minor completion items: Carbon Canyon Dam and channel...................... 4,621,811 25,618 4,647,429 Lytle and Cajon Creeks channel improvements ........... 7,612,000 .......... 7,612,000 San Antonio and Chino Creeks channel ................. '10,877,051 17,908 10,894,959 Subtotal-all units completed except for minor com- pletion items .................................... 23,110,862 43,526 23,154,388 Undistributed....... ........................... .......85,310 ........ 85,310 Inactive unitss.........................................67,361 ................ 67,361 Grand total-all work .......................... 41,338,126 '1,521,968 42,860,094 1 Does not include $124,105 of non-Federal funds (other contributed funds) spent by the Corps for water-conservation betterments desired by local interests. sIncludes $5,000 of working funds. Does not include $8,500 of non-Federal funds (other contributed funds) spent by the Corps for betterments desired by local interests. 8Does not include $601,682 of non-Federal funds (other contributed funds) spent by the Corps for betterments desired by local interests. 4Does not include $234,709 of non-Federal funds (other contributed funds) spent by the Corps for betterments desired by local interests. 5Project costs for inactive units are given under a subsequent heading "Other Authorized Flood Control Projects." e The average annual Federal maintenance cost for the past 5 years was $105,997 for Brea, Fullerton, Prado, and San Antonio Dams, all of which have been completed for more than 5 years. The average annual Federal maintenance cost for Carbon Canyon Dam and channel, which was completed in 1961, was $12,809; and for San Antonio and Chino Creeks channel, which was completed in 1960, was $4,477. FLOOD CONTROL---LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DISTRICT 1653 Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS-ACTIVE UNITS COMPLETED EXCEPT FOR MINOR COMPLETION ITEMS Fiscal year - New work Total to 1 June 30, 1962 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 Carbon Canyon Dam and channel: Appropriated.......... $467,500 $1,442,000 $1,750,000 $967,000 $40,083 $4,931,711 Cost................ 175,310 203,834 2,176,544 1,738,772 62,498 24,621,811 Lytleand Cajon Creeks channel improvements: Appropriated.......... ...... ........... ..... .. ....................... ... 7,612,000 Cost.......................... .... ....................................... 7,612,000 San Antonio and Chino Creeks channel: Appropriated .......... 3,250,000 1,549,000 1,655,000 1,326,000 -8,000 10,882,000 Cost............... 3,017,556 1,067,842 2,455,576 1,350,184 9,944 10,877,051 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962: Carbon Canyon Dam and channel ....................................... $178,928 Lytle and Cajon Creeks channel improvements ............................ 8 27,299 San Antonio and Chino Creeks channels ..................................... 2,025 1 Does not include non-Federal funds (other contributed funds) spent by the Corps, as follows: San Antonio and Chino Creeks channel, $234,709 for betterments desired by local interests; and Lytle and Cajon Creeks channel improvements, $601,682 for items of re- quired local cooperation. 8 Reflects minus $19,000 for deletion of preauthorization studies costs. 8 Contributed funds (other) FEDERAL FUNDS-COMPLETED ACTIVE UNITS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 2 New work:1 .......... . .... Appropriated $5,892 $60,309 -$25............ $18,074,593 Cost .................$7,282 20,094 72,339 125............. 18,074,593 1 Brea, Fullerton, Prado, and San Antonio Dams. 2Includes working funds of $5,000 for San Antonio Dam. Does not include non-Federal funds (other contributed funds) of $124,105 spent by the Corps for water conservation better- ments desired by local interests at Prado Dam and $8,500 spent by the Corps for betterments desired by local interests at San Antonio Dam. FEDERAL FUNDS-ALL ACTIVE UNITS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 Maintenance: 1 Appropriated.......... $84,306 $89,572 $121,789 $130,868 $147,900 $1,523,828 Cost.................. 85,124 81,714 124,809 130,473 151,391 1,521,968 1 Excluding Lytle and Cajon Creeks channel improvements, for which localinterests are responsible for operation and maintenance. 14. SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CALIF. Location. The site of the improvements in the existing project is on the Santa Ana River and tributaries and other streams in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Existing project. The Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950, authorized the plan of improvement for flood control in the Santa Ana River basin substantially in accordance with the recommenda- tions contained in the report of the Chief of Engineers, dated Sep- tember 27, 1948. (See H. Doc. 135, 81st Cong., 1st sess.) The individual units considered in the general plan for this proj- ect and their estimated Federal first costs are as follows: 1654 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Project Estimated cost M illCreeklevees... ........ ... .. .............. ..... ................... 1 2$650,000 Devil, East Twin, and Warm Creeks channel improvements and Lytle Creek levee ................. 7,940,000 Riverside .................. levees . ......................................... 1 42,100,000 San Jacinto River levee and Bautista Creek channel .......................................... 33,100,000 Total................................................... ... ......... 13,790,000 x See under subsequent heading, "Other Authorized Flood Control Projects." 2 Latest cost estimate revision made in 1960. 8 Latest cost estimate revision made in 1961. ' Latest cost estimate revision made in 1957. Local cooperation. See individual reports for requirements. Operationsand results during fiscal year. See individual reports for all work during fiscal year. Condition at end of fiscal year. See individual reports for con- dition of all projects at end of fiscal year. 15. DEVIL, EAST TWIN, AND WARM CREEKS CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS AND LYTLE CREEK LEVEE, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CALIF. Location. Devil, East Twin, and Warm Creeks improvements and the Lytle Creek levee are in San Bernardino County, Calif. The Devil Creek diversion and the Lytle Creek levee are north and northwest of San Bernardino; the Waterman and East Twin Creeks levee revetments are northeast of San Bernardino; and the East Twin and Warm Creeks concrete channel is in the eastern residen- tial section of San Bernardino. Existing project. This unit is a part of the improvements under the general plan for flood control in the Santa Ana River basin. The plan of improvement provides for a 1.3-mile intercepting levee across Devil Creek (downstream from the mouth of Devil Creek Canyon and just north of San Bernardino); a 2.05-mile concrete diversion channel from the levee to Cajon Creek; a 1.16-mile levee on the right side of Lytle Creek opposite the mouth of Cajon Creek; a revetment of 3.45 miles of levees, constructed by local interests along Waterman and East Twin Creeks; the construction of a 4.54-mile continuous concrete channel along (lower) East Twin Creek and (lower) Warm Creek; and the revetment of side slopes for a distance of 1.41 miles. The latest (1961) approved estimate of Federal first cost is $7,940,000. The improvement was authorized by the Flood Control Act ap- proved May 17, 1950. (See H. Doc. 135, 81st Cong. 1st sess.) Local cooperation. Local interests are required to pay $200,000 of the construction cost of (zone 5) Devil, East Twin, and Warm Creeks improvements; to furnish free of cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the improvements; to bear the cost of all highway and highway- bridge construction and alteration, and utility relocations; to ad- just all claims concerning water rights and to hold and save the United States free from all claims for damages due to the con- struction works; to prevent any future encroachments on the proj- ect channels; to perform any work made necessary by the effect of flood control on stream regimen; and to maintain and operate FLOOD CONTROL-LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DISTRICT 1655 the improvement works after completion in accordance with regu- lations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Local interests have already provided satisfactory assurances of their cooperation and have contributed $200,000. The latest (1961) approved estimate of non-federal first costs for required items of local cooperation is $3,200,000, including $200,000 of required contributed funds. Expenditure reports (revised 1962) indicate that San Bernar- dino County has expended, to date, a total of about $3,123,475 for local cooperation items required under terms of the project authori- zation and about $180,579 for items not required. Operations and results during fiscal year. Operations, which were confined solely to the East Twin and Warm Creeks improve- ments, consisted of completing construction of part 4 (Base Line Road to Marshall Boulevard) and part 5 (levees). Costs were $1,446,971 from regular funds, comprising $1,440,821 for new work performed by contract and $6,150 for new work performed by hired labor. Costs were $42,847 from other contributed funds, comprising $42,756 for new work performed by contract and $91 for new work performed by hired labor. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of Lytle Creek levee was completed in July 1956; construction of Devil Creek diversion was completed in March 1958; construction of part 1 of the East Twin and Warm Creeks improvement was completed in January 1960; construction of parts 2 and 3 of the East Twin and Warm Creeks improvements was completed in the fall of 1960; and con- struction of parts 4 and 5 of the East Twin and Warm Creeks im- provements was completed in December and November 1961, respectively. Work remaining to be done consists of completing the operation and maintenance manual, which is about 10 percent com- plete. The total costs for the existing projects to June 30, 1962, were as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total Regular. ......... ..... $7,778,36 ................ $7,778,136 Required contributed funds1 .............................. 200,000 ................ 200,000 Other contributed funds ......... 1,636,267 ................ 1..................... 1,636, 267 Total ... ...................... 9,614,403 ................. 9,614,403 SIncluded in non-Federal costs to date of $3,304,054, comprising $3,123,475 for items of local cooperation required under terms of the project authorization and $180,579 for items not required. Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 1 New work: Appropriated..........$890,000 $578,000 $1,610,000 $1,320,025 $1,447,000 $7,785,025 Cost ................. 1,318,932 926,734 1,595,276 1,388,685 1,446,971 7,778,136 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................. $6,889 1 Does not include costs of $200,000 from required contributed funds and costs of $1,636,267 from other contributed funds. 1656 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 REQUIRED CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ......... ............ $100,000 .... . ........................ $200,000 Cost................. $8,380 100,000 ..................................... 200,000 OTHER CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated........... ........ $562,945 $453,294 $449,133 -$63,717 $1,636,685 Cost ................. $158,069 346,090 630,235 419,592 42,847 1,636,267 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .............................. $418 1 Included in non-Federal cost to date of $3,304,054, comprising $3,123,475 for items of local cooperation required under terms of the project authorization and $180,579 for items not required. 16. SAN JACINTO RIVER LEVEE AND BAUTISTA CREEK CHANNEL, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CALIF. Location. The site of the improvements is in Riverside County, near San Jacinto, Hemet, and Valle Vista, Calif. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for con- struction of a levee, 3.93 miles long, on the left side of the San Jacinto River; and for about 3 miles of concrete-lined channel on Bautista Creek upstream from California State Highway 74. The improvements will protect the towns of Valle Vista, Hemet, and San Jacinto and also nearby agricultural areas against damage from floods. The latest (1961) approved estimate of Federal first cost is $3,100,000. The improvement was authorized by the Flood Control Act ap- proved May 17, 1950. (See H. Doc. 135, 81st Cong., 1st sess.) Local cooperation. Local interests are required to furnish free of cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the improvements; bear the cost of all highway and highway-bridge construction and alteration and of utility relocations; adjust all claims concerning water rights; hold and save the United States free from all claims for damages due to the construction works; prevent any future encroachments on the project channels; perform any work made necessary by the effect of flood control on stream regimen; and maintain and operate the im- provement after completion in accordance with regulations pre- scribed by the Secretary of the Army. Riverside County, the legally responsible agency, indicated its willingness to meet the local coop- eration requirements and, through the California Department of Water Resources (Mar. 7, 1958), expressed its desire to proceed with the project. The latest (1961) approved estimate of non-Federal first costs for required items of local cooperation is $990,000. Expenditure reports (revised 1962) indicate that Riverside County has expended, to date, a total of about $825,000 for local FLOOD CONTROL--LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DISTRICT 1657 cooperation items required under terms of the project authoriza- tion. Operations and results during fiscal year. Operations consisted of completing construction of: (a) Part 2 of the Bautista Creek channel in September 1961; and (b) the San Jacinto River levee in November 1961 and continuing preparation of the operation and maintenance manual. Costs were $1,427,354 from regular funds, comprising $1,415,611 for new work performed by contract and $11,743 for new work performed by hired labor and were $64,034 from contributed funds, comprising $67,145 for new work per- formed by contract and minus $3,111 for new work performed by hired labor. Conditionat end of fiscal year. Construction of part 1 of Bautista Creek channel was completed in December 1960, construction of part 2 of Bautista Creek channel was completed in September 1961, and construction of the San Jacinto levee was completed in Novem- ber 1961. Work remaining to be done consists of completing the operation and maintenance manual, which is about 90 percent com- plete. The total costs for the existing project to June 30, 1962, were as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total Regular ............ ................... .......... 3,045,781................ 35 $3,045,781 Contributed ........................................ 327,723 .............. . 327,723 Total............................... ........ 3,373,504................ 3,373,504 x Included in non-Federal costs of $825,000 (revised 1962) for items of local cooperation required under terms of the project authorization. Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: .......... Appropriated. $80,000 $110,000 $1,412,200 $219,000$1,200,000 $3,046,200 Cost.................. 52,288 81,081 196,526 1,263,532 1,427,354 3,045,781 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................... $44 CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Tota Ito Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated......... ......... .......... $240,000 $95,896 ... $335,896 Cost ................. . .... ...... 26,769 236,920 $64,034 1327,723 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 80, 1962 ............................ $8,173 x Included in non-Federal costs to date of $825,000 (revised 1962) for items of local co- operation required under terms of the project authorization. 17. SAN DIEGO RIVER BASIN, CALIF. Location. The site of the improvement is on the San Diego River at San Diego, Calif. 1658 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Existing project. The plan of improvement, which was author- ized by the Flood Control Act approved December 22, 1944 (see H. Doc. 635, 77th Cong., 2d sess.), was modified by the River and Harbor Act approved July 24, 1946. (See H. Doc. 760, 79th Cong., 2d sess.) Prior to modification, the plan of improvement provided for the construction of a suitable levee system as a replacement of the existing Government dike across the old channel of the river, at the city of San Diego. The levee system, which would incorporate the existing dike to the extent found practicable at the time of construction, would comprise a main levee extending eastward for about 6,700 feet from Presidio Hill in Old Town and a cutoff levee extending about 900 feet southward from a point near the west end of the main levee. The latest (1949) approved estimated cost is $350,000 for construction and $20,000 for lands and damages. For further information on the project as modified, see naviga- tion project entitled "San Diego River and Mission Bay, Calif.," under a previous heading, "Other Authorized Navigation Projects." 18. WEST FORK RESERVOIR, MOJAVE RIVER BASIN, CALIF. Location. The site of the West Fork Reservoir is on the West Fork of the Mojave River about 2,000 feet upstream from the con- fluence of West Fork and Deep Creek and about 15 miles upstream from Victorville, in the Mojave River Basin, Calif. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for: (a) A concrete gravity dam with a maximum height of 138 feet above streambed, a crest length of 443 feet, and an ungated spillway with a net crest length of 180 feet near the center of the dam; and (b) a flood control reservoir with a gross capacity of 40,180 acre-feet at spillway crest, including 10,000 acre-feet for sediment. The oper- ation of the reservoir would reduce the standard project flood of 40,000 cubic feet per second on West Fork to an outflow ranging from 0 to 10,000 cubic feet per second and would reduce the stand- ard project flood of 95,000 cubic feet per second on the Mojave River downstream from the mouth of West Fork to 67,000 cubic feet per second. The latest (1962) approved estimate of Federal first cost is $3,900,000. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved July 14, 1960. (See H. Doc. 164, 86th Cong., 1st sess.) Local cooperation. Local interests are required to: (a) Hold and save the United States free from damages from all water-rights claims resulting from construction and operation of the project; (b) prevent encroachment harmful to the existing channel down- stream from the reservoir; and (c) maintain channel capacity of not less than 20,000 cubic feet per second through improved areas. Local interests have not been notified of the requirements of the authorizing act. Operations and results during fiscal year. The project plan was initiated. Costs were $30,550 from regular funds, comprising $3,279 for new work performed by contract and $27,271 for new work performed by hired labor. FLOOD CONTROL-LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DISTRICT 1659 Condition at end of fiscal year. The project plan, which has been initiated, is about 15 percent complete. Work remaining consists of completing the project plan, preparing the contract plans and specifications, constructing the dam, and preparing the master plan, the operation and maintenance manual, and the reservoir regulation manual. Total costs from regular funds to the end of the fiscal year were $160,550 all for new work. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ................................ ................. $44,800 $174,800 Cost.................. .............. .......... 30,550 160,550 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $2,277 19. TAHCHEVAH CREEK DETENTION RESERVOIR AND CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, WHITEWATER RIVER BASIN, CALIF. Location. The site of the Tahchevah Creek detention reservoir and channel improvements is on Tahchevah Creek in the city limits of Palm Springs, in the Whitewater River Basin, Calif. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for: (a) A 900-acre-foot-capacity detention reservoir to be created by an earthfill embankment just below the mouth of Tahchevah Canyon; (b) an ungated, concrete-lined open spillway through the right end of the embankment; (c) a stone dike about 1,200 feet in length to be constructed upstream from the embankment to deflect flows from the outlet works; (d) a concrete-lined channel, partly trapezoidal and partly rectangular, extending from the reservoir to Palm Canyon Drive; (e) an underground conduit extending from Palm Canyon Drive to a point about 540 feet upstream from the junction of Tahchevah Creek and Baristo Creek; and (f) an unlined, ex- cavated, earth channel extending from the downstream end of the conduit to Baristo Creek. Operation of the reservoir would reduce the peak flows of Tahchevah Creek, and the channel and conduit sections of the project would pass the reduced flows through Palm Springs and part of the Caliente Indian Reservation to the existing partly improved channel of Baristo Creek. The latest (1962) approved estimate of Federal first cost is $1,110,000. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved July 14, 1960. (See H. Doc. 171, 86th Cong., 1st sess.) Local cooperation. Local interests are required to: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights- of-way necessary for the construction of the project; (b) bear the expense of all relocations, including the required bridge and cul- vert modifications; (c) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works, including damages from water-rights claims; (d) maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Sec- retary of the Army; and (e) prevent encroachment harmful to the 1660 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY,1962 improved channel along Tahchevah Creek and to the existing Baristo Creek channel from Tahchevah Creek to Sunrise Way: Provided local interests shall bear 50 percent of the cost of the project, including the cost of lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations. The latest (1962) approved estimate of non-Federal first cost for all requirements of local cooperation under the authorizing act is $1,060,000, including $560,000 of required contributed funds. Local interests have not yet been formally requested to supply as- surances of local cooperation required under the authorizing act. To date, local interests have expended direct a total of $65,000 for local cooperation items required under terms of the project authorization and $140,000 for items not required. Operations and results during fiscal year. No operations were performed during the fiscal year. Condition at end of fiscal year. No Federal work has been per- formed on the project. Total costs from regular funds to the end of the fiscal year were $50,000 for preauthorization studies cost only. This does not in- clude non-Federal costs to date of $205,000 paid direct by local interests, of which $65,000 was for items of local cooperation re- quired under terms of the project authorization and $140,000 for items not required. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962, New work: Appropriated.................... ......................... ............ ........ $ 0,000 Cost .......................... .......................... 50,000 1 Preauthorization studies cost only. 20. ALAMO RESERVOIR, BILL WILLIAMS RIVER, ARIZ. Location. The site of the improvement is approximately 70 miles southeast of Kingman, Ariz., in a narrow gorge at river mile 38 on the Bill Williams River, Ariz., a tributary of the Colorado River. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for the construction at the Alamo site on the Bill Williams River, Ariz., of a flood-control dam and reservoir that can later be modified to meet the requirements of flood control, water conservation, and power development. The latest (1962) approved estimate of Federal first cost is $12,600,000. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of Decem- ber 22, 1944. (See H. Doc. 625, 78th Cong., 2d sess.) Local cooperation. Local interests are required to assume re- sponsibility for all damage claims and to adjust all claims concerning water rights arising from the improvement. The Governor of Arizona has submitted a letter dated March 12, 1941, indicating his willingness to arrange for the assumption by the State of the responsibilities of local cooperation. FLOOD CONTROL-LOS ANGELES. CALIF., DISTRICT 1661 Operationsand results during fiscal year. Work on the project plan was continued. Costs were $169,692 from regular funds, comprising $36,862 for new work performed by contract and $132,830 for new work performed by hired labor. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project plan is partly com- plete. Work remaining to be done consists of completion of the project plan; preparation of contract plans and specifications; construction of the project; and preparation of the operation and maintenance manual, the reservoir regulation manual, and the master plan. Total costs from regular funds to the end of the fiscal year were $636,066 all for new work. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: ................... .......... Appropriated $63,000 $175,000 $138,700 $663,912 .................... Cost ................ 29,374 149,788 169,692 636,066 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .............................. $26,608 21. MIDDLE GILA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, UPPER SAFFORD VALLEY TO BUTTES RESERVOIR SITE, GILA RIVER BASIN, ARIZ. Location. The middle Gila River channel improvements would extend along approximately 94 miles of the middle Gila River from the upper end of the Safford Valley (river mile 435) to the San Carlos Reservoir (river mile 357) and from the mouth of the San Pedro River (river mile 319) to the Buttes Reservoir site (river mile 303). Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for a cleared floodway extending for about 94 miles along the middle Gila River. The floodway would be created by clearing phreatophytic growth by mechanical means from an area of about 14,200 acres with a maximum width of about 4,000 feet and an average width of about 1,300 feet. The improvement would provide partial protection from floods to areas in the Safford Valley and, because of the removal of phreatophytic growth, would result in a net increase of 19,800 acre-feet of water available annually for agriculture. The latest (1962) approved estimate of Federal first cost is $1,130,000. The improvement was authorized by the Flood Control Act of July 3, 1958 (see S. Doc. 5, 86th Cong., 1st sess.), as one of the improvements under a comprehensive plan for development of the Gila River, subject to further detailed study and specific authorization. Local cooperation. Responsible local interests are required to give assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the project; (b) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction work; (c) maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed 1662 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 by the Secretary of the Army; and (d) keep the cleared floodway free from encroachment. In consideration of benefits in connection with the study of any upstream reservoir under the comprehensive plan, the exist- ing project (channel improvements) and the upstream reservoir shall be considered as a single operating unit in the economic evaluation. As a result, in the event it is possible as determined by the Secretary of the Interior to identify the organizations directly benefiting from the water conserved by these works and to feasibly determine the extent of such benefit to each organ- ization, the Secretary of the Interior shall enter into contracts with such organizations for the repayment of that part of the cost of the work that is properly allocated to such organizations: Pro- vided, that such repayment shall be under terms and conditions satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior and shall be in in- stallments fixed in accordance with the ability of those organiza- tions to pay as determined by the Secretary of the Interior in the light of outstanding repayments and other obligations. The Bureau of Reclamation, Region 3, Boulder City, Nev., has completed the "Report on Water Salvage and Water Conservation Benefits from Channel Improvement, Gila River, Camelsback Reservoir Site to Salt River, Arizona," dated December 1959, which has been formally transmitted by the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Army. This report contains the following conclusions: (a) That because of the many complexities involved, for all practical purposes it will not be possible to ac- curately identify the individual organizations directly benefiting from the water salvaged by the channel-improvement program to determine the amount of water received or the benefits resulting from the use of the salvaged water; and (b) that, under the circumstances involved, it is not possible to make an equitable allocation of costs among the organizations as a basis for entering into repayment contracts. Therefore, repayment for water sal- vaged is not a prerequisite of local cooperation at this time. The latest (1962) approved estimate of non-Federal first costs for required items of local cooperation (excepting repayment as described in the preceding paragraph) is $270,000. Local interests, the Board of Supervisors of Pinal and Graham Counties, were notified, by letters dated April 29, 1960, of the requirements of local cooperation and requested to furnish resolutions of assurance covering those requirements. Operations and results during fiscal year. Preparation of the contract plans and specifications was continued. Costs were $6,616 from regular funds, comprising $2,654 for new work performed by contract and $3,962 for new work performed by hired labor. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project plan is complete, and contract plans and specifications are being prepared. Work re- maining to be done consists of completion of contract plans and specifications, construction of the project, and preparation of the operation and maintenance manual. Total costs from regular funds to the end of the fiscal year were $188,964 all for new work. FLOOD CONTROL-LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DISTRICT 1663 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.......... $25,000 $60,000 $49,000 $150,000 $165,300 $504,300 Cost ................. 25,000 2,797 62,886 36,665 6,616 188,964 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $310,424 22. GILA AND SALT RIVERS LEVEE AND CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, GILA RIVER BASIN, ARIZ. Location. The site of the Gila and Salt Rivers levee and channel improvements is on the Gila and Salt Rivers in Maricopa County, Ariz., between Granite Reef Dam and Gillespie Dam. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for: (a) A levee extending downstream for about 2,000 feet along the left bank of the Salt River from Tempe Butte, Tempe, Ariz., to the Southern Pacific Railroad bridge embankment; (b) a levee ex- tending downstream for about 16,700 feet along the right bank of the Salt River from the Southern Pacific Railroad bridge em- bankment to 40th Street, Phoenix, Ariz.; (c) a 2,000-foot-wide cleared floodway along the Salt River from Granite Reef Dam to the junction with the Gila River and thence along the Gila River to Gillespie Dam; and (d) two low-flow channels, one in the cleared floodway of the Gila River between Gillespie Dam and a point about 1 mile downstream from the mouth of the Agua Fria River, and the other in the cleared floodway of the Salt River upstream from the highway bridge at Tempe. The project would provide complete protection against the standard project flood (290,000 cubic feet per second at McDowell damsite) for most of the city of Tempe, part of the city of Phoenix, and partial protection for additional areas in the city of Phoenix, for adjacent developed areas, and for other areas along the Gila and Salt Rivers from Gillespie Dam to Granite Reef Dam. The latest (1962) approved estimate of Federal first cost is $3,380,000 less principal repayments by local interests of $830,000 for water conservation and $216,000 for flood control. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of July 14, 1960, (See H. Doc. 279, 86th Cong., 2d sess.) Local cooperation. Local interests are required to: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights- of-way necessary for construction of the project; (b) pay for all necessary highway and utility relocations; (c) maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with regula- tions prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; (d) keep the flood channel of the Gila and Salt Rivers free from encroachment within the limits of the improvement; (e) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; (f) adjust all water-rights claims resulting from construction, operation, and maintenance of the project; (g) repay to the United States 25 percent of the total construction cost in 40 equal annual payments without interest, the payments to be made to the Secretary of the 1664 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Interior who, in turn, shall deposit such payments in the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts;, and (h) bear at least 20 percent of such part of the cost excepting the cost of planning, design, and acquisition of water rights as is allocated to flood control: Provided, the actual cost, or fair market value of lands, easements, and rights-of-way or of services rendered by local interests prior to completion of construction of the project shall be included in the share of the cost to be borne by local interests. The latest (1962) approved estimate of non-Federal first costs is $1,466,000, comprising the following amounts: $420,000 for lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations; $830,000 to be repaid to the Secretary of Interior in 40 equal payments without interest; and $216,000--to be paid as required contributed funds to the U.S. Army Engineers or to be repaid in not more than 50 years with interest. Local interests have not yet been formally requested to supply assurances of local cooperation under the authorizing act. Operations and results during fiscal year. Preparation of the project plan was initiated. Costs were $17,512 from regular funds for new work performed by hired labor. Condition at end of fiscal year. Project plan has been initiated. Work remaining to be done consists of completion of the project plan, preparation of the contract plans and specifications, con- struction of the project, and preparation of the operation and maintenance manual. Total costs from regular funds to the end of the fiscal year were $77,512, all for new work. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated......... ......... ..... .. ............. .......... $20,500 $80,500 Cost.............. ...... .. ........ .. .............. 17,512 77,512 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .............................. $452 23. TUCSON DIVERSION CHANNEL, GILA RIVER BASIN, ARIZ. Location. The site of the Tucson diversion channel is in Pima County in the drainage areas of Tucson Arroyo and Julian Wash, tributaries of the Santa Cruz River near Tucson, Ariz. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for pro- tection for the city of Tucson, Ariz., and suburban areas by diverting runoff from the upstream part of the Tucson Arroyo drainage area to an adjacent drainage area, and thence to the Santa Cruz River. After the project was authorized, local in- terests developed a plan of improvement differing substantially from the project-document plan and constructed a major part of the improvement under their plan. Subsequently, local in- terests requested a modification of the project-document plan to provide more flood control than would be available under the plan developed by local interests. The general provisions of the FLOOD CONTROL---LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DISTRICT 1665 modified plan, which replaces the document plan, were approved by the Chief of Engineers on September 2, 1958. The modified plan provides for: (a) Increasing the capacity of the diversion-channel project under construction by Pima County to accommodate the standard project flood discharge; and (b) conveying the floodflow to the Santa Cruz River by means of an improved channel along Julian Wash. Work under the modified plan would involve: (a) Completing the diversion chan- nel between Tucson Arroyo and the Southern Pacific Railroad and enlarging that channel at Tucson Arroyo; (b) enlarging the ex- isting diversion channel between the Southern Pacific Railroad and the detention basin; (c) completing the excavation of the detention basin and increasing the discharge capacity; (d) in- creasing the capacity of the diversion channel between the de- tention basin and Julian Wash; (e) constructing an improved channel along Julian Wash; (f) reconstructing or modifying eight highway bridges and two railroad bridges; and (g) con- structing five new highway bridges. The latest (1962) approved estimate of Federal first cost is $6,300,000. The existing project was adopted by the Flood Control Act of June 30, 1948. (See H. Doc. 274, 80th Cong., 1st sess.) Local cooperation. Local interests are required to: (a) Pro- vide free of cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the project; (b) pay for relocation of utilities and construct necessary highway bridges, dips, and relocations; (c) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and opera- tion of the works; and (d) maintain and operate the improve- ments after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. The Board of Supervisors of Pima County, Ariz., by resolution dated April 8, 1958, has agreed to participate in a flood-control project and to assume the cost of the required items of local cooperation. The latest (1962) approved estimate of non-Federal first cost for all requirements of local cooperation under the modified plan is $3,700,000, including $1,413,000 (1962 estimate) already spent for lands and damages, relocations, and construction. Operationsand results during fiscal year. Work on the modified plan was continued during the fiscal year. Costs were $127,383 from regular funds for new work performed by hired labor. Condition at end of fiscal year. Work remaining to be done con- sists of completion of the modified plan, preparation of contract plans and specifications, construction of the project, and prepara- tion of the operation and maintenance manual. Total costs from regular funds to the end of the fiscal year were $322,726 all for new work. This does not include non-Federal costs (estimated 1962) of $1,413,000 already spent for required items of local cooperation (i.e., expenditures to date on that part of local interests' alternative project that is to be utilized) under terms of the project authorization. 1666 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... ............ ............ $85,000 $162,300 $358,525 Cost................................... .......... 84,118 127,383 322,726 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $35,799 24. PAINTED ROCK RESERVOIR, GILA RIVER BASIN, ARIZ. Location. Painted Rock Reservoir is on the Gila River, mile 126, about 20 miles downstream from Gila Bend, Ariz., in the Gila River basin, which is a part of the Colorado River basin. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for: (a) A rolled-earthfill dam with a maximum height of 181 feet above streambed, a crest length of 4,796 feet, and a detached broad- crested spillway with a crest length of 610 feet; and (b) a flood- control reservoir with a gross capacity of 2,491,700 acre-feet (Mar. 1953) at spillway crest, including 200,000 acre-feet for sediment. The operation of the reservoir regulates the runoff from a tributary area of 50,800 square miles, reducing the flow of the standard project flood of 300,000 cubic feet per second to a maximum outflow of 22,500 cubic feet per second. The latest (1962) approved estimate of Federal first cost is $18,194,000, including $8,000 for Code 710 recreation project. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 2 years was $31,963. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950. (See H. Doc. 331, 81st Cong., 1st sess.) Local cooperation. Local interests are required to adjust all water-rights claims that might result from the improvement and to keep the flood channel of the Gila River downstream from the Painted Rock site free from encroachment. Operations and results during fiscal year. Operations consisted of maintaining the dam in good operating condition and admin- istering real estate. Acquisition of rights-of-way was continued. Work on the reservoir-regulation manual was completed. Costs were $459,759 from regular funds, comprising $381,481 for new work performed by contract, $43,082 for new work performed by hired labor, and $35,196 for maintenance performed by hired labor. Reservoir storage was negligible. Condition at end of fiscal year. Except for minor completion items, construction of the dam and appurtenances was completed in December 1959. The reservoir-regulation manual is complete. Work remaining to be done consists of completing the construction of minor completion items, the acquisition of rights-of-way, and the operation and maintenance manual (now 90 percent complete). Total costs from regular funds to the end of the fiscal year were $17,785,257 of which $17,721,331 was for new work and $63,926 for maintenance. This does not include costs for Code 710 recrea- tion project. FLOOD CONTROL--LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DISTRICT 1667 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated......... $3,045,000 $7,555,000 -$955,791 $707,883 $4,605,287 $18,161,379 Cost................. 4,443,308 7,885,602 3,088,767 550,567 424,563 17,721,331 Maintenance: Appropriated....................................... 30,440 35,400 65,840 Cost...... ...................................... 28,730 35,196 63,926 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................. $178,928 1 Not including costs for Code 710 recreation project. 25. PINE AND MATHEWS CANYONS RESERVOIRS, COLORADO RIVER BASIN, NEV. Location. Pine Canyon Reservoir and Mathews Canyon Reser- voir are in Lincoln County, Nev., about 100 miles north of Hoover Dam and about 17 and 20 miles, respectively, east of Caliente, Nev. Existing project. The reservoirs are interdependent units of a project for the protection of lands and improvements against floods along Clover Creek, Meadow Valley Wash, and the lower Muddy River, Nev., in the Virgin River basin, which is a part of the Colorado River basin. Each unit consists of a dam and a reservoir for flood control. Pine Canyon Dam is an earthfill structure with a maximum height of 92 feet above streambed and with a crest length of 884 feet. In a saddle at the left of the dam is a dike (an earthfill structure) with a maximum height above the saddle of 40 feet and with a crest length of 893 feet. A 330-foot spillway, crest elevation 5,675 feet, is along the left wall of the canyon about midway be- tween the dam and the dike. The reservoir has a total capacity at spillway crest of 7,840 acre-feet (1954), including 1,400 acre-feet reserved for sediment. The operation of the reservoir regulates the runoff from a tributary area of 45 square miles, reducing the standard project flood from 10,500 cubic feet per second to 322 cubic feet per second. Mathews Canyon Dam is an earthfill structure with a maximum height of 71 feet above streambed and with a crest length of 800 feet. A 50-foot spillway (crest elevation, 5,461 feet) is in a saddle to the left of the left abutment. The reservoir has a total capacity at spillway crest of 6,260 acre-feet (1954), including 1,000 acre- feet reserved for sediment. The operation of the reservoir regulates the runoff from a tributary area of 34 square miles, reducing the standard project flood from 8,500 cubic feet per second to 260 cubic feet per second. The latest (1957) approved estimate of Federal first cost for Pine Canyon and Mathews Canyon Dams is $1,700,000. The average annual maintenance cost for the two dams during the past 5 years was $5,086. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950. (See H. Doc. 530, 81st Cong., 2d sess.) Local cooperation. Local interests are required to adjust all water rights claims resulting from operation of the improvements and to keep the flood channels downstream from the flood-control 1668 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 reservoir free from manmade encroachments. Local interests have provided satisfactory assurances of their cooperation. Operations and results during fiscal year. Operations consisted of maintaining the dams in good condition, accomplishing contract adjustments, administering real estate, completing operation and maintenance manuals, and completing acquisition of rights-of-way at Mathews Canyon Dam. Costs were $6,850 from regular funds, comprising minus $1,420 for new work performed by contract, $33 for new work performed by hired labor, and $8,237 for main- tenance performed by hired labor. The maximum storage at Pine Canyon and Mathews Canyon Reservoirs on February 12, 1962, was 50 and 15 acre-feet, re- spectively, or less than 1 percent of gross storage capacity of each reservoir at spillway crest. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the reservoirs was completed in December 1957. The operation and maintenance manuals are complete. Acquisition of rights-of-way is complete. Work remaining consists of preparing the reservoir-regulation manuals. Total costs from regular funds to the end of the fiscal year were $1,426,677, of which $1,401,248 was for new work and $25,429 for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: .......... Appropriated $881,000 -$37,581 $125 $91 -$1,387 $1,401,248 Cost................. 851,063 8,220 125 91 -1,387 1,401,248 Maintenance: .......... Appropriated 5,250 362 4,832 8,510 8,000 26,954 Cost.................. 2,003 3,270 4,757 7,154 1 8,245 25,429 1 Includes pending adjustments of $8 not reflected under "Operations and results during fiscal year." 26. DIVERSION LEVEES, DETENTION BASINS, AND OUTLET CHANNELS ON TRIBUTARIES OF LAS VEGAS WASH, COLORADO RIVER BASIN, NEV. Location. The site of the improvements for flood control along tributaries of Las Vegas Wash is in the vicinity of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Henderson, Nev., in the Las Vegas Wash basin, a part of the Colorado River basin. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for three separate flood-control units: The Las Vegas unit, the Henderson unit, and the Power Line Road unit. The Las Vegas unit, which would provide protection for most of North Las Vegas, Las Vegas, and developed areas south of Las Vegas from floods in the Las Vegas Loop, Las Vegas Creek, Charles- ton Boulevard, and Flamingo Wash drainage areas, would consist of two diversion levees, a detention basin, and an outlet channel. One diversion levee and the detention basin would be west and southwest of the cities of North Las Vegas and Las Vegas. This levee, ranging in height from 4 to 20 feet above natural ground surface, would extend generally southward about 31,000 feet from a point about 7 miles northwest of Las Vegas to the detention basin, FLOOD CONTROL-LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DISTRICT 1669 which would be on Flamingo Wash west of the Union Pacific Rail- road. This detention basin would have an average height of 50 feet above natural ground surface, a length of 25,300 feet, a capacity of 14,660 acre-feet (including 2,000 acre-feet for sedimentation), for a concrete-lined spillway at the south end with a crest length of 2,000 feet. Flows resulting from standard project floods originat- ing upstream from the diversion levee would be intercepted and directed to the detention basin, and the standard project flood would be reduced by the detention basin from an inflow of about 50,000 cubic feet per second to a discharge of 3,500 cubic feet per second. The outlet channel, which would extend generally eastward for about 50,200 feet from the detention basin to Las Vegas Wash, would be concrete-lined and generally trapezoidal in shape for the upstream 43,400 feet and would be a broad earth floodway between high ground on the left and a levee to be constructed on the right for the downstream 6,800 feet. The capacity of the channel would range from 3,500 cubic feet per second at the upstream end to 20,000 cubic feet per second at the downstream end. The other diversion levee, which would be about 1/2 mile west of the Las Vegas airport, would extend for 8,000 feet from a point north of the Union Pacific Railroad to the outlet channel. This levee, which would have a height of about 6.5 feet, would divert flows of up to 8,500 cubic feet per second to the outlet channel. The Henderson unit, which would provide protection for Hender- son and adjacent industrial plants from floods in the washes south and east of Henderson, would consist of a detention basin and an outlet channel. The detention basin, with a height of about 31 feet, a length of about 11,300 feet, and a capacity of about 1,980 acre-feet (including 210 acre-feet for sedimentation) would be about 1 mile south of Henderson. As a result, the standard project flood would be reduced from an inflow of 5,500 cubic feet per second to a dis- charge of 500 cubic feet per second. An unpaved trapezoidal chan- nel would extend generally northward for about 16,800 feet to a point just downstream from the water service line from Lake Mead. A levee along the left (west) side of the downstream end of the channel would extend downstream for about 5,000 feet. The Power Line Road unit, which would provide protection for the developed area south of Nellis Air Force Base from floods on washes northeast and northwest of that base, would consist of a single 12,800-foot-long diversion levee ranging in height from 8.5 to 16 feet. The levee would intercept standard project floodflows of up to 28,000 cubic feet per second and direct them generally along Power Line Road to Las Vegas Wash. Latest (1962) approved estimate of Federal first cost is $13,500,- 000. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved July 14, 1960. (See H. Doc. 405, 86th Cong., 2d sess.) Local cooperation. Local interests are required to: (a) Furnish without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights- of-way necessary for construction of the project; (b) accomplish without cost to the United States all those alterations and reloca- tions of existing improvements, exclusive of railroad facilities, that 1670 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY,1962 may be required for construction of the project; (c) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; (d) maintain and operate each usable element of the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Sec- retary of the Army; and (e) establish and enforce flood-channel limits and regulations for the preservation of the flood capacities of the recommended channels and detention basins: Provided, further, that construction of any one of the three units may be undertaken independently of the others whenever funds for that purpose are available and the prescribed local cooperation has been provided. The latest (1962) approved estimate of non-Federal first cost is estimated at $5,400,000. Local interests have not yet been officially requested to give assurances of local cooperation required by the authorizing act. Operations and results during fiscal year. Work on the project plan for the Las Vegas unit was continued during the fiscal year. Costs were $142,689 from regular funds, comprising $3,923 for new work performed by contract and $138,766 for new work per- formed by hired labor. Condition at end of fiscal year. Work on the project plan for the Las Vegas unit has been initiated. Work remaining to be done consists of completing the project plan for the Las Vegas unit, preparing the project plan for the other two units, preparing plans and specifications for all units, constructing the units, and pre- paring the operation and maintenance manual. Total costs from regular funds to the end of the fiscal year were $317,644, all for new work. This does not include non-Federal costs to date of $687,500 paid direct by local interests, comprising $600,000 for items of local cooperation required under terms of the project authorization and $87,500 for items not required. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ........... ................... $55,000 $149,700 $324,700 Cost................. .. ....... .......... .......... 54,955 142,689 317,644 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .............................. $7,056 27. WHITLOW RANCH RESERVOIR, QUEEN CREEK, GILA RIVER BASIN, ARIZ. Location. The site of the improvement is on Queen Creek, Ariz., a tributary of the Gila River, about 10 miles west of Superior, Ariz. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for the con- struction of a flood-control dam and reservoir. The dam is a com- pacted-earthfill zoned structure with a maximum height of 149 feet above streambed and a crest length of 837 feet. The outlet works, which are at the left abutment, consist of an intake structure; an ungated outlet conduit; and an outlet-and-diversion structure. The spillway, which is an unlined structure about 4,000 feet north of the dam, consists of a broad-crested weir about 355 feet long; an ap- FLOOD CONTROL--LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DISTRICT 1671 proach channel 1,08ofeet long; and a downstream channel about 1,300 feet long. The reservoir has a total capacity at spillway crest of 35,890 acre-feet (May 1957), of which 7,000 acre-feet are allo- cated for sediment. The reservoir regulates the runoff from a tributary area of 143 square miles, reducing the flow of the design flood from 110,000 cubic feet per second to 1,000 cubic feet per second. The latest (1962) approved estimate of Federal first cost is $1,912,000, including $9,000 for Code 710 recreation project. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 2 years was $6,265. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved July 24, 1946. (See H. Doc. 220, 80th Cong., 1st sess.) Local cooperation. Local interests are required to furnish as- surances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will adjust all water rights claims arising from the improvements and will hold and save the United States free from all claims for damages arising from construction and operation of the works. Under date of March 3, 1958, the Board of Supervisors of Pinal County passed a resolution to furnish the assurances required by the authorizing act and, in addition, to maintain the downstream flood channel free from manmade encroachments. Operations and results during fiscal year. Operations consisted of maintaining the dam in good operating condition and admin- istering real estate. Acquisition of rights-of-way and preparation of the master plan were continued. Costs were $21,489 from regular funds, comprising $11,162 for new work performed by contract, $1,530 for new work performed by hired labor, and $8,797 for maintenance performed by hired labor. The maximum storage on December 16, 1961, was 175 acre-feet, or less than 1 percent of gross storage capacity at spillway crest. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction, which was started in May 1959, was completed in November 1960. Work on the opera- tion and maintenance manual is 90 percent complete; and on the master plan, 50 percent complete. Work remaining to be done con- sists of completing the acquisition of rights-of-way, the operation and maintenance manual, the reservoi'r-regulation manual, and the master plan. Total costs from regular funds to the end of the fiscal year were $1,915,080, of which $1,902,551 was for new work and $12,529 for maintenance. This does not include costs for Code 710 recreation. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 ' New work: .......... $347,000 $1,156,000 Appropriated 209,329 $330,300 1,294,562 -$50,300 181,771 -$20,000 12,692 $1,903,000 1,902,551 Cost.................. 77,014 Maintenance: Appropriated........... . ...... .. ... ...... 3,732 9,500 13,232 Cost.... ............ .. .......... 3,732 8,797 12,529 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .............................. $449 SNot including costs for Code 710 recreation. 1672 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 28. OTHER AUTHORIZED FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS For last Cost to June 30, 1962 full report Estimated Cost Name of project see amount estimate Annual Operation required to (last date Report Construction and complete of revision) 1 for- maintenance Aliso Creek Dam, Santa Ana River Basin (and Orange County), Calif.............. .............. ........... $340,000 2 3$340,000 Hodges Dam, San Dieguito River Basin, Calif................ ........ 1958 $98,000 .............. 2,502,000 22, 600,000 Holbrook levee, Little Colorado River, Colorado River Basin, Ariz........... 1950 335,000 .............. None '335,000 Lytle and Cajon Creeks, Santa Ana River Basin (and Orange County), Calif............... ........ 1950 7,612,000 .............. None '7,612,000 Mill Creek levees, Santa Ana River Basin, Calif..................... 1961 642,890 ............. None 6 '650,000 Riverside levees, Santa Ana River Basin, Calif... ... .... .... 1959 2,104,478 .............. None ' 72,100,000 San Juan Dam, Santa Ana River Basin (and Orange County), Calif.......... 1950 67,361 5,892,600 ............... 2 '5,960,000 Santa Clara River levee and channel improvements, Santa Clara River Basin Calif ..... ........ 1961 82,171,672 ............. ... None ' '2,140,000 Santa Paula Creek channel improve- ments, Santa Clara River Basin, Calif.. 1950 +15,000 .............. 2,185,000 2,200,000 Trabuco Dam, Santa Ana River Basin (and Orange County), Calif........... .. ......... .............. 2,190,000 2 2,190,000 Ventura River levee, Ventura River Basin, Calif....... .. 1950 1,343,638 ................... None '1,343,638 Villa Park Dam, Santa Ana River Basin (and Orange County), Calif........ .................................. 2,270,000 2 $2,270,000 1 Does not include non-Federal funds (other contributed funds) spent by the Corps for items of local cooperation required under the authorizing act, as follows: $601,682 for Lytle and Cajon Creeks, $17,006 for Ventura River levee, and $35,830 for Mill Creek levees. Does not include non-Federal funds spent directly by local interests for item of local cooperation required, as follows: $121,054 (revised 1962) for Ventura River levee, $2,100,000 for River- side levees, $138,473 for Mill Creek levees, and $858,316 for Santa Clara River levee and channel improvements. Does not include non-Federal funds spent directly by local interests for items of local cooperation not required, as follows: $3,820 for Mill Creek levees and $2,650 for Santa Clara River levee and channel improvements. 2 Inactive. SLatest cost estimate revision made in 1954. 54Preauthorization Completed. studies cost only. 6 Latest cost estimate revision made in 1960. 7Latest cost estimate revision made in 1957. SIncludes $5,919 spent in fiscal year 1962 for minor completion items. SLatest cost estimate revision made in 1962. 29. INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FLOOD CONTROL WORKS The costs during the fiscal year from regular funds for main- tenance performed by hired labor were $522, comprising $198 for inspection of the Little Colorado River levee, $39 for inspection of lower Ventura River levee, $216 for inspection of Lytle and Cajon Creeks channel improvements and $69 for inspection of Riverside levees. Cost and financial statement FLOOD CONTROL---LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DISTRICT 1673 30. FLOOD CONTROL WORK UNDER SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION Small flood control projects that are not specifically authorized by Congress (PL 685, 84th Cong., July 11, 1956) Period of construction Actual Project Date Federal authorized cost Started Completed Quail Wash levee-Joshua Tree, Calif. (Work during the fiscal year comprised initiation and completion of construction) ......................... ...... Jan. 16, 1961. July 1961.....October1961. '$212,535 1 Costs from regular funds for this fiscal year were $180,273, comprising $179,155 for new work performed by contract and $1,118 for new work performed by hired labor. Total non- Federal costs are $35,000 spent directly by local interests for local cooperation items re- quired under terms of the project authorization. Emergency flood control activities---repair,flood fighting, and rescue work (PL 99, 84th Cong., 1st sess., and antecedent legislation) ofconstruction Actual Period Project Date Federal authorized cost' Started Completed Advance preparation for flood emergencies: Preparation of flood-emergency and disaster-recovery manuals .............................. ........... .......... .. ............ $6,096 Suppliesand equipment ..... ................ ............ ............ ............ 4,876 Flood-emergency exercises-training .............. ........... ............. .......... .. 1,155 Flood-emergency operations: reports.. Postflood ............................................................ 1,627 1 Cost, from regular funds, is for maintenance performed by hired labor. 31. SCHEDULING OF FLOOD CONTROL RESERVOIR OPERATIONS Section 7 of Flood Control Act of 1944 reads as follows: "Here- after, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of War to prescribe regulations for the use of storage allocated for flood control or navigation at all reservoirs constructed wholly or in part with Federal funds provided on the basis of such purposes, and the operation of any such project shall be in accordance with such regulations: * * *" In accordance with the above-mentioned authority, the prep- aration of schedule of flood-control operations manuals was con- tinued during the fiscal year for Hoover Dam and Twitchell Dam. The costs, from regular maintenance funds for hired labor, were $2,039 for Hoover Dam and $800 for Twitchell Dam. 32. CODE 710 RECREATION PROJECTS The latest approved estimate (1962) of Federal first cost for Code 710 recreation projects is $100,000, comprising $83,000 for five completed reservoirs in the Los Angeles County drainage area project and five completed reservoirs in the Santa Ana River basin (and Orange County) project, $8,000 for Painted Rock Reservoir, and $9,000 for Whitlow Ranch Reservoir. The costs during the fiscal year (the first year for which such costs were incurred) were $8,554, comprising $5,376 for reservoirs in the Los Angeles County drainage area project and the Santa Ana River basin (and Orange County) project, $878 for Painted Rock Reservoir, and $2,300 for Whitlow Ranch Reservoir. 1674 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 33. VENTURA BEACH, VENTURA COUNTY GROINS, CALIF., BEACH-EROSION CONTROL Location. The proposed project is on the coast of California at the city of Ventura about 70 miles northwest of Los Angeles. Existing project. In general, the plan of improvement for Ventura Beach provides for Federal participation by the contribu- tion of Federal funds toward the cost of three groins. However, in accordance with the River and Harbor Act of July 28, 1956, con- struction was undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under arrangements explained under the heading, "Local coopera- tion." The latest (1962) approved estimate of Federal first cost is $77,000. The existing project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of September 3, 1954 (H. Doc. 29, 83d Cong., 1st sess.) . The project document contains the latest published map. Local cooperation. Local interests are required to adopt the project plan of improvement and to construct the improvement un- less the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agrees to construct the improvement upon the request of local interests and upon the re- ceipt of required contributed funds and, if needed, advanced funds from local interests. Local interests are also required to: (a) Obtain approval of the Chief of Engineers of detailed plans and specifications for prosecuting the work prior to the commencement of such work by local interests; (b) provide at their own expense all necessary lands, easements, and rights-of-way for accomplish- ment of the work; (c) hold and save the United States free from all claims for damages that may arise before, during, or after prosecu- tion of the work; (d) prevent water pollution that would endanger the health of bathers; and (e) maintain continued public owner- ship of the beaches and their administration for public use only. Furthermore, the State of California or the appropriate local au- thority is required to give satisfactory assurances that such pro- tective measures will be maintained during the useful life of the project as may be required to serve its intended purpose. The latest (1962) approved estimate of non-Federal first cost is $150,000. Local interests have also agreed to spend about $150,000 for beach nourishment, which is a local cooperation item not re- quired by the authorizing act. Operations and results during fiscal year. Operations consisted of preparing project plan and contract plans and specifications, constructing three groins, and placing of 210,000 cubic yards of sand on the beach between the groins. Costs were $138,023 from required contributed funds, comprising $134,270 for new work performed by contract and $3,753 for new work performed by hired labor; $135,730 from other contributed funds, comprising $131,870 for new work performed by contract and $3,860 for new work performed by hired labor; and $70,999 from advanced funds, comprising $68,803 for new work performed by contract and $2,196 for new work performed by hired labor. Condition at end of fiscal year. The entire project, comprising SHORE PROTECTION-LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DISTRICT 1675 construction of three groins, together with the placement of sand on the beach, is 100 percent complete. The total costs for the existing project to June 30, 1962, were as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total Regular.. .... ..................................... $4,900 ................ $4,900 Required contributed ................................... 142,923 ................ 142,923 Other contributed... ......... 135,730 ................ . 135,730 Advanced ................ ........................... 70,999 ............... 70,999 Total ........................ ...... ........ 354,552 .............. '. 354,552 x Includes preauthorization studies cost of $9,800 ($4,900 Federal and $4,900 non-Federal). Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ................... .......... .......... ......... $4,900 Cost .. ....................... .......... 4,900 1 Federal half of preauthorization studies cost. REQUIRED CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 t New work: Appropriated......... ............................. ......... $144,667 $149,567 Cost........................................................ 138,023 142,923 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .......................... $4,944 1 Includes non-Federal preauthorization studies cost of $4,900. ADVANCED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ................................................ $72,333 $72,333 Cost.............................. 70,999 70,999 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............. ................ $584 OTHER CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.................................. ............. $150,000 $150,000 Cost ... ............................ 135,730 135,730 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $14,182 34. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIF., GROINS, BEACH WIDENING, AND BREAKWATER REHABILITATION, BEACH EROSION CONTROL Location. The proposed project is on the coast of California from Topanga Canyon on Santa Monica Bay to San Pedro breakwater at Los Angeles Harbor. 1676 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for Federal participation by the contribution of Federal funds toward the cost of the following protective features under the modified master plan for development of the shoreline of Los Angeles County: (a) Widening of the existing beaches to approximately 1,000 feet be- tween Topanga Canyon and Ballona Creek, and to approximately 300 feet between El Segundo and the Redondo Beach breakwater and between the proposed barrier groin near Topaz Street in Redondo Beach and Malaga Cove; (b) construction of nine groins between Topanga Canyon and Temescal Canyon and a barrier groin at Cabrillo Beach; (c) construction of five groins between Temescal Canyon and the proposed entrance to Marina del Rey Harbor and a barrier groin in the vicinity of Topaz Street in Redondo Beach (all to be deferred pending demonstration of need); (d) ap- purtenant drainage work comprising extension of seven storm- drain structures through the widened beach; (e) rehabilitation of the Santa Monica breakwater. In accordance with the River and Harbor Act of July 28, 1956, construction may be undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers under arrangements explained under the heading, "Local cooperation." The latest (1962) approved estimate of Federal first cost is $5 million. The existing project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of September 3, 1954 (H. Doc. 277, 83d Cong., 2d sess.). The project document contains the latest published map. Local cooperation. Local interests are required to adopt the project plan of improvement and to construct the improvement unless the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agrees to construct the improvement upon the request of local interests and upon the re- ceipt of required contributed funds and, if needed, advanced funds from local interests. Local interests are also required to: (a) Obtain approval of the Chief of Engineers of detailed plans and specifications for prosecuting the work prior to the commencement of such work by local interests; (b) provide at their own expense all necessary lands, easements, and rights-of-way for accomplish- ment of the work; (c) hold and save the United States free from all claims for damages that may arise before, during, or after prosecu- tion of the work; (d) prevent water pollution that would endanger the health of bathers; and (e) maintain continued public ownership of the beaches and their administration for public use only. Furthermore, the State of California or the appropriate local au- thority is required to give satisfactory assurances that such protec- tive measures will be maintained during the useful life of the project as may be required to serve its intended purpose. The latest (1962) approved estimate of non-Federal first cost is $10 million. Operations and results during fiscal year. Operations consisted of preparing project plan and contract plans and specifications for the barrier groin at Cabrillo Beach. Costs were $2,487 from re- quired contributed funds for new work performed by hired labor; SHORE PROTECTION-LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DISTRICT 1677 and $1,969 from advanced funds for new work performed by hired labor. Conditionat end of fiscal year. The project plan and the contract plans and specifications for the barrier groin at Cabrillo Beach have been completed. No other work has been done. The total costs for the existing project to June 30, 1962, were as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total Regular .............. ............ .................. $30,000 ............... $30,000 Required contributed ................................... 32,487 ............. ... 32,487 Advanced ............................................ 1,969 ...... .. 1,969 Total...................................... 64,456 ................. 164,456 1 Includes preauthorization studies costs of $60,000 ($30,000 Federal and $30,000 non- Federal). Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ........ .......... ................ .... ......... $30,000 Cost ................ .......... 30,000 1 Federal half of preauthorization studies cost. REQUIRED CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962' New work: Appropriated.... ........... ... ......... ..... .......... $8,660 $38,660 Cost....................... 2,487 32,487 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $6,173 Includes non-Federal preauthorization studies cost of $30,000. ADVANCED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated......... ..... ...... ........ .......... .......... $4,330 $4,330 Cost .................. .... .......... . ........... 1,969 1,969 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............. ............. $2,361 35. ANAHEIM BAY HARBOR, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIF., BEACH EROSION CONTROL Location. Anaheim Bay Harbor is on the coast of southern California in Orange County, 4 miles southeast of the mouth of the Los Angeles River at Long Beach. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for Federal participation by the contribution of Federal funds toward the cost of artificial placement of about 200,000 cubic yards of sand on the shore, construction of 1 groin at Seal Beach, and placement of a feeder beach of 1 million cubic yards of sand at Surf Side. However, in accordance with the River and Harbor Act of July 28, 1956, con- 1678 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 struction of any or all improvements in the project may be under- taken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under arrangements explained under "Local cooperation." The latest (1959) approved estimate of Federal first cost for Seal Beach is $108,000, and the latest (1962) approved estimate of Federal first cost for Surf Side is $179,000. The existing project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of September 3, 1954 (H. Doc. 349, 83d Cong., 2d sess.). The project document contains the latest published map. Local cooperation. Local interests are required to adopt the project plan of improvement and to construct the improvement un- less the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agrees to construct the im- provement upon the request of local interests and upon the receipt of required contributed funds and, if needed, advanced funds from local interests. Local interests are also required to: (a) Submit for approval by the Chief of Engineers prior to commencement of work detailed plans and specifications for the project and also the arrangements for prosecuting the work by local interests; (b) assure such maintenance of the protective and improvement meas- ures during the useful life of the project, including replenishment of the feeder beach at suitable intervals, as may be required to serve the project's intended purpose; (c) provide at their own expense all necessary lands, easements, and rights-of-way; (d) hold and save the United States free from all claims for damages that may arise before, during, or after prosecution of the work; (e) assure that water pollution that would endanger the health of bathers will not be permitted; and (f) assure continued public ownership of the shore upon which the amount of Federal partici- pation is based and to assure its administration for public use only. The latest (1959) approved estimate of non-Federal first cost for Seal Beach is $190,000, and the latest (1962) approved estimate of non-Federal first cost for Surf Side is $434,000. Operations and results during fiscal year. No operations were performed during the fiscal year. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the groin and placement of 225,000 cubic yards of sand on the beach at Seal Beach was initiated by local interests in May and completed in September 1959. Cracks and spalling, with resultant exposure of reinforcing steel, have occurred at some places on the groin since its completion. A 5-foot cap was removed by the contractor and replaced, and ad- ditional required repairs were made. No work has been performed at Surf Side. The total costs for the existing project to June 30, 1962, were as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total Regular ... .. .................................. $108,069 ................ $108,069 Required contributed .................................... 12,650 ................ 12,650 Total .............. .............. ........ 120,719 .............. .... .'120,719 xIncludes preauthorization studies cost of $25,300 ($12,650 Federal for Seal Beach and Surf Side and $12,650 non-Federal). Note. Does not include $190,837 spent directly by local interests for local cooperation items required under terms of the project authorization. SHORE PROTECTION-LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DISTRICT 1679 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: ................ ...... Appropriated.......... 88,700 $419 ......... 2$108,069 Cost................. .................... 88,700 419 2108,069 1 Does not include $12,650 for non-Federal share of preauthorization-studies cost. 2Erroneously reported as $114,419 in 1961 Annual Report. 36. DOHENY BEACH STATE PARK, ORANGE COUNTY PROTECTIVE BEACH AND GROIN, CALIF. Location. The location of the proposed project is at Doheny Beach State Park, on the coast of Orange County in southern California. Existing project. In general, the plan of improvement provides for Federal participation by the contribution of Federal funds to- ward the cost of the following shore-protection features to be con- structed at Doheny Beach, Calif., by local interests: A protective beach 100 feet wide and 6,000 feet long-not including a 600-foot section at the mouth of San Juan Creek-to be created by: (a) Artificial placement of about 329,000 cubic yards of suitable sand between a point near the upcoast boundary of the Doheny Beach State Park and the downcoast boundary of the park near the Capistrano Beach fishing pier; and (b) construction of a single steel or concrete sheet-pile groin, 250 feet long, at the terminus of the upper levee bulkhead of San Juan Creek. However, in ac- cordance with the River and Harbor Act of July 28, 1956, construc- tion of any or all improvements in the project may be undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under arrangements ex- plained under "Local cooperation." The latest (1962) approved estimate of Federal first cost is $284,000 or about one-third of the total first cost. The improvement was authorized by the River and Harbor Act approved July 14, 1960. (See H. Doc. 398, 86th Cong., 2d sess.). Local cooperation. Local interests are required to adopt the proj- ect plan of improvement and to construct the improvement unless the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agrees to construct the improve- ment upon the request of local interests and upon the receipt of required contributed funds and, if needed, advanced funds from local interests. Local interests are also required to: (a) Obtain approval by the Chief of Engineers of detailed plans and specifica- tions and arrangements for prosecuting the work prior to the com- mencement of such work by local interests; (b) assure continued public ownership of the shore upon which the amount of Federal participation is based and assure its administration for public use during the economic life of the project; (c) assure maintenance and repair, including periodic beach nourishment where applicable, during the economic life of the project, as may be required to serve the intended purpose; (d) provide at their own expense all neces- sary lands, easements, and rights-of-way; and (e) control water pollution to the extent necessary to safeguard the health of bathers. The latest (1962) approved estimate of non-Federal first cost is $565,000. 1680 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Operations and results during fiscal year. No operations were performed during the fiscal year. Condition at the end of fiscal year. No work has been performed on the project. The total costs for the existing project to June 30, 1962, were $4,000 ($2,000 Federal and $2,000 non-Federal) for preauthoriza- tion studies cost only. 37. OCEANSIDE, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIF., BEACH EROSION CONTROL Location. The proposed project is on the coast of southern California, in San Diego County, at Oceanside. Previous project. The previous project, which has been super- seded by the existing project, was authorized by the Act of July 3, 1958. (See H. Dec. 399, 84th Cong., 2d sess.) Except for deposition (at no cost to local interests) of about 700,000 cubic yards of material by the U.S. Navy in connection with dredging the harbor at Camp Pendleton and for initiation of construction on the authorized groin, no work has been done on the previous project. For further details on the previous project, see pages 1579 to 1581, inclusive, of the Annual Report for 1960. Existing project. In general, the plan of improvement for Ocean- side involves the provision at Federal expense of: (a) A protective beach generally 200 feet wide and approximately 13,000 feet long between Camp Pendleton Harbor and Witherby Street and 100 feet wide and approximately 4,500 feet long south of Loma Alta Creek by deposition of about 2,200,000 cubic yards of suitable material, including 500,000 cubic yards as advance nourishment; and (b) a groin about 800 feet long near the northern limit of the fill. However, in accordance with the River and Harbor Act of July 28, 1956, construction of any or all improvements in the proj- ect was undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under arrangements explained under "Local cooperation." The latest (1962) approved estimate of Federal first cost is $1,350,000. The improvement was authorized by the act of March 29, 1961. (See H. Doc. 456, 86th Cong., 2d sess.) Local cooperation. Local interests are required to adopt the proj- ect plan of improvement and to construct the improvement unless the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agrees to construct the improve- ment upon the request of local interests and upon the receipt of advanced funds from local interests. Local interests are also required to: (a) Obtain approval by the Chief of Engineers of detailed plans and specifications and arrangements for prosecuting the work prior to the commencement of such work, if performed by local interests; (b) provide at their own expense all necessary lands, easements, and rights-of-way; (c) furnish satisfactory assurances that they will control pollution of waters to the extent necessary to safeguard the health of bathers, will maintain the protective and improvement measures during the useful life of the project as may be required to serve its intended purpose, including replenishment of the protective beach, and will maintain continued SHORE PROTECTION-LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DISTRICT 1681 public ownership of non-Federal public shores and their adminis- tration for public use during the economic life of the project; (d) pay one-half of the cost of preauthorization studies; and (e) agree to the condition that the cost allocated to this beach-erosion project shall be adjusted to reflect the savings from multiple-purpose construction of the Oceanside harbor improvement to the overall project, if authorized, and the cost so transferred from the beach- erosion project to the harbor project be shared by local interests and the Federal Government as appropriate for small-boat harbor projects. The latest (1962) approved estimate of non-Federal first cost is $2,500, all for preauthorization studies cost. Operations and results during fiscal year. Operations consisted of completing construction of the groin that had been initiated under the previous project; completing a groin extension (not part of the authorized project) at non-Federal expense; preparing proj- ect plan and contract plans and specifications for project dredging; initiating combined project dredging and dredging at local expense; and partially reimbursing local interests for the Federal share of the cost of the project. Costs were $675,000 from regular funds, comprising $640,046 for new work performed by contract and $34,954 for new work performed by hired labor; minus $11,215 from other contributed funds, comprising minus $18,624 for new work performed by contract and $7,409 for new work performed by hired labor; and $73,352 from advanced funds, comprising $64,415 for new work performed by contract and $8,937 for new work performed by hired labor. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the groin and its extension was completed in July 1961. Dredging (project and local) is about 40 percent complete, and reimbursement to local interests has been initiated. The total costs for the existing project to June 30, 1962, were as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total Regular....... ...................................... $677,500 ................ 677,500 Other contributed ...................................... 188,418 ................ 188,418 Advanced ...... ....................... ......... ..................... 117,731 Total ........................ .................. .. 983,649 ................ '983,649 1 Includes preauthorization studies cost of $5,000 ($2,500 Federal and $2,500 non-Federal). Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 80, 1962 New work: Appropriated ............... 675,000 $677,500 Cost 675,000 677,500 1Includes $2,500 for Federal share of preauthorization-studies cost. 1682 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 1 New work: Appropriated.......... ............ ..................... 1$658,800 -$16,549 $642,251 Cost................ .......... ................... 199,633 -11,215 188,418 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .......................... $68,708 xIncludes $2,500 for non-Federal share of preauthorization studies cost. ADVANCED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated................... .......... ......... . $252,000 $750,930 $1,002,930 Cost ............................................... 44,379 73,352 117,731 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $504,110 38. IMPERIAL BEACH, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIF., BEACH EROSION CONTROL Location. The project is on the coast of southern California, in San Diego County, at Imperial Beach. Existing project. In general, the plan of improvement for Imperial Beach provides for Federal participation by the contribu- tion of Federal funds toward the cost of five groins at about 1,000- foot intervals, the most northern groin being at the north end of the existing seawall at the Naval radio station. However, in accord- ance with the River and Harbor Act of July 28, 1956, construction of any or all improvements in the project may be undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under arrangements explained under "Local cooperation." The latest (1962) approved estimate of Federal first cost is $118,000. The improvement was authorized by the Act of July 3, 1958. (See H. Doc. 399, 84th Cong., 2d sess.) Local cooperation. Local interests are required to adopt the project plan of improvement and to construct the improvement unless the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agrees to construct the improvement upon the request of local interests and upon the receipt of required contributed funds and, if needed, advanced funds from local interests. Local interests are also required to: (a) Obtain approval of the Chief of Engineers of detailed plans and specifications for prosecuting the work prior to the commence- ment of such work by local interests; (b) provide at their own expense all necessary lands, easements, and rights-of-way; (c) pay one-half of the cost of the preauthorization studies; and (d) furnish satisfactory assurances that they will control pollution of waters to the extent necessary to safeguard the health of bathers except that pollution originating from the international sewer south of Imperial Beach, will maintain the protective and improve- ment measures during the useful life of the project as may be required to serve its intended purpose, and will maintain continued SHORE PROTECTION-LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DISTRICT 1683 public ownership of the shore and its administration for public use during the useful life of the project. The latest (1962) approved estimate of non-Federal first cost of the project is $178,000. Operationsand results during fiscal year. Operations consisted of initiating project plan for groin 3 and reimbursing local interests for the Federal share of the cost of groin 1. Costs were $26,179 from regular funds, comprising $25,222 for new work performed by contract and $957 for new work performed by hired labor; $97 from other contributed funds, comprising $116 for new work performed by contract and minus $19 for new work performed by hired labor; and minus $26,275 from advanced funds, comprising minus $25,339 for new work performed by contract and minus $936 for new work performed by hired labor. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of groin 1 was initiated in July and completed in September 1959, construction of groin 2 was initiated in December 1960 and completed in January 1961, and project plan for groin 3 has been initiated. No other work has been performed. The total costs for the existing project to June 30, 1962, were as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total Regular....... ..................................... $29,179 ................ $29,179 Other contributed ....................................... 69,124 69,124 Advanced ................................... ......... 19,330 ................ 19,330 Total.. .............. ................... ........ 117,633 ................ 1117,633 x Includes preauthorization studies cost of $6,000 ($3,000 Federal and $3,000 non-Federal)- Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 1 New work: Appropriated. .......... .... . .... ............... ....... .... $27,000 $30,000 Cost............ ................................. .......... 26,179 29,179 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................. $821 1 Includes $3,000 for Federal share of preauthorization studies costs. OTHER CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 1 New work: Appropriated .......... .......... $48,000 ........... $23,120 -- $1,996 [$69,124 Cost ................. .1,372 $39,225 28,430 L 97 69,124 1 Includes $3,000 for non-Federal share of preauthorization studies costs. 1684 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 ADVANCED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961. 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated........ ............ $32,000 ............ $14,823 -- $25,493 $21,330 Cost........................... ... 903 $25,552 19,150 -26,275 19,330 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962........................... $2,000 39. OTHER AUTHORIZED SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS For last Cost to June 30, 1962 full report Estimated Cost Name of project see amount estimate Annual Operation required to (last date Report Construction and complete of revision) for- Maintenance Ocean Beach, San Diego County, beach widening and groin, Calif............ 1960 $11,912 ................ None (t) 1 Plant in service. GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS--LOS ANGELES, CALIF., DISTRICT 1685 40. EXAMINATIONS AND SURVEYS Navigation, alteration of bridges, and shore protection. The Federal costs during the fiscal year for navigation studies and for cooperative studies on beach erosion were from regular funds (all for work performed by hired labor) as follows: Camp Pendleton Harbor and Agua Hedionda Lagoon Harbor and shore protection ..................................... $933 Dana Point, Calif. ... ............................... 1,269 San Luis Obispo Harbor Calif ............................... 6,208 Santa Barbara Harbor, Calif. ................................ 1,449 Anaheim Bay beach erosion .................................. 4,107 San Diego Harbor, including Sweetwater River, National City, Chula Vista, and Glorietta Bay ............................ 34,417 App. V, phase 2 of beach-erosion study of Orange County ........ 328 App. VII, phase 2 of beach-erosion study of San Diego County .... -306 Point Conception to Mexican Boundary ........................ 12,450 Total ........................................ 60,855 In addition, non-Federal funds (required contributed funds-all for work performed by hired labor) were spent by the Corps as follows: App. V, phase 2 of beach-erosion study of Orange County ......... $317 Point Conception to Mexican Boundary ...................... 12,531 Total ..................................................... 12,848 No studies were made in connection with alteration of bridges. The balance unexpended at the end of the fiscal year, amounting to $13,382 of Federal funds and $11,028 of required contributed funds, will be applied to expenses incurred for examinations and surveys (navigation and shore protection) during fiscal year 1963. The additional sum of $110,400 can be profitably expended during fiscal year 1964. Flood control. The Federal costs during the fiscal year for flood- control studies were from regular funds (all for work performed by hired labor-excepting $1,010 contract costs for Whitewater River, Calif.) as follows: Whitewater River, Calif ............................... $43,834 Santa Ynez River and tributaries, Calif.................. 169 Gila River and tributaries, Ariz., downstream from Painted Rock Reservoir....................................... 30 Pinal Creek and tributaries, Ariz. ....................... 373 Dolores, Colo., and Dolores River basin, upstream from Dolores . 4,501 Little Colorado River in the vicinity of Winslow, Ariz........ . 30,923 Phoenix, Ariz., and vicinity (including New River), Gila River basin, Ariz. .......... .................... ......... 58,036 Santa Rosa Wash, Gila River basin, Ariz................. . 27,777 Animas River, Colo. and N. Mex........................ 15,052 Santa Margarita River and tributaries, Calif.............. 6 San Diego River and Mission Valley, Calif. .................. 26,278 Sweetwater River, Calif. .................................. 1,967 Sweetwater River, Calif. (navigation) ...................... 9,936 Indian Bend Wash, Colo ............................... 23,801 Willow Creek and Price River at Castle Gate, Utah......... 15,587 Lytle and Warm Creeks, Calif. .......................... 23,156 Willcox, Ariz., and vicinity ........................... 15,279 Total .................................. .. .......... 296,705 1686 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 The balance unexpended at the end of the fiscal year, amounting to $42,982, plus anticipated allotments of $303,200 and $32,000, respectively, will be applied to expenses incurred for examinations and surveys (flood control) and examinations and surveys for Sweetwater River (flood control and navigation) during fiscal year 1963. The additional sum of $355,400 (including $25,400 for Sweet- water River) can be profitably expended during fiscal year 1964. Special studies. The costs during the fiscal year for special studies were $6,098 from regular funds (all for work performed by hired labor), comprising $1,852 for coordination with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service and $4,246 for coordination with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and other agencies. The balance unexpended at the end of the fiscal year, amounting to $5,008, plus an anticipated allotment of $10,000, will be applied to expenses incurred for examinations and surveys (special studies) during fiscal year 1963. The additional sum of $710,000 can be profitably expended during fiscal year 1964. 41. COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA The costs during the fiscal year for collection and study of basic data (flood-plain studies) were $19,136 from regular funds (all for work performed by hired labor), comprising $17,342 for Maricopa County, Ariz.; $1,000 for the State of California; $682 for San Diego County, Calif.; and $112 for San Bernardino County, Calif. The balance unexpended at the end of the year, amounting to $34,364, plus an anticipated allotment of $60,000, will be applied as needed during the fiscal year 1963. The additional sum of $151,000 can be profitably expended during fiscal year 1964. 42. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT The costs during the fiscal year for research and development were $11,358, comprising $7,349 for hydrologic studies and $4,009 for civil work investigations. The balance unexpended at the end of the fiscal year, amounting to $529, will be applied as needed during fiscal year 1963. IMPROVEMENT OF RIVERS AND HARBORS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT This district comprises parts of southern Oregon and northern and western California embraced in the drainage basins tributary to the Pacific Ocean from the Oregon-California State line on the north to Cape San Martin, Calif. (about 150 miles south of the entrance to San Francisco Bay), on the south, except the waters of Suisun Bay and the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. IMPROVEMENTS Page Page Navigation Navigation--Continued 1. Humboldt Harbor and Bay, only were conducted dur- Calif ............... 1687 ing the fiscal year ..... 1716 2. Noyo River and Harbor, 18. Navigation work under Calif ............... 1689 special authorization ... 1716 3. Bodega Bay, Calif. ...... 1693 4. San Francisco Harbor, Flood Control Calif............... 1694 19. Eel River, Calif. ........ 1717 5. San Francisco Harbor and 20. Russian River Basin, Calif. 1718 Bay, Calif. (collection 21. Rheem Creek, Calif. ..... 1721 and removal of drift) .. 1697 22. San Lorenzo Creek, Calif. 1722 6. San Rafael Creek, Calif. 1697 23. San Lorenzo River, Calif. 1723 7. Petaluma River, Calif... 1698 24. Other authorized flood con- 8. Napa River, Calif. ...... 1700 trol projects .......... 1724 9. San Pablo Bay and Mare 25. Inspection of completed Island Strait, Calif. ... 1701 flood control works ..... 1724 10. Richmond Harbor, Calif. 1703 26. Flood control work under 11. Oakland Harbor, Calif.... 1705 special authorization .. 1725 12. Redwood City Harbor, Calif ................. 1709 Shore Protection 13. Halfmoon Bay, Calif. . 1711 27. Santa Cruz County, Calif. 1726 14. Santa Cruz Harbor, Calif. 1713 28. Other authorized shore pro- 15. Moss Landing Harbor, tection projects ........ 1727 Calif .................. 1715 16. Other authorized naviga- General Investigations tion projects .......... 1716 29. Examinations and surveys 1728 17. Navigation projects on 30. Collection and study of which reconnaissance basic data ............. 1728 and condition surveys 31. Research and development 1728 1. HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CALIF. Location. Humboldt Bay is a landlocked harbor on the coast of California, 225 miles north of San Francisco Bay and 70 miles south of Crescent City Harbor. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 5832.) Previous projects. Adopted by the River and Harbor Acts of March 3, 1881, September 19, 1890, July 3, 1892, March 3, 1899, and March 2, 1907. For further details, see pages 1982-1984 of Annual Report for 1915, page 1673 of Annual Report for 1929, and page 1689 of Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for two rubble-mound jetties at the entrance--the north jetty about 4,500 feet in length and the south jetty 5,100 feet long, not including shore revetments; for a bar and entrance channel 40 feet deep tapered from a width of 1,600 feet at seaward mile 0.91 to 500 feet at seaward mile 0.18, 1687 1688 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 thence 500 feet wide to mile 0.75, with easing of the bend at mile 0.75; for a North Bay Channel 30 feet deep and 400 feet wide from mile 0.75 to mile 4.29; a channel 400 feet wide and 30 feet deep from mile 4.29 to mile 5.00, thence 26 feet deep to the foot of N Street, Eureka; a channel 30 feet deep and 300 feet wide from mile 4.29 across Indian Island Shoal to Samoa, at mile 5.84; a channel 18 feet deep and 150 feet wide to Arcata wharf; and a channel 26 feet deep and 300 feet wide to Fields Landing, with a turning basin 600 feet wide and 800 feet long off the Fields Landing wharf. All depths refer to mean lower low water. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 6.4 feet at the south jetty and 6.7 feet at Eureka. The extreme range is 12.5 feet at the south jetty and 12 feet at Eureka. The cost of new work under the project, completed in 1955, was $3,283,705, exclusive of $95,000 contributed by local interests and of amounts expended on the previous project. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $613,756. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents June 25, 1910 Rebuilding the jetties............ ....... ......... H. Doc. 950, 60th Cong., 1st sess. July 3, 1930 For depth of 20 feet and widths of 250 and 300 feet in the H. Doc. 755, 69th Cong., 2d sess. bay channels and for the channel to Arcata wharf. Aug. 30, 1935 For entrance channel, 500 feet wide, 30 feet deep.......... Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. 14, 74th Cong., 1st sess. Aug. 26, 1937 For widths of 400 feet in Eureka Channel and 300 feet in Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. Samoa and Fields Landing Channels, and for construe- 11, 75th Cong., let sess. tion of Fields Landing turning basin, 600 feet wide and 800 feet long, all to a depth of 26 feet. July 16, 1952 For deepening to 40 feet and widening bar and entrance H. Doc. 143, 82d Cong., 1st sees. (con- channel; deepening Eureka and Samoa Channels to 30 tains latest published map). feet; and for construction of North Bay Channel, 400 feet wide, 30 feet deep. 1Public Law 549, 82d Cong., 2d sess. Local cooperation. Fully complied with for work performed to date. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooper- ation under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, amount to $1 million (prices as of dates of compliance). Local interests are required to furnish, free of cost to the United States, all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and suitable spoil-disposal areas required for maintenance dredging. Terminal facilities. There are 29 wharves and piers, 3 of which are publicly owned; 4 oil terminals; 1 privately owned submarine pipeline for petroleum products; 4 boat-building and repair plants; 1 boat-icing plant; 6 small boat-fueling stations; 2 small yacht and fishboat basins, one of which is publicly owned; and numerous log booms and small landings; exclusive of facilities owned by the United States. These facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. As maintenance, engineering, and design was accomplished by hired labor and, under a continuing contract for repair of the jetties, 39,961 tons of stone and 7,858 cubic yards of concrete were placed in the north jetty, and 39,395 tons of stone and 1,588 cubic yards of concrete were placed in the south jetty, at a cost of $1,109,402; hydrographic RIVERS AND HARBORS - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1689 survey signal towers were installed by contract at a cost of $7,532; and dredging surveys of the project channels were accomplished and the U.S. hopper dredges Davison and Hardingremoved 742,500 cubic yards of shoaled material from the bar and entrance channel, 17,500 cubic yards from North Bay Channel, 59,500 cubic yards from Eureka Channel, and 136,200 cubic yards from Fields Land- ing Channel and turning basin, at a cost of $385,262. The total project cost during the fiscal year was $1,502,196 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project was completed in December 1954. The north jetty was completed in 1925; the south jetty in 1927; Arcata Channel in 1931; the entrance channel, 30 feet deep and 500 feet wide, in 1935; Fields Landing Channel and turning basin and Eureka and Samoa Channels, to a depth of 26 feet, in 1939; the entrance channel to a depth of 40 feet, and Eureka, Samoa, and North Bay Channels to a depth of 30 feet, in 1954. The controlling depths over the various channels on the dates indicated were as follows: In May 1961, entrance channel 37.1 feet; May 1962, channel between the jetties 32.6 feet, channel at intersection of Fields Landing and North Bay Channels 20 feet, North Bay Channel 28 feet, Samoa Channel 29.7 feet, Eureka Channel 29.8 feet to angle in channel, thence 26.5 feet to "D" Street, and 15.3 feet to head of project; June 1960, Fields Landing Channel 19 feet; May 1937, Arcata Channel (no longer in use) 18 feet. The total costs for the existing project to the end of the fiscal year were as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total Regular .. ............................... $3,283,705 $8,700,233 $11,983,938 Contributed .... ....................... ........ 95, .............. 95,000 Total............................... .. ........ 3,378,705 8,700,233 12,078,938 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 2 New work: Appropriated................................. ..... $5,545,076 Cost .................. ...................... .......... .5,545,076 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... $526,000 -53,254 $672,936 $760,000 $1,469,676 9,106,859 Cost ................. 301,163 173,423 344,936 747,060 1,502,196 8,798,439 1 Includes $2,261,371 for new work and $98,206 for maintenance on previous project. 2 Exclusive of contributed funds of $95,000 for new work on the existing project. 2. NOYO RIVER AND HARBOR, CALIF. Location. Noyo Harbor is a cove on the California coast about 100 miles south of Humboldt Bay and 135 miles northwest of San Francisco. Noyo River rises in the Coast Range Mountains, flows westerly, and empties into Noyo Harbor. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 5703.) Previous projects. Adopted by the River and Harbor Act of September 22, 1922. For further details, see page 1680, Annual Report for 1929, and page 1772, Annual Report for 1930. 1690 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Existing project. This provides for a rubble-mound breakwater extending northwesterly about 1,100 feet from the south headland of Noyo Harbor, two entrance jetties, and for an entrance channel into Noyo River 10 feet deep and 100 feet wide and a channel in the river 10 feet deep and 150 feet wide extending about 0.6 mile above the mouth, thence a connecting channel about 400 feet long to a mooring basin of about 8.5 acres with a depth of 10 feet on the south bank of Noyo River. All depths refer to mean lower low water. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 5.8 feet. The extreme range is about 11.5 feet. The latest approved estimate of cost for new work (1961), ex- clusive of amounts expended on previous projects, is $3,270,000. The cost of minor rehabilitation of the jetties, completed in September 1961, was $222,810, exclusive of contributed funds in the amount of $1,700. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $28,494. The existing project was authorized by the following : Acts Work authorized Documents July 3, 1930 Entrance channel, jetties, and channel in the river........ S. Doc. 156, 71st Cong., 2d sess. Mar. 2, 1945 The breakwater in Noyo Harbor ........................ H. Doc. 682, 76th Cong., 3d sess. July 14, 1960 Mooring basin in lieu of channel extension authorized by H. Doc. 289, 86th Cong., 2d sess. (con- act of June 30, 1948. tains latest published map). Recommended modifications of project. Modifications to the existing project are recommended by the Chief of Engineers to provide for a breakwater 500 feet long on the north side of the harbor, to be constructed concurrently with the authorized break- water on the south side of the harbor, all generally in accordance with the plan of the District Engineer and with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, at an estimated cost of $13,556,000 for construction of the two breakwaters and $133,000 annually for their maintenance provided that prior to construction local interests: (a) Contribute in cash a sum equal to 2.4 percent of the construction cost of the project such contribution presently estimated at $325,000; and (b) agree to: (1) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for construction and subse- quent maintenance of the project and for aids to navigation upon the request of the Chief of Engineers; (2) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; and (3) provide and maintain at local expense adequate public terminal and transfer facilities for handling the timber and petroleum products, including necessary utilities, open to all on equal terms in accordance with plans approved by the Chief of Engineers; such facilities to be constructed prior to or concurrently with construc- tion of the breakwater; and provided further that a determination be made by the Area Redevelopment Administration that the im- provement recommended is essential to its program for redevelop- ing the area. Local cooperation. The act of July 3, 1930, requires that local interests provide free of cost to the United States suitable areas for the disposal of dredged materials, and royalty-free stone for RIVERS AND HARBORS - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1691 construction and repair of the jetties, together with suitable rights- of-way needed in transporting the stone to the jetties. These re- quirements have been fully complied with for work performed to date. Expenditures by local interests in meeting the requirements of local cooperation and in constructing privately owned shoreside harbor facilities are estimated to be in excess of $1 million. The act of March 2, 1945, requires that local interests provide necessary rights-of-way and easements for construction and main- tenance of the breakwater, including access thereto, and a suitable royalty-free quarry in the locality; and give assurances satisfac- tory to the Secretary of the Army that they will provide public facilities and arrangements for the loading and unloading of ves- sels in Noyo Harbor. The act of July 14, 1960, requires that local interests: (a) Furnish without cost to the United States all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and suitable spoil-disposal areas for construction and for subsequent maintenance of the project, when and as required; (b) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and maintenance of the project; (c) acquire and hold in the public interest, sufficient lands for construction of the mooring basin and proper utilization thereof; (d) provide without cost to the United States, bulkheads, levees, revetments, and required relocations, necessary for construction of the basin and retention of dredge spoils, or in lieu thereof con- tribute in cash the cost of these features, estimated on July 1961 price levels at $170,000, and subsequently maintain these works; (e) provide without cost to the United States necessary utilities and berthing facilities, open to all on equal terms; (f) provide and maintain without cost to the United States a public landing with suitable supply facilities, open to all on equal terms; and (g) main- tain and operate the entire mooring basin including the connecting channel. The Noyo Harbor District, established by the Board of Supervisors of Mendocino County in 1950 as an initial step in ful- filling the requirements of local cooperation, has indicated its willingness and intent to meet the necessary conditions of coopera- tion for authorized uncompleted work. Terminal facilities. There are no facilities in the harbor proper. In the river above the harbor there are two piers and six fish- receiving wharves, three of which have boat fueling stations thereon; one boat fueling wharf; three boat building and repair plants; two boat icing plants; and a number of mooring facilities all privately owned. These facilities are considered adequate, with the exception of mooring and berthing facilities for fishing boats. Improvement of the project as authorized will provide additional protected area for required facilities. Operationsand results during fiscal year. As new work, advance engineering and design for construction of the south breakwater was continued by hired labor at a cost of $19,138. As minor rehabilitation, 6,463 tons of stone and 255 cubic yards of concrete were placed by contract to complete repair of the north jetty and north wall and 25 cubic yards of concrete was placed to repair a hole in the south jetty, at a cost of $196,655, of which $194,955 was from regular funds and $1,700 was from contributed funds. 1692 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 As maintenance, engineering, and design, including dredging surveys, was accomplished by hired labor and 59,495 cubic yards of shoaled material was removed by contract from the project channels at a cost of $89,037. Total project costs during the fiscal year were $19,138 for new work, $196,655 for minor rehabilitation including $1,700 contributed funds, and $89,037 for maintenance, a total of $303,130 from regular funds and $1,700 from contributed funds. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project is about 15 percent complete. The work remaining to be done is the construction of the breakwater in Noyo Harbor and the mooring basin and con- necting channel in the river. The jetties, rock removal, and dredg- ing of the entrance and river channels were completed in 1931. Minor rehabilitation of the jetties and north wall was completed in September 1961. The controlling depths on the dates indicated were as follows: In July 1957, 9.4 feet at the entrance to the channel; in May 1962, 6.6 feet between the jetties, thence 9.2 feet to the green navigation light at the first curve (quartermile point), thence 6 feet to the General Petroleum Dock, and 8.4 feet through the completed portion of the project. The costs of the existing project to the end of the fiscal year were as follows: Funds New work 1 Maintenance Rehabilitation Total Regular .......................... $260,878 $773,564 $222,810 $1,257,252 Contributed .............. ......................................... 1,700 1,700 Total ............................ 260,878 773,564 224,510 1,258,952 1Includes $15,000 for preauthorization studies. Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962' New work: Appropriated ......... ................... .......... $56,000 ............ 278,819 Cost.................. ............................. 30,906 $19,138 2272,863 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... $15,500 $2 $37,814 ........... 90,000 806,624 Cost............... . 15,619 ............ ... 37, 814 89,037 805,661 Rehabilitation: Appropriated .................................... . 250,000 -27,190 222, 810 Cost .... .............................. 27,855 194,955 222,810 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 80, 1962 .......................... $ 5,956 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 80, 1963 ................ 5,596 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project .................... 3,008,166 1Includes $11,985 for new work and $32,097 for maintenance on previous project. 9Includes $15,000 for preauthorization studies. RIVERS AND HARBORS - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1693 CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.............................................. ............ ...... 7,180 Cost ................. .......... ........ ... ..................... ... ....... 17,180 Maintenance: Appropriated. . - .. . '820 1820 Appropriast.... ................. ......... .. .............. ........................ Rehabilitation: Appropriated.......... ..... .......... ........... $1,700 .......... 1,700 Cost................. ........................................ 1,700 1,700 1 For previous project. 3. BODEGA BAY, CALIF. Location. Bodega Bay is a triangular lagoon on the California Coast 85 miles south of Noyo River and 55 miles north of San Francisco. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 5603.) Existing project. This provides for entrance jetties 1,130 and 1,650 feet long; a bulkhead to retain the sandspit; an entrance channel 12 feet deep and 100 feet wide; thence a channel of the same dimensions to the town of Bodega Bay and thence southerly along the shore for a distance of 4,200 feet, with 3 turning basins 12 feet deep and 300 to 400 feet wide, one located at the inner end of the entrance channel, the second at the junction of the bay and shore channels near the town of Bodega Bay, and the third at the southerly end of the shore channel. The total length of improved channel, including the turning basins, is 16,020 feet. All depths refer to mean lower low water. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 5.6 feet. The extreme range is about 11 feet. The cost of new work under the project, completed in 1943, was $641,800. The cost of major rehabilitation of the jetties and chan- nels, completed in August 1961, was $397,779, exclusive of con- tributed funds in the amount of $2,000. The existing project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of June 20, 1938 (H. Doc. 619, 75th Cong., 3d sess.). The latest published map is in that document. Local cooperation. Fully complied with for work performed to date. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local coopera- tion under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, amount to $52,000 (price as of dates of compliance). Local interests are required to furnish royalty- free stone and disposal areas for project maintenance and to main- tain suitable grasses or shrubbery to control the sands on the dunes west of the bay. Terminal facilities. There are six commercial fish receiving and shipping piers, one marine fueling and boat icing pier, and eight small-boat landings, one of which is used as a boat repair facility; all privately owned. These facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operationsand results during fiscal year. As major rehabilita- tion, 93,918 cubic yards of shoaled material were removed by con- tract to complete restoration of the project channels and, under a 1694 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 continuing contract, 17,134 tons of stone were placed to complete rehabilitation of the south jetty. The costs during the fiscal year for major rehabilitation were $210,721, of which $208,721 was from regular funds and $2,000 was from contributed funds. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project was completed in 1943. Major rehabilitation of the channels and south jetty was completed in August 1961. The controlling depths in August 1961 were as follows: 14.8 feet between the jetties, 12.7 feet in the outer turning basin, thence 11.6 feet to Beacon 8, 12.5 feet to Beacon 20, 13.6 feet to the easterly end of the middle turning basin, 13.2 feet to the innermost turning basin, and 11.5 feet in the innermost turning basin except at the easterly edge which was 4.7 feet. The costs of the existing project to the end of the fiscal year were as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Rehabilitation Total Regular................................ $641,800 $111,665 $397,779 $1,151,244 Contributed ............ .......................................... 2,000 2,000 Total ............... ............. 641,800 111,665 399,779 1,153,244 Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated. ........ . . . . . ...................... ....... ................ ........ $641,800 Cost................ ............ .... ... .............................. 641,800 Maintenance: Appropriated......... .................. . . .......... ........ ... ............ 111,665 Cost............................................ ............... 111,665 Rehabilitation: Appropriated ......... .......... .................... $405,000 -$7,221 397,779 Cost.................. .......... 189,058 208,721 397,779 CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 Rehabilitation: Appropriated.......... ............ ......... $2,000 $2,000 Cot................. ................. ,000 2,000 4. SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR, CALIF. Location. The works included under this project are in San Francisco Bay, in the vicinity of San Francisco, and in the ap- proach channels to the Golden Gate, the bay entrance. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 5532.) Previous projects. Adopted by the River and Harbor Acts of July 25, 1868, June 10, 1872, June 23, 1874, March 3, 1899, June 13, 1902, June 25, 1910, and September 22, 1922. For further details, see page 1978 of Annual Report for 1915, page 1749 of Annual Report for 1921, page 1633 of Annual Report for 1929, and page 1669 of Annual Report for 1938. RIVERS AND HARBORS - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1695 Existing project. This provides for dredging a channel through the San Francisco Bar on the line of the main ship channel, 50 feet deep and 2,000 feet wide; the removal of Presidio Shoal, Black Point Shoal, Rincon Reef Rock (inner), Rincon Reef Rock (outer), Blossom Rock, and Alcatraz Shoal westward of a north-and-south line 2,500 feet west of Alcatraz Light, to a depth of 40 feet; the removal of Arch Rock, Shag Rocks 1 and 2, Harding Rock, Point Knox Shoal westward of a north-and-south line through Point Stuart Light, and a portion of the shoal channelward of the pier- head line near the mouth of Islais Creek, to a depth of 35 feet; and for dredging a channel 750 feet wide and 10 feet deep from that depth in the bay to San Francisco Airport ending in a basin 10 feet deep and approximately 2,000 feet in width. All depths refer to mean lower low water. The tidal range be- tween mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 5.7 feet at Fort Point and 7.2 feet at the San Francisco Airport. The extreme ranges at the foregoing localities are 10.6 and 12 feet, respectively. The project was completed in 1959 except for removal of Raccoon Shoal to a depth of 35 feet. The cost of the completed work was $1,660,437, including $1,480 for preauthorization studies but ex- clusive of contributed funds in the amount of $134,591 and of amounts expended on previous projects. The uncompleted portion of the project is being restudied. The cost of this portion was last revised in 1958, and was estimated to be $21,000. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $333,737. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Jan. 21, 1927 Dredging at Islais Creek ................. ............ H. Doc. 337, 69th Cong., 1st sess. July 3, 1930 Removal of Presidio Shoal, Rincon Reef Rock (inner), H. Doc. 196, 70th Cong., 1st sess.' Rincon Reef Rock (outer), Blossom Rock, and Alcatraz Shoal to depth of 40 feet, mean lower low water; removal of Arch Rock, Shag Rocks 1 and 2, and Harding Rock to depth of 35 feet, removal of Point Knox Shoal west- ward of a north-and-south line through Point Stuart Light to depth of 35 feet. Aug. 30, 19352 For a 50-foot depth in the bar main ship channel, 2,000 Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. feet wide, removal of Black Point Shoal to a depth of 40 50, 72d Cong., 2d sess. 2 feet and certain modifications of the areas to be deepened on Alcatraz and Islais Creek Shoals, and abandonment of the 34-foot depth area south of the flared approach channel to Islais Creek. Aug. 26, 1937 For the channel to the San Francisco Airport 750 feet wide Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. and 10 feet deep ending in a basin 2,000 feet wide. 12, 75th Cong., 1st sess. 3 1 Included removal of Raccoon Shoal to depth of 35 feet, which is being restudied. 2Included in part in Public Works Administration program Sept. 6, 1963. 8 Contains latest published maps. Local cooperation. Fully complied with for work performed to date. The act of August 26, 1937, requires that local interests furnish, free of cost to the United States, suitably bulkheaded spoil- disposal areas for maintenance of the channel to the San Francisco Airport. Terminal facilities. The State of California owns 66 piers, a large passenger-ferry terminal, and four car-ferry terminals in the harbor. In addition, there are 24 privately owned wharves and piers, 1 shipbuilding yard, 2 shipbuilding and repair plants, a fish-boat harbor, and a yacht harbor. These facilities are exclusive 1696 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 of those owned by the United States and are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operationsand results during fiscal year. As maintenance, dredg- ing surveys of project channels were accomplished by hired labor and the U.S. hopper dredge Biddle removed 1,145,000 cubic yards of material from the main ship channel at a cost of $291,305. Engi- neering and design, including dredging surveys, was accomplished by hired labor and 510,571 cubic yards of shoaled material was re- moved by contract from the channel to San Francisco Airport at a cost of $236,769. The total project cost during the fiscal year was $528,074 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in June 1959 except for removal of Raccoon Shoal to a depth of 35 feet, which is being restudied. The dredging of Islais Creek Shoal was completed in 1930, the deepening of Presidio Shoal in 1931, the removal of the various rocks in 1932, the deepening of Point Knox Shoal in 1934, the deepening of Alcatraz Shoal in 1936, the deepening of Black Point Shoal in 1937, dredging of the channel and basin at the San Francisco Airport in 1941, and completion of the bar channel in 1959. The controlling depths over various portions of the project on the dates indicated were as follows: Main ship channel, 49.2 feet, September 1961; Presidio Shoal, 34.7 feet, June 1961; Black Point Shoal, 37 feet, March 1961; Rincon Reef Rock (inner), 41 feet, March 1946; Rincon Reef Rock (outer), 40 feet, July 1933; Blos- som Rock, 40 feet, October 1950; Alcatraz Shoal, 31.4 feet, March 1961; Arch and Harding Rocks, 33 feet, and Shag Rocks 1 and 2, 36 feet, December 1949; Point Knox Shoal, 37.9 feet, and Raccoon Strait Shoal, 27.4 feet, March 1961; Islais Creek Shoal, 33 feet, September 1961; channel and basin at San Francisco Airport, 10 feet in the 200-foot wide maintained southerly portion of the chan- nel, and 6.7 feet in the maintained portion of the turning basin, De- cember 1961. The cost of the existing project to the end of the fiscal year was as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total1 Regular .............. ............................ $1,467,437 $3,287,370 $4,754,807 Public works. ........................................... 193,000 ................ 193,000 Contributed ............... .................... ..... 134,591 ................. . 134,591 Total ........... ... ....................... 1,795,028 3,287,370 5,082,398 1 Includes $1,480 for preauthorization study. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 1 2 New work: Appropriated ................... $298,919 ............... .. .. ....... $2,690,836 Cost ............... .......... 298,919 .................... .............. 2,690,866 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... $164,900 572,580 $177,660 $235,000 $518,283 3,762,691 Cost................. 165,279 572,465 177,660 225,209 528,074 3,762,691 1Includes $1,030,399 for new work and $475,321 for maintenance on previous projects. SExclusive of contributed funds of $134,591 for new work on existing project. SIncludes $1,480 for preauthorization studies. RIVERS AND HARBORS - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1697 5. SAN FRANCISCO HARBOR AND BAY, CALIF. (Collection and removal of drift) Location. This project applies to San Francisco Bay, lower San Francisco Bay, Oakland Harbor, Richmond Harbor, San Pablo Bay and Mare Island Strait, Richardson Bay, and their tributaries. Existing project. This provides for the collection and removal of drift from San Francisco Bay and its tributary waters. The average annual cost of maintenance operations under the project authority during the past 5 years was $189,115. The new work portion of the project (acquisition of plant and equipment) is considered to be inactive. The cost of this portion was last re- vised in 1962, and was estimated to be $1,110,000. The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of May 17, 1950 (H. Doc. 286, 81st Cong., 1st sess.). Local cooperation. None required. Terminal facilities. Described in pertinent separate project de- scriptions. Operations and results during fiscal year. As maintenance, float- ing derbis was collected and disposed of from the project water- ways by hired labor and repairs were made by contract to the debris incinerator, at a cost of $276,693. Condition at end of fiscal year. No new work construction funds have been appropriated. Maintenance operations under the existing project were commenced July 1, 1950. Costs for removal of drift previous to that time were carried as maintenance on applicable authorized river and harbor projects in the area. The cost of the existing project to the end of the fiscal year was $3,000 for preauthorization studies and $1,378,695 for mainte- nance, a total of $1,381,695. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.......... ......... ........... ............ .. ....... ........... $3,000 Cost .............. .................... .......... 3,000 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... $203,400 $91,455 $144,746 $230,000 $280,000 1,383,067 Cost .................. 71,273 223,277 140,564 233,770 276,693 1,378,695 1 For preauthorization studies. 6. SAN RAFAEL CREEK, CALIF. Location. This is a small, mainly tidal stream about 2 miles in length, flowing easterly and emptying into the west side of San Francisco Bay, 14 miles north of San Francisco. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 5532.) Existing project. This provides for a channel 8 feet deep and 100 feet wide across the flats in San Francisco Bay to the mouth of the creek; thence 6 feet deep and 60 feet wide to Irwin Street, San Rafael; a cutoff through Goose Neck Bend, and a turning basin 200 feet long, 100 feet wide, and 6 feet deep at San Rafael, near the head of the project. All depths refer to mean lower low water. The length of the section under improvement is 3.5 miles, of which 2 miles are in San Francisco Bay, outside the mouth of the creek. 1698 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 The tidal range between lower low water and mean higher high water is 5.7 feet, with an extreme range of 10.5 feet. The cost of new work under the project, completed in 1928, was $32,359, exclusive of $41,094 contributed funds. The average an- nual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $32,843. The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1919 (H. Doc. 801, 63d Cong., 2d sess.). No map has been published. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, amount to $41,100 (price as of dates of compliance). Terminal facilities. There are 8 wharves, 6 of which are for the receipt of bulk petroleum products; 2 boatbuilding and repair plants; 4 yacht harbors and 4 boat-fueling stations; and 11 moor- ings and bulkhead landings; all privately owned. These facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. As maintenance, en- gineering and design, including dredging surveys, were accom- plished by hired labor, and 244,449 cubic yards of shoaled material was removed from the San Rafael Creek channels by contract at a cost of $164,213. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project was completed in 1928. The controlling depths in May 1962 were as follows: 6.9 feet in the channel across the flats in San Francisco Bay to the mouth of the creek; 7.1 feet in the creek to the turning basin; 7.5 feet in the turning basin, shoaling to 4.4 feet at the head of the project at Irwin Street. The costs of the existing project to the end of the fiscal year were as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total Regular ... .............................. $32,359 $581,392 $613,751 Contributed ......................................... 41,094 ................ 4,094 Total ......... ................................ 73,453 581,392 654,845 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated.......... ... ..... .... ..... .......... ...... .... .......... $32,359 Cost............ .... ............ ......... . ........... .......... .......... 32,359 Maintenance: Appropriated......... ......... .......... ......... ........... $164,213 581,392 Cost 164,213 581,392 1 Exclusive of contributed funds of $41,094 for new work. 7. PETALUMA RIVER, CALIF. Location. This stream rises in the hills north of Petaluma, flows southeasterly about 20 miles, and empties into the northwest side of San Pablo Bay about 22 miles from San Francisco. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 5533.) RIVERS AND HARBORS - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1699 Previous projects. Adopted by the River and Harbor Acts of June 14, 1880, July 13, 1892, July 18, 1918, and March 3, 1925. For further details, see page 1982 of Annual Report for 1915, page 1665 of Annual Report for 1929, and page 1684 of Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for a channel 8 feet deep and 200 feet wide in San Pablo Bay to the mouth of the river; thence 8 feet deep and 100 feet wide in the river to Western Avenue, Petaluma, including a depth of 8 feet in the turning basin; thence 4 feet deep and 50 feet wide to Washington Street Bridge; thence 4 feet deep and 40 feet wide to a point 935 feet above the Wash- ington Street Bridge. All depths refer to mean lower low water. The length of the section under improvement is 19.5 miles, of which 5 miles are in San Pablo Bay downstream from the mouth of the river. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean high- er high water is 6.1 feet at the entrance and 6.6 at the head of navigation, with an extreme range of 10 feet. The cost of new work under the project, completed in 1933, was $85,063, exclusive of amounts expended on previous projects. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $67,765. The existing project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1930 (H. Doc. 183, 70th Cong., 1st sess.). The latest published map is in that document. Local cooperation. Fully complied with for work performed to date. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local coopera- tion under terms of the project authorization amount to $200,200 (prices as of dates of compliance). Local interests are required to furnish satisfactory areas with necessary levees, spillways, and drainage works for the proper disposal of spoil from maintenance. Terminal facilities. There are 22 wharves and piers, 1 small yacht harbor with fueling facilities, and 11 small landings, all privately owned. These facilities are considered adequate for exist- ing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. As maintenance, en- gineering and design, including dredging surveys, was accom- plished by hired labor and 348,075 cubic yards of shoaled material was removed by contract from the channel across the flats in San Pablo Bay at a cost of $134,438. Plans and specifications were prepared by hired labor at a cost of $939 for dredging the 4-foot channel in the upper reaches of the project. All bids received in response to the Invitation to Bid were rejected. The total project cost during the fiscal year was $135,377 for maintenance. Conditionat end of fiscal year. The project was completed in 1933. The controlling depths on the dates indicated were as follows: March 1962, 6.9 feet in the channel across the flats in San Pablo Bay; September 1954, 7.5 feet in the river to cutoff A; August 1959, 6.5 feet through cutoff A, thence 7.6 feet to Haystack Landing; Jan- uary 1962, 6.5 feet to McNear Canal. April 1962, 7.8 feet to F Street, 8.6 feet to turning basin, 8.1 feet in turning basin, 4.7 feet to West- 1700 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 ern Avenue, 3.2 feet to Washington Street Bridge, and 2 feet to the head of the project. The cost of the existing project to the end of the fiscal year was $85,063 for new work and $1,020,083 for maintenance, a total of $1,105,146 from regular funds. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 2 New work: Appropriated.......... I................... ........ ... $297,146 Cost................. ......... .......... .......... 297,146 Maintenance: Appropriated......... ............ $206,239 -$2,793 ............ $135,473 1,334,871 Cost ................. 194,359 9,087 .............. 135,377 1,334,775 1Includes for new work and $314,692 for maintenance on previous project. 2Exclusive $212,083 of contributed funds of $15,559 for new work on the previous project. S. NAPA RIVER, CALIF. Location. This stream rises in the St. Helena Mountains, flows in a southerly direction, and empties into Mare Island Strait. The navigable portion is a tidal estuary. The head of navigation is at Third Street in the city of Napa, 16.2 miles above the mouth. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 5533.) Previousprojects. The original project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of August 11, 1888, and modified by the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1919. For further details, see page 1756, Annual Report for 1930, and page 1683, Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for a channel 15 feet deep and 100 feet wide between the mouth at Mare Island Strait and Asy- lum Slough and 10 feet deep and 75 feet wide thence to Third Street in Napa with a cutoff at Horseshoe Bend, a turning basin 300 feet wide at Jacks Bend, and additional widenings and realinement in other difficult sections. The length of the section included in the project is 16.2 miles. The range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 6 feet at the mouth and 7.1 feet at the head of navigation. The extreme range is about 11 feet. The project was completed in 1950 except for dikes and revet- ments authorized for construction if required. The cost of the com- pleted work was $1,021,274 exclusive of amounts expended on pre- vious projects. The dikes and revetments portion of the project is to be restudied. The cost of this portion was last revised in 1954, and was estimated to be $145,726. The average annual mainte- nance cost during the past 5 years was $25,743. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Aug. 30, 1935 Channel 8feetdeep, 100 feet wide from Mare Island Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. Strait to Asylum Slough, thence 75 feet wide to Napa. 6, 72d Cong., 1st ses. July 24, 1946 Channel 15 feet deep, 100 feet wide between Mare Island H. Doc. 397, 79th Cong., 2d sees. (eon- Strait and Asylum Slough, thence 10 feet deep, 75 feet tains latest published map).1 wide to 3d St. in Naps. 1 Included dikes and revetments if required which is to be restudied. Local cooperation. Fully complied with for work performed to RIVERS AND HARBORS - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1701 date. Local interests are required to furnish lands, easements, rights-of-way, and spoil-disposal areas, and provide necessary spoil impounding and drainage works for channel maintenance. Terminalfacilities. There are four drydocks, one vessel outfitting wharf, seven wharves used in connection with oil distributing plants, three wharves for general cargoes and other miscellaneous purposes, and one salt terminal. There are also numerous small yacht mooring facilities along the river. These facilities are con- sidered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. As maintenance, en- gineering and design, including dredging surveys, was accom- plished by hired labor and approximately 225,000 cubic yards of shoaled material was removed by contract from the project chan- nels at a cost of $128,715 from regular funds. Conditionat end of fiscal year. The project was completed in 1950 except for dikes and revetments, to be constructed if required. The work authorized by the act of August 30, 1935, was completed in 1937. The controlling depths over various sections of the project on the dates indicated were as follows: July 1952, 15 feet from Mare Island Causeway to Goodluck Point; January 1962, 7.8 feet at Goodluck Point, thence 9 feet to Dutton Landing, 6.5 feet to Bull Island, 9 feet to Horseshoe Bend Cutoff, 5.2 feet to Asylum Slough, 5 feet to Tannery Bend, plus 4 feet at Tannery Bend, 5 feet to Sixth Street, and 2.2 feet to head of project. The cost of the existing project to the end of the fiscal year was $1,021,274 for new work and $183,341 for maintenance, a total of $1,204,615 from regular funds. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962' New work: Appropriated......... .......... ............................ .......... $1,048,830 r Cost ..... ............... ....... .. ..................... 1,048,830 Maintenance: Appropriated......... .................... .......... .......... $327,000 416,222 Cost ................. 128,715 217,937 1Includes $27,556 for new work and $34,596 for maintenance of previous project. 9. SAN PABLO BAY AND MARE ISLAND STRAIT, CALIF. Location. The channel extends from a point in the lower end of San Pablo Bay west of Pinole Point in a general northeasterly direction across Pinole Shoal in San Pablo Bay to the junction of Carquinez Strait and Mare Island Strait, thence northwesterly in Mare Island Strait along the frontage of the Mare Island Navy Yard. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 5533.) Previous projects. Adopted by the River and Harbor Acts of June 13, 1902, February 27, 1911, and August 8, 1917. For further details, see page 1680, Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for dredging a channel across Pinole Shoal in San Pablo Bay 600 feet wide and 35 feet deep; thence through Mare Island Strait a channel 700 feet wide and 30 feet deep flaring to a turning basin generally 1,000 feet wide 1702 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 from former dike 6, Mare Island, to a line 75 feet southerly from the causeway between Vallejo and Mare Island, 30 feet deep, ex- cept at the northerly end where the project depth is 26 feet. The project provides also for maintenance of the two approach areas to the navy yard piers at the Southern end of Mare Island. All depths refer to mean lower low water. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 5.8 feet at the lower end of San Pablo Bay, and 6 feet opposite the Mare Island Navy Yard, with an extreme range of about 10 feet. The project was completed in 1943 except for dredging two ap- proach areas at Vallejo and South Vallejo. The cost of the completed work was $282,669 exclusive of amounts expended on previous proj- ects. The uncompleted dredging portion of the project is con- sidered to be inactive. The cost of this portion was last revised in 1956 and was estimated to be $120,000. The average annual main- tenance cost during the past 5 years was $535,833. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Feb. 27, 1911 A depth of 30 feet through Pinole Shoal .................. H. Doc. 1103, 60th Cong., 2d sess. Aug. 8, 1917 A depth of 35 feet and the Mare Island Strait Channel and H. Doc. 140, 65th Cong., 1st sess. turning basin. Jan. 21, 1927 Increasing width of the channel to 600 feet and decreasing H. Doc. 104, 69th Cong., 1st sess. channel and turning basin depth in Mare Island Strait to 30 feet. June 20, 1938 Increasing width of the channel in Mare Island Strait to H. Doc. 644, 75th Cong., 3d sess. 700 feet and increasing length of turning basin. Mar. 2, 1945 Maintenance of approach areas to navy yard piers at H. Doc. 217, 77th Cong., 1st ses.' south end of Mare Island. (contains latest published map). 1Included dredging two approach areas at Vallejo and South Vallejo, which is considered to be inactive. Local cooperation. None required. Terminal facilities. There are three wharves along the south- ern shore of San Pablo Bay; in Mare Island Strait there are six wharves, two ferry slips, and three small-boat moorings, in ad- dition to the Navy Yard facilities. These facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operationsand results duringfiscal year. As maintenance, dredg- ing surveys were accomplished and the U.S. hopper dredge Hard- ing removed 1,113,000 cubic yards of shoaled material from Mare Island Strait at a cost of $215,639 and the U.S. hopper dredge Biddle removed 1,034,500 cubic yards of material from Pinole Shoal at a cost of $233,649, a total project maintenance cost of $449,288. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in 1943 except for dredging two approach areas at Vallejo and South Vallejo which is considered to be inactive. Pinole Shoal Channel was completed in 1929. The Mare Island Strait Channel and turning basin was completed in 1943. The controlling depths on the dates indicated were as follows: Pinole Shoal Channel, June 1962, 38.1 feet; Mare Island Strait, June 1962, 30 feet to the Navy Ammunition pier, 27.8 feet to the city wharf, thence 23.5 feet to end of 30-foot project, thence 19.1 feet to the head of the project. The costs of the existing project to the end of the fiscal year RIVERS AND HARBORS - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1703 were $282,669 for new work and $7,195,825 for maintenance, a total of $7,478,494. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated.......................... ......... ...................... 1,369,372 Cost............. ............... .................... 1,369,372 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... $314,000 $381,333 $1,023,808 $522,000 $439,000 8,556,428 Cost.................. 313,162 382,418 1,023,808 510,489 449,288 8,555,205 1Includes $1,086,703 for new work and $1,359,380 for maintenance of previous projects. 10. RICHMOND HARBOR, CALIF. Location. This harbor is on the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay about 10 miles north of Oakland. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 5532.) Existing project. This provides for a channel 35 feet deep and 600 feet wide adjacent to Southampton Shoal from deep water in San Francisco Bay to the outer harbor; an approach area to Richmond long wharf 35 feet deep and 3,670 feet long as meas- ured parallel to, and 75 feet bayward of, the pierhead line; for an inner-harbor entrance channel 35 feet deep and 600 feet wide from deep water to Point Richmond, with a turning basin at that point; thence a channel 35 feet deep and 500 feet wide flaring to about 600 feet at Point Potrero with a turn at that point 1,150 feet wide and 35 feet deep except for a depth of 30 feet at the southerly apex of the bend; thence 35 feet deep and 850 feet wide to the entrance to Santa Fe Channel; thence 35 feet deep and 200 feet wide in Santa Fe Channel for approximately 2,000 feet, and maintenance to a depth of 30 feet of the remainder of Santa Fe Channel and basin; for approach areas 32 feet deep to within 75 feet of the pierhead line in the outer harbor at Point San The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Aug. 8, 1917 Channel 24 feet deep and 600 feet wide from San Francisco H. Doe. 515,63d Cong., 2d seas. Bay to Ellis Slough (Santa Fe Channel); a turning basin at Point Potrero; a training wall. July 3, 1930 A 30-foot channel with lessened widths; a turning basin at Rivers and Harbors Committee Doe. head of navigation. 16, 70th Cong., 1st sess. Aug. 30, 1935' Increased project widths in inner harbor; maintenance of Rivers and Harbors Committee Doe. Santa Fe Channel to 30 feet; approach areas in outer 7, 73d Cong., 1st seas., and Rivers and harbors to 32 feet. Harbors Committee Doe. 10, 74th Cong., 1st sess. June 30, 1938 Widening channel at Point Potrero and north thereof; H. Doe. 598, 75th Cong., 3d seas. enlarging and subsequently maintaining to 30-foot depth the turning basin at terminal No. 1. Mar. 2, 1945 Channel 20 feet deep, 150 feet wide, in San Pablo Bay H. Doe. 715, 76th Cong., 3d seas. north of Point San Pablo. Sept. 3, 1954 Channel 35 feet deep and 600 feet wide adjacent to South- H. Doe. 395, 83d Cong., 2d seas. ampton Shoal; enlarging and deepening approach area to Richmond long wharf; widening and deepening inner harbor and entrance channels; deepening turning basin at Point Richmond and the southerly 2,000 feet of Santa Fe Channel. Eliminates restriction that widening north of Point Potrero will not be undertaken until local in- terest have furnished assurances that industries will avail themselves of the improved navigation facilities. Included in part in the Public Works Administration program, Sept. 6, 1988. Contains latest published map. 1704 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Pablo and Point Orient; for a channel 20 feet deep, 150 feet wide, and about 2,000 feet long from deep water in San Pablo Bay easter- ly along the north side of Point San Pablo; and for a rubblemound training wall 10,000 feet long extending westerly from Brooks Island. All depths refer to mean lower low water. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 5.8 feet, with an extreme range of about 11 feet. The cost of new work under the project, completed in 1957, was $2,886,695, exclusive of $524,778 contributed by local interests. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $177,868. Local cooperation. Fully complied with for work performed to date. Total estimated cost for all requirements of local coopera- tion under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, amount to $4 million (prices as of dates of compliance). Local interests are required to furnish, without cost to the United States, all necessary easements and suitable spoil-disposal areas required for maintenance dredging. Terminal facilities. In the inner harbor there are four deep- water terminals, two oil distribution terminals, a shipyard, a rail car ferry terminal, four privately owned wharves, and several small wharves for the mooring of floating equipment. In the outer harbor there are two oil distribution terminals, a deep- water terminal, a privately owned wharf for handling sand and cement, and about 10 fish-receiving wharves. Operations and results during fiscal year. As maintenance, engineering and design, including dredging surveys of project channels, was accomplished by hired labor and the U.S. hopper dredge Harding removed 174,000 cubic yards of shoaled material from the Point Orient approach area and 567,500 cubic yards from the inner harbor and entrance channel, at a cost of $223,772. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in October 1957. Dredging of the project channels was initiated in 1918 and carried on intermittently until 1940. The training wall was completed in 1931, and the channel in San Pablo Bay in 1945. Dredging authorized by the Act of September 3, 1954, was initiated in October 1955 and the Southampton Shoal Channel and enlarging and deepening of the approach area to Richmond Long Wharf were completed in March 1956, the inner harbor channels in December 1956, the Sante Fe Channel in January 1957, and the removal of rock in the vicinity of Point Potrero in October 1957. The controlling depths in the project channels on the dates in- dicated were as follows: February 1962, 34.8 feet in Southhampton Shoal Channel, 33.5 feet in approach area to Richmond Long Wharf, 35 feet to Point Richmond turning basin, 30.4 feet in turning basin, thence 32 feet to Point Potrero, 32.8 feet to Lauritzen Canal; February 1961, 27.4 feet to the turning basin; April 1952, 26 feet in turning basin; June 1959, 17.8 feet in the channel east of Point San Pablo to Del Monte Fishery dock, thence 5.1 feet to end of channel; February 1960, 26.5 feet in approach to Point Orient; June 1953, 30 feet in approach to Point San Pablo. RIVERS AND HARBORS - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1705 The costs of the existing project to the end of the fiscal year were as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total Regular............... .......................... $2,781,695 $2,430,351 $5,212,046 Public works..................... .... ................... ...... 105,000 ................ 105,000 (:ontributed ........ .............................. 524,778 34,800 559,578 .............. Total. ........................... 3,411,473 2,465,151 5,876,624 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: -- $22,400 Appropriated.......... $77 .......... $.......... Cost.................. 44,047 2,886,695 Maintenance: .......... Appropriated 70,500 153,786 633 $143, $300,000 $225,244 2,434,231 Cost.................. 69,364 154,977 143,633 297,592 223,772 2,430,351 1 Exclusive of contributed funds of $524,778 for new work and $34,800 for maintenance. 11. OAKLAND HARBOR, CALIF. Location. This harbor is on the eastern side of San Francisco Bay, opposite the city of San Francisco. The inner harbor is situated between the cities of Oakland and Alameda. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 5535.) Previous projects. Adopted by the River and Harbor Acts of June 23, 1874, June 13, 1902, and March 2, 1907. For further details, see page 1979 of Annual Report for 1915, page 1755 of Annual Report for 1921, and page 1674 of Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for an entrance channel to Oak- land Outer Harbor, 35 feet deep from deep water in San Francisco Bay and 800 feet wide across the shoal southeast of Yerba Buena Island, thence narrowing to 600 feet at Oakland Mole; thence a channel and turning basin 35 feet deep and from 600 to 950 feet wide in the outer harbor to the Army Base. The project also pro- vides for an entrance channel to Oakland Inner Harbor, 30 feet deep and 800 feet wide at the bayward end, narrowing to 600 feet wide at the ends of the Oakland jetties; a channel from the ends of the jetties 30 feet deep and 600 feet wide to the west end of Government Island, with additional widening to the pierhead line in front of the Grove and Market Street (formerly municipal) piers, and widen- ing to within 75 feet of the pierhead line along the south side of the channel from Harrison Street eastward to harbor-line point 119 in Brooklyn Basin; a channel 30 feet deep and 500 feet wide through Brooklyn Basin; for dredging to a depth of 30 feet a trian- gular area about 2,700 feet long and of a maximum width of 300 feet at the western end of Brooklyn Basin; maintenance of channel 25 feet deep and 300 feet wide at the north end of Brooklyn Basin; a turning basin at the east end of Brooklyn Basin 30 feet deep, 500 feet wide, and 1,200 feet long; a navigation channel in the tidal canal 30 feet deep and 275 feet wide from Brooklyn Basin to Park Street, thence 18 feet deep to San Leandro Bay; a total channel length of 81/2 miles from San Francisco Bay to San 1706 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Leandro Bay. The project also includes parallel rubblemound jetties at the entrance to the inner harbor, a north jetty 9,500 feet long and south jetty 12,000 feet long; and three highway bridges across the tidal canal, two of which (at Park Street and High Street) have been replaced by local interests. The railroad and highway bridges at Fruitvale Avenue are being maintained and operated by the United States. All depths refer to mean lower low water. The range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 6 feet in the outer harbor and 6.3 in the inner harbor at the Park Street Bridge. The extreme range is about 11 feet. The project was completed in 1931 except for deepening the tidal canal above the Park Street Bridge to 25 feet. The cost of the completed work was $2,622,031, exclusive of contributed funds in the amount of $83,547 and of amounts expended on pre- vious projects. The uncompleted portion of the project is being re- studied. The cost of this portion was last revised in 1954, and was estimated to be $489,069. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $357,622. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents and reports -I - -- I- _ __ June 23, 1874 Jetties . . .......... .... ...... ......... Annual Report, Part II, 1874, p. 378. June 25, 1910 North channel in Brooklyn Basin and tidal canal to 18 feet.. H. Doc. 647, 61st Cong., 2d sess. Sept. 22, 1922 Channel across the shoal southeast of Yerba Buena Island H. Doc. 144, 67th Cong., 2d seas. and thence to Webster St.; south channel in Brooklyn Basin; turning basin at the east end of Brooklyn Basin; and the channel in the tidal canal from Brooklyn Basin to Park St. Jan. 21, 1927 Channel from Webster St. to Brooklyn Basin, the main- H. Doc. 407, 69th Cong., 1st sess.1 tenance of the area to within 75 feet of the pierhead line south of the channel from Harrison St. to harbor line point 119 in Brooklyn Basin; dredging of a triangular strip about 2,700 feet long and maximum width of 300 feet at western end of Brooklyn Basin. Apr. 28, 1928 Local cooperation requirements modified to provide that Public Res. 28, 70th Cong. alteration or replacement of bridges by local interests shall apply only to that feature of the project covering the deepening of the tidal canal to 25 feet. The drawbridges across the tidal canal were required by the 1882 decree of the court in the condemnation pro- ceedings whereby title was obtained to the right-of-way for the tidal canal. July 3, 1930 Entrance channel to the outer harbor, 800 to 600 feet wide.. Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. 43, 71st Cong., 2d sess. Mar. 2, 1945 Elimination of requirement that local interest contribute H. Doc. 466,77th Cong., 1st seas. 10 cents per cubic yard toward deepening the tidal canal. Do....... Maintenance of 35-foot depth in channel to outer harbor Report on file in Office, Chief of Engi- and in outer harbor channel and turning basin. neers. 1 Contains latest published maps. s Included deepening of tidal canal above Park Street Bridge to 25 feet, which is being restudied. Recommended modifications, of project. Modifications to the existing project are recommended by the Chief of Engineers to provide for a depth of 35 feet within existing project limits in the inner harbor entrance, inner channel, the tidal canal to Park Street, including the triangular area and turning basin in the Brooklyn Basin, and the widened areas except that, in front of the Grove and Market Street piers, no Federal dredging will be performed within 75 feet of the pierhead line; and a depth of 35 feet in the RIVERS AND HARBORS - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1707 north channel of Brooklyn Basin for a distance of 1,300 feet; all generally in accordance with the plan of the District Engineer and with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable; at an estimated cost to the United States of $6,800,000 for construction dredging and $28,000 an- nually for maintenance in addition to that now required; provided that, prior to construction, local interests agree to: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights- of-way necessary for construction and maintenance of the improve- ment; (b) hold and save the United States free from damages to wharves, piers, tubes, and other marine and submarine structures due to initial dredging and subsequent maintenance; (c) accom- plish without expense to the United States alterations as may be required in sewer, water supply, drainage, and other utility facili- ties; (d) provide and maintain at local expense adequate public terminal and transfer facilities, open to all on equal terms; and (e) deepen and maintain slips and berths when and as required; and provided further that, if it is determined in detailed studies that spoil-disposal areas are needed, local interests agree to furnish, upon request of the Chief of Engineers, and without cost to the United States, the required spoil-disposal areas including neces- sary dikes, bulkheads and embankments for the initial dredging and subsequent maintenance. Additional modifications to the existing project are recommended by the Chief of Engineers to provide for Federal participation in the reconstruction of the Highway Bridge across the tidal canal at Fruitvale Avenue to the extent of providing a two-lane, movable bridge adequate for the authorized 25-foot navigation project, at an estimated cost of $1,750,000 to the United States; provided local interests: (a) Construct the approaches; (b) make the necessary utility changes; and (c) upon completion of the construction, take over the railroad and highway approaches for operation, mainte- nance, and subsequent replacement in accordance with regulations satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army. Local cooperation. The act of January 21, 1927, requires that the future maintenance by the United States of the north chan- nel in Brooklyn Basin be contingent upon the removal by local interests of all sewers emptying therein, or, in lieu of such re- moval, upon the contribution of one-half the cost of maintenance. This requirement has not been fulfilled. In compliance with a 1910 license issued by the Secretary of War pursuant to provi- sions of the act of June 25, 1910, local interests have replaced the bridges at Park Street and High Street and are operating and maintaining them. They operated and maintained a combined highway and railroad bridge at Fruitvale Avenue until 1942 when the California Court of Appeals ruled that it was illegal for the county of Alameda to use appropriated funds for the sole benefit of a private corporation. The Southern Pacific Railroad Co. oper- ated trains over the combined bridge until June 1951 when a sepa- rate railroad bridge, constructed for its use by the Federal Govern- ment, was placed in operation. (The railroad and highway bridges at Fruitvale Ave. are maintained and operated by the United 1708 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 States.) All other requirements have been fully complied with. Only fragmentary records are available of costs to local interests in meet- ing the requirements of local cooperation. Recorded expenditures are in excess of $11 million. Terminal facilities. In the inner harbor there are 64 wharves of which 36 are owned by the Port of Oakland, 7 shipyards, and numerous small-boat moorings. In the outer harbor there are five wharves, and one ferry terminal owned by the Port of Oakland, and one privately owned ferry terminal. These facilities are exclu- sive of those owned or leased by the United States and are con- sidered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. As maintenance, the following work, including engineering and design, was performed at the indicated costs: Removal of 420,000 cubic yards of material from outer harbor by U.S. hopper dredge Biddle .............................. $117,798 Removal of 495,000 cubic yards of material from inner harbor by U.S. hopper dredge Biddle ........................ 131,848 Removal of 10,600 cubic yards of material from Suscol Spillway in the inner harbor tidal canal by contract ...................... 17,000 Operation and maintenance of Fruitvale Avenue Highway and Railroad Bridges, by hired labor .......................... 48,059 Miscellaneous and intermittent minor rehabilitation of Fruitvale Avenue Highway and Railroad Bridges, by contract ........ 29,245 Total project maintenance during fiscal year .............. 343,950 Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in 1931 except for deepening the tidal canal above Park Street Bridge to 25 feet, which is being restudied. The jetties were completed in 1894. The 35-foot depth in the channel to the outer harbor was obtained in 1942 with military funds. The controlling depths in the project channels on the dates in- dicated were as follows: September 1961; 33 feet in the entrance channel to the outer harbor, 33.8 feet in the outer harbor, and 28 feet in the entrance channel to the inner harbor; May 1961, 30 feet in the inner harbor to Grove Street pier, and 28.6 feet to Posey Tube; February 1961, 29 feet to easterly end of Government Island, and 22.7 feet to Park Street Bridge; April 1959, 16.1 feet in tidal canal to Fruitvale Avenue Bridge, 16.6 feet in tidal canal to San Leandro Bay; August 1950, 18 feet in north channel of Brooklyn Basin. The costs of the existing project to the end of the fiscal year were as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total Regular .. ....................................... $2,622,031 $7,015,595 $9,637,626 ................ Contributed ..........................83,547 ................ 83,547 Total................................... ...... 2,705,578 7,015,595 9,721,173 RIVERS AND HARBORS - -SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1709 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 I New work: Appropriated ....... ... ....... ....... ... ....... .. ....... .... $5,521,263 Cost ..................... ... 5,521,263 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... $230,261 $289,835 $490, 595 $453,000 $333,033 7,709,664 Cost .................. 216,948 304,335 462,647 460,231 343,950 *7,699,622 1 Includes $2,899,232 for new work and $684,028 for maintenance on previous projects. 2 Exclusive of contributed funds of $83,547 for new work on existing project. SIncludes $989,061 for operation and care of Fruitvale Avenue Bridges. 12. REDWOOD CITY HARBOR, CALIF. Location. Redwood City Harbor is on Redwood Creek, a tribu- tary of San Francisco Bay about 20 miles south of the city of San Francisco. The project works also include a channel in San Fran- cisco Bay east of Point San Bruno. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 5531.) Previous projects. The original project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of July 5, 1884, and modified by the River and Harbor Act of June 13, 1902. For further details, see page 1979 of Annual Report for 1915, and page 1672 of Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for a channel 500 feet wide and 30 feet deep across San Bruno Shoal in San Francisco Bay; a channel 300 feet wide and 30 feet deep to the vicinity of the con- fluence of West Point Slough and Redwood Creek, with a basin at that location 2,200 feet long and from 400 to 900 feet wide; thence a channel 400 feet wide, 30 feet deep, and approximately 1,300 feet long flaring to a second turning basin approximately 900 feet wide, 1,700 feet long, and 30 feet deep; thence a channel 150 feet wide and 5 feet deep extending to Steinberger Slough. All depths refer to mean lower low water. The tidal range be- tween mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 6.9 feet at Point San Bruno and 7.9 feet at Redwood City. The extreme ranges are estimated to be 12 feet and 13 feet at the respective localities. The authorized channel across San Bruno Shoal is about 41/3 miles long. In the creek, the authorized deep water channel is 3.4 miles long including the basins, and the 5-foot channel extends to mile 4.3. The existing project was authorized by the following : Acts Work authorized Documents June 25, 1910 A 5-foot channel to Steinberger Slough .................. H. Doc. 307, 61st Cong., 2d sess. July 3, 1930 A 20-foot channel to West Point Slough .................. 11. Doc. 142, 70th Cong., 1st sess. Aug. 30, 1935 A 27-foot channel to West Point Slough and a turning basin Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. 27 feet deep, 1,800 feet long, and 700 feet wide. 10, 73d Cong., 1st sess. Mar. 2, 1945 A 30-foot channel across San Bruts Shoal and enlarging H. Doc. 94, 79th Cong., 1st. sess. and deepening the 27-foot channel and turning basin in Redwood Creek to 30 feet. May 17, 1950 Extending the 30-foot channel 1,300 feet upstream and H. Doc. 104, 81st Cong., 1st sees. (con- providing a second turning basin 30 feet deep, 900 feet tains latest published map). wide, and 1,700 feet long at junction of Redwood Creek and Boundary Slough. Project name changed from Red- wood Creek, Calif., to Redwood City Harbor, Calif. The latest approved estimate of cost for new work (1962) is $1,990,000, of which $1,870,000 is Federal cost and $120,000 is 1710 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 the amount contributed by local interests. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $83,929. Local cooperation. Fully complied with for work performed to date. The act of August 30, 1935, requires that local interests furnish areas for disposal of dredged materials removed during maintenance. No local cooperation is required by the act of March 2, 1945, but local interests voluntarily provided necessary spoil-disposal areas and impounding works. The act of May 17, 1950, requires that the port of Redwood City give assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that it will: (a) Provide, without cost to the United States, all necessary land, easements, rights-of-way, and spoil-disposal areas with necessary impounding works, for the construction and subsequent mainte- nance of the project, when and as required; (b) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and subsequent maintenance of the works; (c) arrange with re- sponsible local interests to relocate, without cost to the United States, the municipal yacht harbor and provide new facilities at least equal to those now available; and (d) maintain at its own expense the existing public terminal and construct and maintain, without cost to the United States, an additional public wharf, sufficient in size to accommodate a modern cargo vessel, located on the proposed extension of the project, with the understanding that all public terminals shall be open to all on equal terms. The Board of Port Commissioners of the city of Redwood City has furnished resolutions of intent to comply with these require- ments, and has relocated the municipal yatch harbor. In addition, the port has expended in excess of $200,000 in recent years for ad- ditions and improvements to existing municipally owned and oper- ated shore facilities. In 1951 the Leslie Salt Co. placed in operation a multimillion dollar salt-production, storage, and bulk ship- loading facility at the upper limit of the upstream turning basin authorized by the act of May 17, 1950. To provide access to the shiploading facility, they have dredged and are maintaining a small channel and turning basin within the area included in the author- ized, but unconstructed, portion of the Federal project. The bulk loading facilities are available for public use through contractual arrangements with the Port of Redwood City. Terminal facilities. There are three municipally owned wharves, four privately owned wharves, a boat repair yard, a bulk salt-load- ing facility, two privately owned yacht harbors, and a pleasure boat mooring in Redwood City Harbor. Local interests have defi- nite plans for additional facilities to accommodate anticipated in- creases in commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. As new work, costs of $43,067 were incurred for after-dredging surveys and payment of final contract costs for deepening the channel and turning basin in Redwood Creek. As maintenance, the U.S. hopper dredge Hard- ing removed 773,000 cubic yards of shoaled material from the en- trance channel and turning basin at a cost of $164,930. The project costs during the fiscal year were $43,067 for new work and $164,930 for maintenance, a total of $207,997 from regular funds. RIVERS AND HARBORS - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1711 Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project is about 67 percent complete. The work remaining to be done is the channel extension and second turning basin in Redwood Creek as author- ized by the River and Harbor Act of 1950. The controlling depths in the various channels on the dates indi- cated were as follows: February 1961, 28.9 feet in San Bruno Shoal Channel; April 1962, 28.8 feet in San Francisco Bay to Beacon 6, thence 30.3 feet to Beacon 8, 27 feet to turning basin, and 28.1 feet in turning basin; November 1958, 7 feet from turn- ing basin to yacht harbor; October 1959, 5.5 feet from yacht harbor to head of navigation. The costs of the existing project to the end of the fiscal year were as follows: Funds New work 1 Maintenance Total' Regular.......................................... .. $1,156,440 $1,283,623 $2,440,063 Contributed ......................................... 119,572 ................ 119,572 Total..................... ................ .... 1,276,012 1,283,623 2,559,635 1 Includes $12,000 for preauthorization studies. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962' New work: Appropriated.......... ............ ............ $1,049,786 --$11,000 -$24,000 x$1,188,122 Cost............. .... ... ... ....... 225,716 745,764 43,067 31,187,883 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... $52,600 $100,460 95,331 8,000 163,111 1,283,623 Cost.................. 52,530 64,278 51,725 86,181 164,930 1,283,623 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ..................... ... $ 239 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 239 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ................... ... 71,821 1 Includes $31,443 for new work on previous projects. a Exclusive of contributed funds of $119,572 for new work on existing project. 8 Includes $12,000 for preauthorization studies. 13. HALFMOON BAY, CALIF. Location. Located on the coast of California about 15 miles south of San Francisco. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 5520.) Existing project. This provides for two rubblemound break- waters to form an inclosed harbor of about 245 acres in depths of 6 feet or greater, with an entrance 600 feet wide in depths of 24 feet, the west breakwater extending southerly for 1,000 feet from Pillar Point, thence northeasterly for 1,620 feet, and the east breakwater 4,420 feet in length. All depths refer to mean lower low water. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 5.5 feet. The extreme range is about 8 feet. The cost of new work under the project, completed in 1961, was $4,850,632, exclusive of $100,000 contributed by local interests. The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act approved June 30, 1948. (H. Doc. 644, 80th Cong., 2d sess., 1712 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 as modified by the Chief of Engineers.) The latest published map is contained in that document. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the proj- ect authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, amount to $1 million (prices as of dates of compliance). The cost of additional facilities programed by the San Mateo County Har- bor District for ultimate harbor development is estimated at $1,200,000. Terminal facilities. There is one publicly owned pier with sup- ply facilities and three privately owned piers, two of which provide boat-fueling facilities and one a sardine conveyor pipeline to a plant located on the shore. These facilities, together with addi- tional facilities programed by the San Mateo County Harbor Dis- trict for ultimate harbor development, are considered adequate for present and prospective commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. The following new work, including engineering and design, was accomplished at the indicated costs: Demobilization, cleanup, and final payment under a continuing con- tract for breakwater construction ......................... $591,448 Construction of project signs, by contract .................... 4,470 Engineering and design, including installation of pressure gage for wave-measurement program ............................ 32,888 Total cost for new work during the fiscal year was $628,806, of which $627,614 was from regular funds and $1,192 was from con- tributed funds. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project was completed in 1961. The west breakwater was completed in September 1960 and the east breakwater in June 1961. The cost of the existing project to the end of the fiscal year was $4,949,391 for new work, of which $4,850,632 was from regular funds, including $28,000 for preauthorization studies, and $98,759 was from contributed funds. Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 ' New work: .......... Appropriated ..... ..... $962,000$1,074,000 $2,070,000 $631,000 $4,859,875 Cost...... ....... $8,247 407,561 1,563,641 2,134,860 627,614 4,850,632 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .............................. $9,243 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................... 9,248 1 Includes $28,000 for preauthorisation: studies. CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated....... .. .......... $100,000 .... $100,000 Cost............... .......... . .......... $97,567 $1,192 98,759 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ..... . ............ $1,241 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1968 .................. 1,241 RIVERS AND HARBORS - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1713 14. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIF. Location. This harbor is on the north shore of Monterey Bay about 65 miles south of the entrance to San Francisco Bay and 14 miles north of Moss Landing, the nearest small-boat harbor. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart Nos. 5402 and 5403.) Existing project. This provides for a small-boat harbor con- sisting of two entrance jetties, the east jetty 850 feet long and the west jetty 1,125 feet long, protecting an entrance chan- nel 100 feet wide, 20 feet deep, and 900 feet long, thence 15 feet deep for an additional 370 feet; an inner harbor channel 15 feet deep, 150 feet wide, and 800 feet long, thence 10 feet deep for an additional 600 feet, entering a turning basin 10 feet deep, 250 feet wide, and 300 feet long. All depths refer to mean lower low water. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 5.3 feet. The extreme range is about 10.5 feet. The latest approved estimate of cost for new work (1962) is $2,800,000, of which $1,830,000 is Federal cost and $970,000 is the amount to be contributed by local interests. The sand bypass- ing plant portion of the project is to be restudied and is excluded from the foregoing cost estimate. The cost of this portion was last revised in 1961, and was estimated to be $370,000, of which $240,000 is Federal cost and $130,000 is the amount to be con- tributed by local interests. The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1958 (H. Doc. 357, 85th Con., 2d sess., as modified by the Chief of Engineers). Local cooperation. The Act of July 3, 1958, requires that local interests: (a) Contribute in cash 35.1 percent of the first cost of jetties, channels, and the turning basin, to be paid in a lump sum prior to initiation of construction, the final allocation of cost to be made after the actual costs have been determined; (b) con- tribute in cash 35.1 percent of the first cost of the sand-bypassing plant and appurtenances at such time as in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers its need becomes evident; (c) provide without cost to the United States all necessary lands, easements, rights- of-way, suitable spoil-disposal areas, and a source of royalty-free jetty stone acceptable to the District Engineer, for the construc- tion and maintenance of the project, when and as required; (d) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and maintenance of the project; (e) acquire and hold in the public interest sufficient lands for construction of the turning basin and public utilization thereof; (f) provide without cost to the United States bulkheads, levees, revetments, reloca- tions, and all dredging in the berthing areas, as necessary for the construction and maintenance of the project and necessary berth- ing facilities and utilities, including a public landing with suitable supply facilities, open to all on equal terms, in accordance with plans to be approved by the Chief of Engineers; (g) provide or arrange for suitable marine-repair facilities; (h) maintain the entire project except the jetties and dredged depths in the en- trance channel, the inner channel, and the turning basin subject 1714 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 to conditions stated in item (j) and (j) upon commencement of sand-bypassing, assume the operation and maintenance of the sand-bypassing plant and make replacements thereto, when and as required; and further, maintain the dredged depths in the entrance channel, the inner harbor channel, and the turn- ing basin, with the understanding that the United States will re- imburse local interests for the actual cost of plant operation, main- tenance, and replacement up to a limit of $35,000 annually; and with the further understanding that the cost of any required channel or basin maintenance incurred by the United States will be deducted from the estimated $35,000 annual Federal reim- bursement. The Santa Cruz Port District, by resolution dated December 3, 1957, has furnished assurances of their willingness and ability to comply with requirements of local cooperation. The port dis- trict has initiated construction of the portion of the project for which they are responsible, has furnished necessary real estate, and has provided a cash contribution in the amount of $915,000 as their share of the estimated first cost of the jetties, channels, and turning basin, and in lieu of providing royalty-free stone. Terminal facilities. In the natural harbor there is one privately owned recreation pier and one municipally owned wharf with facilities for fueling and servicing boats and receiving, handling, and processing fresh fish. These facilities, together with those be- ing constructed as an item of local cooperation for the authorized project, will provide adequate facilities for present and prospective commerce. Operationsand results during fiscal year. As new work, engineer- ing and design was accomplished by hired labor and, under a con- tinuing contract for construction of the jetties, 1,672 cubic yards of material was excavated within the foundation lines of the west jetty preparatory to placement of the bedding layer. The cost dur- ing the fiscal year for new work was $53,535 of which $51,105 was from regular funds and $2,430 was from contributed funds. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the jetties was initiated in April 1962. The cost of the existing project to the end of the fiscal year was $159,222 for new work, of which $156,792 was from regular funds, including $35,000 for preauthorization studies, and $2,430 was from contributed funds. Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated........... $1,100 $75,000 ......... . $200,000 $310,000 Cost................. 1,100 27,954 $29,522 $13,211 51,105 156,792 Other new work data: Urobligated balance for year ending June $0, 1962 .......................... Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 ................................ $ 145 1,270,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1968 ................ 1,270,145 1Includes $35,000 for preauthorization studies. RIVERS AND HARBORS - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1715 CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.......... ..... .................. ............ $915,000 $915,000 Cost ... .......... .............................. ......... 2,430 2,430 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $812,480 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................ 812,480 15. MOSS LANDING HARBOR, CALIF. Location. This harbor is approximately 80 miles south of San Francisco Harbor on Monterey Bay about midway between the cities of Santa Cruz and Monterey. (See U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 5403.) Existing project. This provides for an entrance channel 200 feet wide and 15 feet deep, protected by jetties, from Monterey Bay into the inner lagoon at Moss Landing, thence a channel in the lagoon, 100 feet wide, 15 feet deep, and approximately 3,200 feet long extending southerly from the entrance, with a flared widen- ing to a width of 200 feet for a length of 400 feet at the southerly end. All depths refer to mean lower low water. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 5.3 feet with an estimated extreme range of 10.5 feet. The cost of new work under the project, completed in 1947, was $343,552. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $26,933. The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act approved March 2, 1945. (Report on file in the Office of the Chief of Engineers.) No map has been published. Local cooperation. Fully complied with for work performed to date. Local interests are required to furnish necessary rights- of-way and suitably bulkheaded spoil-disposal areas for mainte- nance work. Terminal facilities. There are five piers, one of which has boat-fueling facilities, one oil-receiving terminal, one marine ways, and a number of mooring and berthing facilities within the protected harbor. Outside the harbor in Monterey Bay there is one privately owned submerged petroleum pipeline and one pier which is used for receipts of petroleum products. These facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. As maintenance, aerial photography and planimetric mapping for the base map used in hydrographic surveys was accomplished by contract and hired labor at a cost of $1,302 from regular funds. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project was completed in 1947. The controlling depths in December 1961 were 12 feet in the entrance channel except in the southerly half which was 9 feet, 14.1 feet, in the inner channel, and 11 feet in the inner turning basin. The cost of the existing project to the end of the fiscal year was $338,215 for new work and $1,062,053 for maintenance, a total of 1716 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 $1,400,268, exclusive of surplus material from Corps of Engineers military activities. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.................. .......................................... $338,215 Cost............................. .. .... ............ ......... 338,215 Maintenance: Appropriated .............................. $57,700 $77,000 -$33 1,062,053 Cost .................. 7,700 125,665 1,302 21,062,053 1 Exclusive of $5,337 surplus material from Corps of Engineers military activities. 2 Exclusive of $8,539 surplus material from Corps of Engineers military activities. 16. OTHER AUTHORIZED NAVIGATION PROJECTS For last Cost to June 30, 1962 full report Estimated Cost Name of project see amount estimate annual Operation required to (last date report Construction and complete of revision) for- Maintenance 1. Crescent City Harbor, Calif.......... 1958 1 '$6,048,672 '$1,898,877 .............. (4) 2. Lower San Francisco Bay, Calif....... 1935 $............................. 450,000 '$450,000 3. Monterey Harbor, Calif............. 1961 6768,471 77,839 74,761,529 75,530,000 (1962) 1 Exclusive of $2,138 surplus material from Corps of Engineers military activities. s Exclusive of $217,116 contributed funds. 8 Exclusive of $27,884 contributed funds. Completed. I 5Improvement inactive. Estimate of cost was last revised in 1954. Includes $70,000 for preauthorization studies. 7 Exclusive of $2,240,000 to be contributed by local interests. 17. NAVIGATION PROJECTS ON WHICH RECONNAISSANCE AND CONDITION SURVEYS ONLY WERE CONDUCTED DURING THE FISCAL YEAR Cost Date reconnaissance Name of project during or condition fiscal year survey conducted 1. Crescent City Harbor, Calif .............................................. $1,236 (August 1961 4 January 1962 (June 1962 2. Moss Landing Harbor, Calif ................................................ 1,538 December 1961 3. Monterey Harbor, Calif................................................ 56 Do. Total cost during fiscal year ..... . ................................ 2,830 18. NAVIGATION WORK UNDER SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION Small navigation projects not specifically authorized by Congress (Public Law 86-645, sec. 107, 86th Cong., July 14, 1960) During the fiscal year, engineering and design studies to deter- mine the feasibility of constructing small navigation projects at the following locations under authority of this act was accomp- lished by hired labor at a total cost of $5,747 for new work. Berkeley Harbor, Alameda County, Calif ....................... $5,235 Eureka Harbor, Humboldt County, Calif....................... 512 FLOOD CONTROL-SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1717 19. EEL RIVER, CALIF. Location. The Eel River drains an area of 3,630 square miles in the Coast Range in northwestern California and flows into the Pacific Ocean 15 miles south of Eureka, Calif., about 215 miles north of San Francisco Bay. (See U.S. Geological Survey quad- rangle, Fortuna.) Existing project. This provides for approximately 4 miles of earthfill levee, including about 1.5 miles of riprap protection on the right bank of Eel River at Sandy Prairie in the vicinity of the town of Fortuna, at approximate river mile 12. The project was completed in 1959 except for current retards and levees in the delta area. The cost of the completed work was $768,816, including $90,000 for preauthorization studies but ex- clusive of $194,821 contributed by local interests. The uncompleted portion of the project is considered to be inactive. The cost of this portion was last revised in 1954, and was estimated to be $866,000. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents June 22, 1936 Current retards and levees in the delta area................ H. Doc. 194, 73d Cong., 2d sess. 1 July 3, 1958 Levee and bank stabilization in Sandy Prairie area ........ H. Doc. 80, 85th Cong., 1st sess. (as modified by the Chief of Engineers).' 1 Inactive. 2 Contains latest published map. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the proj- ect authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, amount to $200,000 (1959 price levels). Operations and results during fiscal year. Fiscal adjustment of project new work costs between Federal and contributed funds re- sulted in a decrease in Federal cost of $1,553, increase of $1,011 to contributed funds, and a net decrease in project cost of $542. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in November 1959 except for work authorized by the act of June 22, 1936, which is inactive. The cost of the existing proj- ect to the end of the fiscal year was $963,637, of which $768,816 was from regular funds, including $90,000 for preauthorization studies, and $194,821 was from contributed funds. Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962' New'work: Appropriated.................... $346,000 $331,369 $3,000 -$1,553 $768,816 Cost ................. .......... 346,000 331,369 3,000 -1,553 768,816 1 Includes $90,000 for preauthorization studies. 1718 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.......... ............ $246,000 -$50,000 ......... -$1,179 $194,821 Cost ................ ........... 100,889 92,611 $310 1,011 194,821 20. RUSSIAN RIVER BASIN, CALIF. Location. The Russian River rises in the Coast Range in north- western California, flows southerly for a distance of 87 miles, and then turns westerly to flow for 23 miles to the Pacific Ocean at Jenner, 60 miles northwest of San Francisco, Calif. (For the general location see U.S. Geological Survey map for the State of California.) Existing project. The authorized project provides for the con- struction of the initial stage of the plan of improvement consist- ing of Lake Mendocino, formerly Coyote Valley Reservoir, on the East Fork of Russian River approximately 0.8 mile above the mouth of that tributary near Ukiah, Calif., and channel stabiliza- tion works on the lower 98 miles of the Russian River and on the lower reaches of several tributaries. The dam is an earthfill type with a crest length of 3,530 feet at elevation 784, mean sea level datum, and a height above the streambed of approximately 160 feet, and will control runoff from 105 square miles of drainage area. A paved overflow spillway, having a fixed crest at elevation 764.8 and a crest length of 200 feet, is located in a saddle ap- proximately 0.6 mile upstream from the left abutment. Gated- outlet works located through the dam provtde capacity to empty the flood-control storage in about 4 days. The reservoir has a capacity at spillway crest of 122,500 acre-feet, of which 48,000 acre-feet are reserved for flood control and the remainder for water conservation and siltation. The estimated cost of the princi- pal features of the project is as follows: Estimated cost Project feature Lands and Construction damages Total (including relocations) Coyote Valley dam and reservoir ........................ $11,500,000 $6,070,000 $17,570,000 Channel improvement works ............................ 2,600,000 (1) 2,600,000 Total ............................................ 14,100,000 6,070,000 20,170,000 1 To be provided by local interests. The latest approved estimate of cost for new work (1962) is $20,170,000, of which $14,572,000 is Federal cost and $5,598,000 is the amount contributed by local interests. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950 (H. Doc. 585, 81st Cong., 2d sess. as modified by the Chief of Engineers). The latest published map is contained in the project document. Public Law 404, 84th Congress, 2d session, approved February 10, 1956, authorized to be appropriated a FLOOD CONTROL-SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1719 sum in addition to that authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1950 for completion of the initial stage of development of the project. Recommended modifications of project. Modifications to the ex- isting project are recommended by the Chief of Engineers to pro- vide for further improvement of Russian River, Calif., by construction of a dam on Dry Creek at the Warm Springs site, and channel improvements downstream, for flood control, water supply, and recreation, generally in accordance with the plan of the District Engineer and with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, at an estimated cost of $44,600,000 for Federal construction and $270,- 000 annually for maintenance and operation including major re- placements: Provided that prior to construction, and subject to final allocations based on conditions prevailing at the time of con- struction and actual costs incurred, local interests furnish assur- ances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will: (a) Hold and save the United States free from damages due to construction and operation of the project; (b) maintain the chan- nel-improvement works after completion in accordance with regu- lations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; (c) prevent any encroachment in the channel of Dry Creek which would interfere with the proper functioning of the channel-improvement works; (d) adjust all claims concerning water rights arising from the construction and operation of the improvements, including acquisi- tion of water rights needed for preservation of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project as set forth in the District Engi- neer's report; (e) provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construc- tion of the channel-improvement works; (f) perform without cost to the United States necessary utility relocations and highway- bridge modifications required for construction of the channel-im- provement works; and (g) reimburse the United States in accordance with the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended, for the part of the construction cost and the annual operation, mainte- nance, and major replacement costs allocated to municipal and industrial water supply, tentatively estimated at $12,320,000, and $52,000, respectively, for the ultimate development. Local cooperation. The improvements are subject to the con- dition that prior to starting construction, local interests shall con- tribute the sum of $5,598,000 in cash in full payment of the conservation benefits, and shall: (a) Furnish free of cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construction of the channel stabilization works; (b) make all necessary road and bridge revisions and utility alterations and relocations required for the channel-stabilization works; (c) adjust all claims concerning water rights arising from the con- struction and operation of the improvements; (d) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; (e) maintain the channel-stabilization works, after com- pletion, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; (f) prevent any encroachment on the stream chan- 1720 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 nel which would interfere with the proper functioning of the improvements or lessen their beneficial effects; and, (g) enter into an agreement among themselves as to the method of operation of the reservoir for conservation subject to flood-control priority. The Board of Directors of the Sonoma County flood control and water conservation district, by Resolution No. SA 6847 dated May 25, 1955, guaranteed fulfillment of all local cooperation re- quired for the project except that pertaining to the channel-stabili- zation works to be constructed outside the boundaries of Sonoma County. In January 1956 the voters of southern Mendocino Coun- ty passed a bond issue in support of their share of project cost and approved the formation of the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation District which, by Resolu- tion dated November 12, 1959, has furnished assurances of local cooperation for channel improvement works to be constructed in Mendocino County. The required cash contribution of $5,598,000 was made by the County of Sonoma to the Department of Interior in full repayment of the conservation benefits of the project and transferred to the Department of the Army on March 5, 1956. In December 1956, Sonoma County was reimbursed $633,000 by Mendocino County for its share of the local cash contribution. The responsible agencies of the two counties have agreed that operat- ing instructions for water conservation storage and releases will be issued by the Chief Engineer, Sonoma County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Local cooperation has been complied with for work performed to date. Operations and results during fiscal year. The following work was accomplished at a total cost of $648,610 from regular funds, of which $539,109 was for new work and $109,501 was for mainte- nance: New work: Boat launching ramp and parking area completed by contract ...... $1,906 Channel improvements; construction of 1,000-foot section at con- fluence of East Fork and Russian River completed, and section between river miles 93 and 94.4 initiated, under lump sum con- tracts ................................................... 52,338 Fire protection and access road initiated and approximately 80 per- cent completed, by contract ................................. 342,026 Engineering and design and supervision and administration, by hired labor .................................................. 154,371 Adjustment in cost of minor completion items, dam and appurtenant works .......................................... -11,532 Total new work costs .................................. 539,109 Maintenance: Operation and maintenance of dam, reservoir, and service facilities, including condition and operation studies ...................... $109,501 Condition at end of fiscal year. The entire project is about 88 percent complete. Work remaining to be done is the con- struction of bank-stabilization works, and completion of fire pro- tection and access road to the northeast reservoir area. An initial 4-mile test section of bank-stabilization work in the vicinity of Geyserville was completed in February 1957. Flow regulation of the reservoir was initiated in November 1958 and the dam and FLOOD CONTROL--SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1721 appurtenant works were essentially completed in April 1959. The relocated State Highway 20 was opened to traffic in June 1958, and all work, including removal of slides resulting from severe storms in 1958, was completed in April 1959. The costs of the existing project to the end of the fiscal year were as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total Regular.........................................$12,249,924 $392,077 $12,642,001 Contributed .............. .......................... 5,598,000 ................ 5,598,000 Total .............................. .......... 17,847,924 392,077 18,240,001 1 Includes $130,000 for preauthorization studies. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 ' 2 New work: Appropriated. ......... $7,008,000 $911,000 $190,000 $400,000 $672,000 $12,547,000 Cost.................. 6,211,473 1,764,010 172,598 261,960 539,109 12,249,924 Maintenance: Appropriated ......... ............ 71,000 102,370 110,000 112,000 395,370 Cost........................... 70,704 102,317 109,555 109,501 392,077 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .......................... $ 26,758 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 ............................... 940,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1968 .............. 966,758 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project .................... 1,085,000 1 Exclusive of contributed funds of $5,598,000 for new work. 2 Includes $130,000 for preauthorization studies. 21. RHEEM CREEK, CALIF. Location. Rheem Creek, located in Contra Costa County, Calif., flows in a westerly direction through portions of the town of San Pablo and the city of Richmond and empties into the east side of San Pablo Bay, an arm of San Francisco Bay. (See U.S. Geologi- cal Survey quadrangle, Richmond.) Existing project. This provides for channel improvement be- tween the mouth and mile 1.5 by alternate use as required of approximately 6,300 linear feet of unlined earth trapezoidal sec- tion and 1,500 linear feet of concrete-lined rectangular section. The cost of new work under the project, completed in 1960, was $400,000, exclusive of $52,549 contributed by local interests. The existing project was authorized by the Chief of Engineers on April 15, 1959, under authority of Public Law 685, 84th Con- gress, 2d session, July 11, 1956. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contribu- tions, amount to $137,300 (1960 price levels). Operations and results during fiscal year. As new work, an operation and maintenance manual and final as-built drawings were completed by hired labor at a cost of $1,224 from contri- buted funds. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project was completed in November 1960. The cost of the existing project to the end of 1722 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 the fiscal year was $452,549 for new work, of which $400,000 was from regular funds and $52,549 was from contributed funds. Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS F1 Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated......... ...................... $54,500 ............ -1,951 $52,549 Cost.............. ...... ........................ $51,325 1,224 52,549 22. SAN LORENZO CREEK, CALIF. Location. San Lorenzo Creek, located in Alameda County, Calif., on the eastern side of San Francisco Bay, flows in a general westerly direction and enters the bay at a point about 10 miles southeast of the city of Oakland, (See U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles, Pleasanton, Hayward, and San Leandro.) Existing project. This provides for a leveed channel extend- ing about 1.4 miles upstream from the mouth; thence a rectangu- lar concrete channel for a distance of approximately 3.9 miles; a total improved channel length of approximately 5.3 miles. The project was completed in 1962 except for bank stabiliza- tion from mile 5.3 to mile 7.3. The cost of the completed work was $5,197,842, including $50,000 for preauthorization studies but ex- clusive of $200,000 estimated value of work performed by local interests in lieu of a cash contribution. The uncompleted portion of the project is considered to be inactive. The cost of this portion was last revised in 1961 and was estimated to be $170,000. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of September 3, 1954 (H. Doc. 452, 83d Cong., 2d sess.). Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the proj- ect authorization, including value of work performed in lieu of a cash contribution, amount to $1,124,000 (prices as of dates of com- pliance). Operations and results during fiscal year. As new work, ap- proximately 5,020 linear feet of concrete-lined channel, an access road, and remaining excavation, backfill, and fencing were accom- plished under a continuing contract to complete project construc- tion and, by hired labor, an operation and maintenance manual and final as-built drawings were initiated. The new-work cost dur- ing the fiscal year was $994,978 from regular funds. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project was completed in February 1962 except for bank stabilization in the upper 2 miles of the project channel, which is considered to be inactive. FLOOD CONTROL-SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1723 The cost of the existing project to the end of the fiscal year was $5,197,842, including $50,000 for preauthorization studies, but ex- clusive of $200,000 value of work performed by local interests in lieu of cash contribution. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 2 New work: Appropriated ..........$544,000 $1,368,000$1,050,000 $1,258,000 $787,790 $5,237,790 Cost................. 115,930 587,165 2,172,746 1,179,664 994,978 5,197,842 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 80, 1962 ............................ $2,115 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 2,115 SIncludes $50,000 for preauthorization studies. 2 Exclusive of $200,000 estimated value of new work performed by local interests in lieu of cash contribution. 23. SAN LORENZO RIVER, CALIF. Location. San Lorenzo River, in Santa Cruz County, Calif., flows in a general southeasterly direction from the Santa Cruz Mountains through the city of Santa Cruz where it enters Mon- terey Bay, about 65 miles south of San Francisco. Branciforte Creek joins the river from the left bank within the city of Santa Cruz. (See U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle, Ben Lomond.) Existing project. This provides for levees along San Lorenzo River from the mouth to the Freeway Bridge below river mile 2, thence channel improvement to the head of the project at river mile 2.4, with a concrete floodwall at the point; for channel im- provement and rectification of Branciforte Creek from its junc- tion with San Lorenzo River to mile 1.2; and for improvement of the interior drainage system; all within the city of Santa Cruz. The cost of new work under the project, completed in 1959, was $4,355,608, including $70,000 for preauthorization studies, but exclusive of $418,682 contributed by local interests. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of September 3, 1954 (H. Doc. 447, 83d Cong., 2d sess. as modi- fied by the Chief of Engineers). Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the proj- ect authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, amount to $2,600,000 (1959 price levels). Operations and results during fiscal year. As new work, an operation and maintenance manual and final as-built drawings were completed by hired labor at a cost of $2,445, of which $763 was from regular funds and $1,682 was from contributed funds. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project was completed in November 1959. The cost of the existing project to the end of the fiscal year was $4,774,290 for new work, of which $4,355,608 was from regular funds, including $70,000 for preauthorization studies, and $418,682 was from contributed funds. 1724 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated .......... $1,200,000 $2,482,000 $287, 845 $8,000 $763 $4,355,608 Cost .............. 1,272,918 2,536,842 287,845 8,000 763 4,355,608 1 Includes $70,000 for preauthorization studies. CONTRIBUTED FUNDS 24. OTHER AUTHORIZED FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS For last Cost to June 30, 1962 full report Estimated Cost Name of project see amount estimate Annual Operation required to (last date Report Construction and complete of revision) for- maintenance 1. Napa River above (Conn Creek Reser- voir) Suscol, Calif. 1 ............... .... .............. 2$100,000 '$100,000 2. Pajaro River, Calif.: a. Levees on Pajaro River and Cor- ralitos Creek............... 1950 $748,283 .......................... () b. Levee on Carnadero Creek....... 1950 ............................ 239,717 '39,717 3. Salinas River, Calif ................ 1952 '92,708 .............. 7,997,292 '8,090,000 1 Authorized by the Flood Control Act approved December 22, 1944, in accordance with H. Doec. 626, 78th Cong., 2d sess. Local interests subsequently constructed a reservoir for domes- tic water supply at the same site as that proposed by the United States for flood control. Remaining work authorized to be accomplished by the Federal Government consists of channel clearing. SImprovement inactive. Estimate of cost was last revised in 1954. s Completed. 4Includes engineering and design prior to June 30, 1952, and costs of $2,783 during fiscal year 1962 for initiation of a study to determine if project reclassification to an active category is justified. s Improvement to be restudied. Estimate of cost was revised in 1954. 25. INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FLOOD CONTROL WORKS Section 3 of the Flood Control Act approved June 22, 1936, as amended and supplemented, included the requirement that local interests maintain and operate flood-control works after comple- tion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, completed flood control projects transferred to local interests for operation and maintenance were inspected by hired labor at a cost of $1,460. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... $500 $458 $1,460 $1,500 $1,500 $9,468 Cost.................. 447 573 1,467 1,454 1,460 9,382 FLOOD CONTROL-SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1725 26. FLOOD CONTROL WORK UNDER SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION .Small flood-control projects not specifically authorized by Con- gress (Public Law 685, 84th Cong., July 11, 1956). During the fiscal year, engineering and design to determine the feasibility of constructing small flood control projects on the fol- lowing streams under authority of this act was accomplished by hired labor at a total cost of $31,679 for new work: East Weaver Creek, Trinity County, Calif........................ $470 Mad River, Humboldt County, Calif.................... ........ 17,215 Orr and Gibson Creeks, Mendocino County, Calif. ................. 1,026 Rodeo Creek, Contra Costa County, Calif.. ................. .... .5,272 Pinole Creek, Contra Costa County, Calif. ....................... 7,696 An operation and maintenance manual and final as-built draw- ings on the Rheem Creek, Calif., project, constructed under authori- ty of this act, were completed during the fiscal year at a new work cost of $1,223 from contributed funds. (See report on Rheem Creek, Serial No. 21, for project details.) Emergency flood control activities-repairand flood fighting and rescue work (Public Law 99, 84th Cong., 1st sess. and antecedent legislation). During the fiscal year, advance preparation for flood emergen- cies, flood fighting and rescue operations, and postflood reports were accomplished by hired labor at a cost of $22,891. 1726 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 27. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIF. Location. Santa Cruz County extends for a distance of about 40 miles along the Pacific Coast shoreline of California. The northern limit of the coastal boundary is about 50 miles south of the city of San Francisco. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Charts Nos. 5402 and 5403.) Existing project. This provides for Federal participation by contribution of funds toward the cost of constructing, at West Cliff Drive, 24 units of riprap seawall with an aggregate length of about 4,150 feet; at Twin Lakes Beach, a protective beach by placement of approximately 712,000 cubic yards of suitable sand along the eastern and western segments with a stone groin at Black Point at the east end of the eastern segment; at Cliff Drive in the vicinity of 49th Avenue, approximately 870 feet of riprap seawall; the Federal contribution to amount to one-third of the first costs applicable to the publicly owned portions of the shores plus 32.3 and 4.9 percent respectively of the first costs applicable to the privately owned shores at West Cliff Drive and Cliff Drive. The plane of reference is mean lower low water. The range of tide between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 5.3 feet. The extreme range is 10.5 feet. The latest approved estimate of cost for new work (1962) is $2,170,000, of which $710,000 is the Federal share and $1,460,000 is the non-Federal share. The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1958 (H. Doc. 179, 85th Cong., 1st sess., as modified by the Chief of Engineers). The latest published map is contained in the project document. Local cooperation. Federal participation in the project was authorized subject to the conditions that local interests: (a) Obtain approval by the Chief of Engineers, prior to commencement of work on any project, of detailed plans and specifications and arrangements for prosecution of the work on that project; (b) construct the riprap seawall along the affected Federal frontage on the east side of Point Santa Cruz; (c) provide at their own expense all necessary lands, easements, and rights-of-way; (d) control water pollution at Twin Lakes Beach to the extent necessary to safeguard the health of bathers; (e) assure maintenance of the protective measures during their useful lives, as may be required to serve their intended purpose, including replenishment, at suitable intervals, of the protective beach at Twin Lakes Beach; and (f) assure continued public ownership of the non-Federal publicly owned shores and their administration for public use during the useful lives of the projects. The State of California, through its representative agencies, the division of water resources and the division of beaches and parks, has indicated its willingness to comply with the requirements of local cooperation. The city of Santa Cruz under a tri-party agreement dated August 5, 1960, with the State of California and the United States for prosecution of work within the city limits of Santa Cruz, has programed 4-stage construction of the West Cliff Drive section of the project; has obtained approval by the Chief of Engineers of SHORE PROTECTION-SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1727 detailed plans and specifications for stage 1 and stage 2 construc- tion; has submitted for approval plans and specifications for stage 3 construction; has provided necessary lands, easements and rights- of-way; furnished assurances that they would maintain the protective measures during their useful lives; and, by contract, has completed stage 1 and stage 2 construction of West Cliff Drive seawalls. The city of Capitola has prepared plans for construction of sea- walls at Cliff Drive near 49th Street and has requested approval of the Chief of Engineers of plans and specifications for construc- tion of an initial unit totaling 200 feet in length, to be accomplished under a tri-party agreement between the city of Capitola, the State of California, and the United States. Operations and results during fiscal year. Under contracts awarded by the city of Santa Cruz, approximately 40,900 tons of stone were placed in 7 seawall units to complete stage 1 and stage 2 construction, comprising 19 seawall units with a total length of 3,150 linear feet. No Federal funds were expended during the fiscal year. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the West Cliff Drive section of the project, initiated in March 1961, is approxi- mately 50 percent complete. The entire project is about 17 percent complete. The work remaining to be done is stage 3 and 4 seawall construction in the West Cliff Drive section, beach fill and groin in the Twin Lakes section, and seawall construction at Cliff Drive in the vicinity of 49th Avenue. The total Federal cost of the existing project to the end of the fiscal year was $10,000 for the Federal share of preauthorization studies. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated.............. ... .......................................... $10,000 Cost................. .............. .... ................... 10,000 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ........................ $700,000 1 For preauthorization studies. Exclusive of $10,000 expended from contributed funds for preauthorization studies. 28. OTHER AUTHORIZED SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS For last Cost to June 30, 1962 full report Estimated Cost Name of project see amount estimate Annual Operation required to (last date Report Construction and complete of revision) for- maintenance 1. Humboldt Bay, Calif. ........ . 1958 2$2,000 .............. . 3$58,000 ,$60,000 1 Authorized by River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1958. No work has been accomplished under the project authorization. 2 Federal share of preauthorization study costs. 8Federal cost of participation. 1728 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 29. EXAMINATIONS AND SURVEYS During the fiscal year, hired labor and contract costs of $663,147 were incurred in the preparation of surveys, reviews, special studies, and cooperative studies, authorized by Congress for navigation, flood control, and beach erosion; and in hydraulic model studies of San Francisco Bay. The expenditures were $663,147, of which $657,950 was from regular funds and $5,197 was from contributed funds. The balance unexpended June 30, 1962, $75,447 including $8,786 contributed funds, together with an anticipated allotment for fiscal year 1963 of $623,500, a total of $698,947, will be applied as follows: Accounts payable, June 30, 1962 ........................... $22,231 Navigation and flood control surveys and review studies ...... 386,330 Cooperative beach erosion studies .......................... 8,786 Special study of San Francisco Bay, including continuation of model studies......................................... 255,600 Coordination studies with other agencies .................... 26,000 Total .................. ............................. 698,947 30. COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA During the fiscal year, hired labor costs of $353 were incurred for miscellaneous services in connection with flood plain informa- tion studies. 31. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT During the fiscal year, hired-labor costs of $4,509 were incurred for hydrologic studies. An anticipated allotment of $10,000 for fiscal year 1963 will be applied toward continuing hydrologic studies. IMPROVEMENT OF RIVERS AND HARBORS IN THE SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT This district comprises the basins of Suisun Bay and the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers, in California, and Goose Lake in Oregon; the basins of the Great Salt Lake and Sevier Lake, in Utah; and the intervening portion of the Great Basin in northern Nevada and northern California. IMPROVEMENTS Page Page Navigation Flood Control--Continued 1. Sacramento River, Calif. 1729 15. Merced River, Calif. .... 1788 2. Suisun Channel, Calif. ... 1738 16. Merced County stream 3. Suisun Bay Channel, Calif. 1740 group, Calif......... 1790 4. Old River, Calif. ........ 1742 17. Pine Flat Reservoir and 5. San Joaquin River, Calif.. 1745 Kings River, Calif. ... 1793 6. Stockton and Mormon 18. Kaweah and Tule Rivers, Channels (Diverting including Terminus and Canal), Calif ........ 1751 Success Reservoirs, 7. Other authorized naviga- Calif . .............. 1797 tion projects .......... 1753 19. Isabella Reservoir, Kern River, Calif........... 1803 Flood Control 20. Truckee River and tribu- 8. Sacramento River and trib- taries, Calif. and Nev. 1806 utaries, Calif., from 21. Gleason Creek, Nev .... 1809 Collinsville to Shasta 22. Weber River and tribu- Dam ................ 1754 taries, Utah .......... 1811 23. Little Dell Reservoir, Utah 1814 9. Oroville Reservoir, Feather River, Calif.......... 1763 24. Other authorized flood con- trol projects .......... 1816 10. Middle Creek, Calif. .... 1765 25. Inspection of completed 11. Comanche Reservoir, Calif. 1767 flood control works .... 1817 12. Walnut Creek, Calif. .... 1769 26. Flood control work under 13. Calaveras River and Little- special authorization .. 1818 john Creek and tribu- 27. Scheduling of flood control taries, including New operations ............ 1818 Hogan and Farmington Reservoirs, Calif....... 1772 General Investigations 14. Lower San Joaquin River 28. Surveys ............... 1820 and tributaries, includ- 29. Collection and study of ing Tuolumne and Stan- basic data ............ 1821 islaus Rivers, Calif .... 1779 30. Research and development 1821 1. SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIF. Location. Sacramento River rises in the Trinity Mountains in north-central California, flows in a general southerly direction about 374 miles and empties into Suisun Bay, an arm of San Francisco Bay, at Collinsville, Calif. (See U.S. Geological Survey topographic map of the Sacramento Valley, Calif.) Previousprojects. The original project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of March 3, 1875. The project was subsequently modified by the River and Harbor Acts adopted August 2, 1882, December 21, 1889, July 13, 1892, and August 18, 1894. For further details see page 1985, Annual Report for 1915, and page 1708, Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. The project provides for construction of the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel from deep water in Suisun Bay to Washington Lake, 11/2 miles west of the Sacramento 1729 1730 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 River at the city of Sacramento, a distance of 43 miles, construction of a harbor and turning basin at Washington Lake, and a connect- ing canal with navigation lock from the harbor to the Sacramento River. The project also provides for a shallow-draft channel 10 feet deep at mean lower low water, 150 to 200 feet bottom width, from Suisun Bay to Sacramento, Calif., 60 miles; a depth of 6 feet at low water between Sacramento and Colusa, 85 miles; a depth of 5 feet at low water between Colusa and Chico Landing 50 miles; and such depths as practicable between Chico Landing and Red Bluff, 50 miles, a total distance of 245 miles. The deepwater channel is being formed by widening and deep- ening existing channels for the first 18 miles above Suisun Bay to 6 miles above Rio Vista and excavation of a new channel for the remaining 25 miles to Washington Lake, to a depth of 30 feet at mean lower low water with a bottom width of 200 to 300 feet, including relating confining embankments. The triangular harbor and turning basin was formed by deepening and widening Wash- ington Lake to a depth of 30 feet at mean lower low water, 2,400 feet by 2,000 feet by 3,400 feet, with provision for future enlarge- ment. The 11 2 -mile long canal 13 feet deep and 120 feet wide between the harbor and the Sacramento River, together with the navigation lock provides for the transfer of barges between the two different water-surface elevations. A 135-foot span single leaf combination highway and railroad bascule bridge crosses the canal at the harbor end of the navigation lock. The following table shows the principal features of the lock: Distance to nearest town ................... In West Sacramento, Calif. Distance above mouth of river .............. 43 miles. Width of lock chamber .................... 86 feet. Greatest available length for full width ...... 600 feet.' Range of lifts ............................. to 21 feet. Depth on gate sill at mean lower low water . . 13 feet. Character of foundation ................... Varies from gravels to clays. Kind of dam .............................. None. Completed .............................. August 1961. Open to navigation ........................ December 1961.2 Estimated construction cost ................ $7,028,000, including 1/2 mile barge canal. 1 Includes 2 sector gates 451/2 feet high. 2 Limited operation until May 1963 when plug between harbor and channel is dredged. The deep-draft channel will provide access inland to Sacramento for oceangoing vessels and, in addition, will also be used for large amounts of barge shipping because its length is shorter than that of the river and because the greater depth and slack water will permit handling larger barges. It will serve an area covering northern California, southern Oregon, and western Nevada. These facilities will also be utilized by military installations in the area. Above Sacramento the results are to be obtained by removal of snags and concentration of the channel by dredging and wing dams and by streamflow regulation by the Shasta Reservoir. The 10-foot channel below Sacramento was completed in 1931 and the 6-foot channel between Sacramento and Colusa was completed in 1946; these channels are maintained for local navigation. Provision of RIVERS AND HARBORS - SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1731 the 5-foot depth between Colusa and Chico Landing (50 miles) has not been initiated. Construction of the shallow-draft channel is about 55 percent complete. Construction of the 30-foot deep water ship channel was initiated in July 1949; the overall project is about 80 percent complete. Based on the current scheduled provision of an operational facility for oceangoing vessels by June 30, 1963, this portion of the project is 84 percent complete. The following table shows the tidal and flood conditions prevailing: Range in feet Place mouth of river Mean Extreme Ordinary Extreme tidal 1 tidal 2 flood 3 flood . Collinsville....................... ................ 0 43 7 8 10 Sacran ento ...................................... 59 22.0 3 20 28 Verona (mouth of Feather River) ..................... 80 ....... . Trace 22 30 Colusa........................................... 144 ..................... 26 32 Chico Landing .................................. 193 ...................... 20 25 Red Fluff ....................................... 246 ..................... 24 30 1 Mean lower low water to mean higher high water. 2Tide at low water season only. SMean lower low water to flood stage. Extreme low water to indicated flood condition. The latest approved estimate of Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) for new work (July 1962) is $41,800,000 (exclusive of $300,000 Federal cost (Coast Guard) for navigation aids) for the 30-foot deep water ship channel and 13-foot deep connecting canal, and $1,070,000 for shallow-draft river channels, for construction, ex- clusive of amounts expended on previous projects. Federal maintenance of the deep-draft channel by the Corps of Engineers includes operation and maintenance of the ship chan- nel and harbor; maintenance of approximately 37 miles of levees between Cache Slough and Sacramento (including barge canal) due to cutting through established flood control levees; operation, maintenance, and replacements for the lock and bascule bridge; and maintenance due to wave wash of the spoil area between ship channel permanent right-of-way line and existing east levee of Yolo Bypass. Maintenance of the navigation aids will be accom- plished by the U.S. Coast Guard. The maintenance cost for the deep-draft channel, including costs for initial operation and maintenance of the lock and bridge, was $37,631 during fiscal year 1962; there were no other expenditures for maintenance on this project during the past 5 years. The average annual maintenance cost for the shallow-draft chan- nel during the past 5 years was $296,947, including minor expendi- ture of $306 from the appropriation for "Deferred Maintenance." Salinity control (reclamation of tidal areas) is considered to be inactive and has been excluded from the project description and the foregoing cost estimate. The cost of this project unit was last revised in July 1960 and was estimated to be $2 million plus Government costs, for construction. 1732 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 The existing project was authorizedby the following: Acts Work authorized Documents and reports Mar. 3, 1899 A depth of 7 feet below Sacramento ... .............. H. Doc. 186, 55th Cong., 2d sess, and 48, 55th Cong., 3d sess. (Annual Report, 1898, p. 2844 and 1899, p. 3171.) 1 July 25, 1912 For work above Sacramento ........................... H. Doc. 76, 62d Cong., 1st seas. Jan. 21, 1927 The 10-foot channel up to Sacramento............... H. Doc. 123, 69th Cong., 1st seas. Aug. 30, 1935 A depth of 6 feet between Sacramento and Colusa and 5 Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. feet between Colusa and Chico Landing, at a cost of 35, 73d Cong., 2d seas. $390,000 provided the flow of the river is increased to the minimum flow of 5,000 cubic feet per second after Shasta Reservoir is built. Do........ Authority for a special direct participation of the Federal Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. Government of $12,000,000 in the cost of Shasta Re- 35, 73d Cong., 2d sess. servoir. Aug. 26, 1937 Transfer of authority for expenditure of the above $12,- 000,000 from the Secretary of War to the Secretary of the Interior. July 24, 1946 Modification of the existing navigation project for Sacra- S. Doc. 142, 79th Cong., 2d sess. mento River. Calif., to provide for construction of a ship channel 30feet deep and 200 to 300 feet wide from deep water in Suisun Bay to Washington Lake, including such works as may be necessary to compensate for or to alleviate any detrimental salinity conditions resulting from the ship channel; a triangular basin of equal depth, 2,400 feet by 2,000 feet by 3,400 feet at Washington Lake; and connecting channel 13 feet deep and 120 feet wide, with lock and draw bridge, thence to Sacramento River. 1 This document contains latest published map of the section above Sacramento. For map of the section below Sacramento, see H. Doc. 1123, 60th Cong., 2d sess., and S. Doc. 142, 79th Cong., 2d sess. Recommended modification of project. House Document 272, 84th Congress, 2d session, recommended that the existing naviga- tion improvement on Sacramento River not be modified at this time to improve the navigability from Chico Landing to Red Bluff, and that a survey for navigation improvement not be undertaken at this time. Local cooperation. Local interests are represented by the Sacra- mento-Yolo Port District formed under the laws of the State of California as provided in Chapter 1152 of Statutes of 1947 for the purpose of carrying out the required local cooperation. As- surances from the Port District were accepted by the Secretary of the Army February 3, 1948, which provided that local interests would: (a) Furnish without cost to the United States all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and spoil-disposal areas for the initial work and subsequent maintenance when and as required and make all necessary utility changes necessary for the construction of the project; (b) construct, operate, and maintain at the Washington Lake basin an adequate public terminal with necessary utilities and rail and highway connections open to all on equal terms; and (c) hold and save the United States free from any damages which may arise from construction, operation, and maintenance of the im- provement. A bond issue of $3,750,000 was authorized by voters of the Port District in November 1947; bonds in the amount of $1,750,000 were sold prior to 1956, $1 million in November 1956, and $1 million in October 1958. These funds were utilized by the Port District for acquisition of rights-of-way and for port facilities. In addition, the California State Legislature appropriated $750,000 in 1947 to assist the acquisition of necessary rights-of-way. Legislation RIVERS AND HARBORS - SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1733 approved in 1958 (ch. 91, California Statutes of 1958) authorized the Port District to sell revenue bonds for construction of revenue- producing facilities. The revenue bond issues will be reserved for construction of specialized facilities at the port, part of which will consist of expansion of its grain elevator capacity from the present 875,000 bushels to 2 to 3 million bushels. An additional $9,850,000 in general obligation bonds was ap- proved by the voters in April 1961 for construction of basic termi- nal facilities; $7 million worth of these bonds were sold in July 1961. The remaining $2,850,000 worth of these bonds were sold during April 1962. Land had been acquired as necessary for disposal of dredged ma- terial at several locations adjacent to the project. The Port District has either acquired perpetual easements or owns the land in fee. All requirements for rights-of-way and utility relocations to date have been met; the Port District has indicated that it will meet such requirements for future construction programs. Total estimated cost for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non- Federal contributions, amounts to $14,643,000 (July 1962). These costs include: (a) $2,090,000 for lands and damages, and $1,610,000 for relocations prerequisite to Federal construction; and (b) $10,943,000 for provision of public terminals with the necessary utilities and rail and highway connections at Washington Lake. Commitments to date by the Port District amount to $8,037,000 and comprise $3,670,000 for rights-of-way and relocations and $4,367,000 for terminal facilities. In addition to the developments by the Port District, private interests have constructed and placed in operation facilities in the vicinity of the port which will make use of the project (including a rice growers' cooperative mill and warehouse, a cement plant, three warehouses, a highway-overpass entrance to the port termi- nal area, and miscellaneous facilities) at a total estimated cost of about $7 million. In order to permit passage of ocean-going vessels, the State of California has reconstructed the bridge across the Sacramento River at Rio Vista at an estimated cost of about $3,200,000. The sum of $500,000, advanced to the United States in June 1949 to accelerate construction, has been returned to the port authority. No local cooperation is required on the shallow-draft feature of the project. No work relating to shallow-draft navigation for the benefit of the public with funds other than Corps of Engineers funds is presently proposed. The Port District, Sacramento Northern Railway and Southern Pacific Railroad Co., executed an agreement March 22, 1962, providing the railroads with an interchange of track usage, making possible the removal of the Sacramento Northern Railway trestle crossing the ship channel near Lisbon. This agreement will avoid relocation and subsequent maintenance of 10 miles of railroad trackage. The Interstate Commerce Commission approved the application of Southern Pacific Railroad Co. for the railroad 1734 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 modification during June 1962; the Port Director expects to obtain removal of the Lisbon trestle by September 1, 1962. Operation and maintenance of terminal facilities and appurtenances are self liquidating. At its meeting of May 7, 1958, the Reclamation Board formally accepted maintenance responsibility of the existing east levee of Yolo Bypass and the spoil bank, other than as caused by wave wash, and of the toe drain and toe drain levee in Yolo Bypass along the west levee of the ship channel. Costs to local interests for this maintenance were either their responsibility under pre- project conditions or were taking the place of a preproject responsibility and are therefore not included in non-Federal costs. Terminal facilities. All of the piers, wharves, and docks at the port of Sacramento are open-pile structures with timber decks, some of which are designed to meet the extreme high waters at flood stages. Eleven facilities are located along the bank at Broderick, West Sacramento, and points below. All the main wharves at Sacramento have rail connections. Municipal-belt- railroad tracks serve the shedded wharves from the rear. Thirteen of the waterfront facilities are served by one or more of the four carriers operating in the port area. Two of the carriers are trunkline railroads and two are interurban lines operated for freight service; all traverse the rich agricultural areas and provide connections with other transcontinental and local carriers. All waterborne movements to and from the port are transported by tank and freight barges and will continue to be handle thusly until such time as the authorized deepwater ship channel is completed. All the preceding is for shallow-draft navigation. For full descrip- tion see "Port and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Stockton and Sacramento, Calif., 1951." Two grain elevators are located at the port. One, handling rice exclusively, is located on the river at West Sacramento, and is served by two wharves. The elevator, a warehouse, and storage bins .have a combined capacity of approximately 1 million 100-pound sacks of rice. Additional facilities are located near Lake Wash- ington, on the site of the new port development to be built upon completion of the deepwater channel. The port district grain elevator has a capacity of 875,000 bushels of barley, wheat, or other grains in its 12 concrete silos and 3 steel storage bins. A rice dryer, mill, and elevator, designed for direct conveyor-belt connection with seagoing vessels and a capacity of more than 400,000 100-pound bags of rice, and three warehouses have been placed in operation in this area by private interests. These facilities are all serviced by rail and highway facilities. A contract for construction of wharv0e and piers was awarded November 4, 1961, in amount of $1,763,000. Current schedules call for completions as follows: Pier 2, September 1962; pier 7 (with shed), November 1962; pier 1 (for bulk facilities), December 1962; pier 5 (for grain), January 1963; pier 6 (open wharf, February 1963. Temporary berthing and handling facilities will be provided by the Port District along the barge canal west of the lock to permit commercial use of the barge canal and lock without RIVERS AND HARBORS - SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1735 interference with construction operations on the permanent piers and wharves. In addition, a contract was awarded for a two-story administra- tion building, designed to permit later increase to four stories. The contract was awarded during February 1962 in amount of $464,400; completion is scheduled for October 1962. Between Sacramento and Colusa there are 10 large warehouses and numerous small landings. Several oil companies have made major capital investments for the storage of petroleum products in the vicinity of Colusa and Meridian. On the river channels at Sacramento there are 1,400 linear feet of wharves, 9 oil terminals, 1 cement-storage facility, 2 rice mills and 1 ship-repair yard. Be- tween Sacramento and Rio Vista there are five docks with barge- loading facilities and one grain elevator. Facilities at Rio Vista comprise 1,440 linear feet of wharves with warehouse facilities, two oil terminals, and one Government dock. There is one dock and warehouse at Tolands Landing and one feed yard and dock at Collinsville. The above facilities, except for the Government dock at Rio Vista are all owned and operated by private interests. The facilities below Sacramento, except at Rio Vista, are for shallow-draft navigation. They are considered adequate for exist- ing commerce. The total tonnage along the project channels, including the Port of Sacramento, in calendar year 1960 was 2,120,899 tons. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: There were no new work operations on the shallow-draft portion of the project. New work activities for the deep-draft channel to Sacramento included office engineering and design studies, and preparation of construction plans and specifications, all of which were accom- plished by hired labor. Dredging of the ship channel from mile 26.8 to mile 35.8, construction of the barge lock, and construction of the barge canal, initiated by continuing contracts in prior fiscal years, were completed. Dredging of the ship channel, miles 18.2 to 26.8, initiated by continuing contract in fiscal year 1961, was continued. The following construction was initiated and completed during the fiscal year, by contract: Stone protection for the barge canal and provision for fire protection for the lock sector gates. Construction of the permanent overlook in the vicinity of the barge canal and dock and service facilities was completed by contract except for minor cleanup. In addition, dredging of the ship channel, mile 0 to mile 14.1, Suisun Bay to Egbert Tract, was initiated by continuing contract. In addition, construction was accomplished for the Sacramento- Yolo Port District at its expense in connection with acquisition of rights-of-way and utility alterations. Maintenance: Deep-draft channel-limited maintenance and operation on weekdays of the barge canal and lock was initiated during December 1961 for the purpose of accommodating barge traffic between the deep-water harbor and points along the upper Sacramento River. Shallow-draft channel-Condition surveys of the channel at various locations and miscellaneous inspections and reports were 1736 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 accomplished by hired labor. Removal of snags along Sacramento River between Colusa and Verona was also accomplished by hired labor. Dredging shoals in Sacramento River between Sacramento and Colusa, by hired labor and rented clamshell dredge, resulted in the removal of 67,300 cubic yards of material. In addition, dredging at Bryte Bend and Sacramento Harbor between the mouth of American River and Y Street Bend, by contract suction dredge, resulted in the removal of 692,700 cubic yards of material. Total costs for all work during the fiscal year were as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total Regular: draft Shallow .......... .. .............................. .$.. .$496,556 $496,556 -IE Deep draft.......................................... $5,729,115 137,631 5,766,746 Total United States funds...... ................... 5,729,115 534,187 6,263,302 Contributed.............. ......................... . 225,820 ................ 25,820 Total all funds ............... .................. 5,754,935 534,187 6,289,122 1 For initial operation and maintenance of barge canal lock and bascule bridge. 2 For deep draft. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the 7-foot shallow-draft channel below Sacramento was initiated in Septem- ber 1899 and completed in 1904. The modified 10-foot shallow-draft channel up to Sacramento was initiated in fiscal year 1928 and completed in 1931. The shallow-draft channel above Sacramento was initiated in April 1946. New work on the shallow-draft chan- nel is about 55 percent complete. The work remaining to complete the shallow-draft portion of the project is the provision of a 5-foot depth between Colusa and Chico Landing (50 miles), subject results to be obtained by removal of snags, construction of wing dams, concentration of the channel by temporary works, and streamflow regulation of 5,000 second-feet by operation of Shasta Reservoir. Construction of the 30-foot deepwater ship channel, under the modification approved July 24, 1946, was initiated in July 1949, and is about 80 percent complete. Based on current scheduled provision of an operational facility for ocean-going vessels by June 1963, this portion of the project is 84 percent complete. Construc- tion of road, railroad, and levee embankments in the harbor area and excavation of the ship channel together with necessary levee reconstruction, mile 14.1 to 17.8, were completed prior to suspen- sion of construction due to the Korean conflict in accordance with Presidential directive dated July 21, 1950. Construction was resumed in fiscal year 1956. The bascule bridge, barge canal and lock have been completed and are in service. Channel dredging necessary to provide the operational facility for oceangoing vessels by June 1963 is about 80 percent complete. Status of remaining channel dredging is as follows: (a) Mile 18.2 to 26.8 and removal of plugs at miles 36 and 41, initiated by continuing contract in fiscal year 1961, 64 percent complete; and (b) mile 0 to 14.1, Suisun Bay to Egbert Tract, initiated by continuing contract late in fiscal year 1962, 5 percent complete. These contracts are scheduled for completion in June 1963. Work remaining to cornm- RIVERS AND HARBORS - SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1737 plete the deep-draft portion of the project is completion of work underway, bank protection, and levees. Final shaping (stage construction) of ship channel levees (mile 18.6 to 22.4) can only be undertaken as foundation conditions permit. Bank protection requirements cannot be determined until after the ship channel is placed in operation. Completion of the shallow-draft channel is indefinite. Recreational use of the Sacramento River and adjacent water- ways has increased measurably in the past year and involves several thousand small craft. Although no record is available as to the number of persons or small craft using the waterways, it is considered to be probably in excess of 3 million visitor-days annually. The controlling low-water-season depths were as follows: From the mouth of the river to Cache Slough, 20 feet; mouth of Cache Slough to Sacramento, 10 feet; thence to Colusa, 6 feet; thence to Sidds Landing, 3 feet; and thence to Red Bluff, head of navigation, 1.5 feet. The channel is navigable during the entire year; however, there is no regular navigation above Colusa, 145 miles above the mouth of the river. Minimum dredging necessary to maintain the shallow-draft channel to Sacramento and from Sacramento to Colusa has been performed. Annual maintenance dredging is required in both sections of the shallow-draft channel to remove accumulated shoals caused by settlement of flood-borne sand and silt to provide project depths in satisfactory condition to accommodate navigation requirements. The shallow-draft channel provides a satisfactory navigation chan- nel that accommodates the using traffic throughout most of the year. Any less dredging would be unsatisfactory. The required annual dredging has become of increased importance because in recent years the trend has been toward increased tonnage and larger vessels. Construction of the deep-water ship channel involves modifica- tion of the flood-control levee system which results in a requirement for the United States to maintain approximately 37 miles of levee. The total costs for the existing project to June 30, 1962, were as follows: Funds Freauthorization New work Maintenance Total studies United States: Shallow-draft: Regularappropriations .......... $7,000 $585,436 $8,663,664 $9,256,100 Deferred maintenance............ ................ .............. 70,000 70,000 Total shallow-draft ............... 7,000 585,436 8,733,664 9,326,100 30-footchannel..................... 92,000 32,609,597 225,471 32,927,068 TotalU.S......................... 99,000 33,195,033 8,959,135 42,253,168 Contributed, other (30-foot channel) ..................... 320,423................ 320,423 Total funds................... . all . 99,000 33,515,456 8,959,135 42,573,591 1 Miscellaneous construction (nonproject) accomplished for the Sacramento-Yolo Port Dis- trict at its expense in connection with excavation of the ship channel and necessary levee- reconstruction cost. 1738 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... 2,050,000 $6,540,000 $7,299,800 $7,000,000 $4,790,000 1$33,898,192 Cost .................. 1,349,931 7,263,918 7,751,240 5,657,660 5,729,115 33,479,231 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... 95,097 374,209 287,902 236,950 536,010 39,520,966 Cost.................. 492,185 359,627 211,359 325,012 534,187 '9,512,855 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $87,011 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 ....... .................. 5,910,000 Unobligated balance available for year ending June 30, 1963 ............... 5,997,011 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project .................... 2,769,442 1Includes the following amounts for new work: Previous project, regular appropriations, $185,198; existing project-general investigations appropriation for preauthorization studies, $7,000 for shallow draft and $92,000 for deep-draft; regular appropriations for construc- tion, $585,436 for shallow draft and $33,028,558 for deep draft. SIncludes the following amounts for new work: Previous project, regular appropriations, $185,198; existing project--general investigations appropriation for preauthorization studies, $7,000 for shallow draft and $92,000 for deep draft; regular appropriations for construction, $585,436 for shallow draft and $32,609,597 for deep draft. S Includes the following amounts for maintenance: Previous project, regular appropria- tions, $553,720; existing project-regular appropriations $8,671,775 for shallow draft and $225,471 for deep draft; and deferred maintenance appropriations, $70,000 for shallow draft. 4Includes deferred maintenance funds for existing shallow draft in amount of $306. s Includes the following amounts for maintenance: Previous project, regular appropriations, $553,720; existing project-regular appropriations, $8,663,664 for shallow draft and $225,471 for deep draft; and deferred maintenance appropriations, $70,000 for shallow draft. CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... 75,000 .... . $40,000 . ..... $21,000. ... $336,000 Cost................. 15,995 $2,466 70,419 28,322 $25,820 320,423 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ........................ $1,165 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 1,165 1 Miscellaneous construction and engineering and design services (nonproject) accomplished at the expense of the Sacramento-Yolo Port District in connection with acquisition of rights-of-way and utility alterations. 2. SUISUN CHANNEL, CALIF. Location. Suisun Channel is the project channel in Suisun Slough, a tidal inlet with its mouth on the northwest side of Suisun Bay, about 7 miles northeast of Benicia and 36 miles northeast of San Francisco. The head of navigation is at the city of Suisun, about 13 miles north of the mouth. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 5534.) Existing project. This provides for dredging a channel 8 feet deep at mean lower low water from Suisun Bay to and in the basin at the city of Suisun, about 13 miles in length, straightened by four cutoffs in the upper portion; channel widths to be 200 feet in the bar channel 100 feet in the cutoffs, and a minimum of 125 feet in the remaining parts of the project channel; widening four bends located 5, 51/2, 71/2 and 121/2 miles below Suisun; the removal of ledge rock from the channel at a localion about 31/2 miles below Suisun; and a 1,400- by 150-foot harbor at Suisun, with an exten- sion for a turning basin 275 feet wide and 600 feet long. The range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is RIVERS AND HARBORS - SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1739 about 5 feet during the low-water season, with an extreme range of 10 feet. The total Federal cost of new work for the project, completed in 1947, was $217,677. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $19,926. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents June 25, 1910 To secure a channel up to Suisun, 6 feet deep at low water, H. Doc. 1110, 60th Cong., 2d sess. by dredging and making a cutoff just below the town. Mar. 4, 1913 Pursuant to this act the project was modified by the Assistant Secretary of War to provide for dredging a channel 125 feet wide on the bottom and 6 feet deep, mean lower low water, up to and including a harbor 6 feet deep, 150 feet wide, and 1,400 feet long in front of the town of Suisun, and the removal of rock about 34Y miles below the head of navigation. Aug. 26, 1937 Depth of 8 feet with a width of 200 feet in the bar channel Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. and 100 feet in cutoffs: widening four bends below 97, 74th Cong., 2d sess. (contains Suisun; removal of ledge rock and extension of the latest published map). harbor at Suisun to provide a turning basin. Local cooperation. Local interests were required to furnish free of cost to the United States all necessary rights-of-way and suitable spoil-disposal areas for new work and subsequent maintenance, undertake any necessary reconstruction of the powerline crossing over the proposed cutoff near Suisun, and provide at Suisun adequate public-terminal facilities subject to the approval of the Chief of Engineers. Total costs for all requirements of local cooperation (exclusive of terminal facilities) under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contri- butions, amounted to approximately $36,700. Included were rights- of-way costing $4,900 for the 1910 authorization and rights-of-way and utility relocations costing $31,800 for the 1937 authorization. In addition to the construction of warehouses and wharves, local interests expended more than $8,000 prior to 1936 for dredging outside the limits of the project and for the purpose of improving the harbor at Suisun. A new $15,000 grain warehouse and addi- tional oil-storage tanks valued at $4,000 were erected during 1935. The oil-terminal plant was valued at $50,000 in June 1935. Addi- tional grain-handling facilities and more storage for petroleum products have been constructed subsequent to the 1937 authoriza- tion. The overall value of harbor facilities amounts to about $250,000 (1960). Additional public terminals are not required by the public at this time. Terminal facilities. There are three wharves in the city of Suisun, with a total of 600 feet of berthing space. There is also warehouse space of 33,500 square feet, and an oil-storage terminal. These are all privately owned and operated and are considered adequate for existing commerce. Land has been purchased, financ- ing arranged, and plans have been prepared for construction of additional public-terminal facilities at such time as the need becomes apparent. Certain facilities are in use for military pur- poses. The total tonnage through the channel in calendar year 1960 was 279,001 tons. 1740 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Operationsand results during fiscal year. Maintenance: Opera- tions during the year consisted of condition and operation studies by hired labor. Total costs during the fiscal year for maintenance were $394. Condition at end of fiscal year. The construction of new work was initiated in March 1912; improvement of the channel modi- fication authorized in 1937 was initiated in May 1946, and com- pleted in June 1947. The channel is navigable during the entire year; head of navigation is in the city of Suisun, Calif., about 400 feet above Sacramento Street. The controlling depth is 8 feet in the channel and harbor basin at mean lower low water. Mainte- nance dredging is required to remove accumulated shoals to assure adequate project depths, to accommodate general navigation and defense transportation requirements. The Delta Region of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River systems, together with Suisun Bay and associated waterways, is within reach of the large population in and about the San Francisco Bay Area. Recreational use of these waterways involves several thousand small craft. No record has been maintained of persons or small craft using Suisun Channel; however, it is considered to be substantial. Total costs for the project to June 30, 1962, were $454,549, of which $217,677 was for new work and $236,872 for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated......... ...... .... .......... .. ........ ... ................. $217,677 Cost................................. .... 217,677 Maintenance: Appropriated... ....... $5,477 $1,428 $87,524 $5,200 236,872 Cost .................. 5,477 1,428 31,232 61,098 $394 236,872 3. SUISUN BAY CHANNEL, CALIF. Location. Suisun Bay is about 30 miles northeast of San Fran- cisco, Calif., and is an integral part of the waterways which provide access to the Pacific Ocean from inland ports of California. Sacra- mento and San Joaquin Rivers flow to a junction and empty into Suisun Bay near Collinsville, and New York Slough, a distributary of San Joaquin River, leads to the head of Suisun Bay at Pittsburg, Calif. The city of Sacramento is situated on the Sacramento River about 60 miles north of Collinsville; access to the city has been provided by the 10-foot shallow-draft channel along the river route. Sacramento River deep-water ship channel, currently under construction, will provide deep-draft access to Sacramento. (For details see Improvement No. 1, "Sacramento River, Calif.") The city of Stockton is on the San Joaquin River about 40 miles above Pittsburg and access to the city has been provided by Stockton deep-water channel. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 5534.) Previous project. Adopted by River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1919. For further details, see page 1756 of Annual Report for 1920, page 1562 of Annual Report for 1926, and page 1714 of Annual Report for 1938. RIVERS AND HARBORS - SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1741 Existing project. This provides for a channel 300 feet wide and 30 feet deep through Bulls Head, Point Edith, and Middle Ground Shoals to the mouth of New York Slough, a distance of about 13 miles, and for a channel 250 feet wide and 20 feet deep south of Seal Island from the main channel at Point Edith, mile 3, to the main channel again at Port Chicago, mile 6. All depths refer to mean lower low water. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is about 6 feet. The extreme range is about 9.5 feet. The total Federal cost of new work for the existing project, completed in 1934, exclusive of work accomplished under the public works program as part of the San Joaquin River 30-foot project, was $142,026. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $68,442. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents 1 Jan. 21, 1927 For a 26-foot channel through the bay .................. H. Doc. 554, 68th Cong., 2d seas. July 3, 1930 The 30-foot channel across Bulls Head Point Shoal and Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. for the 20-foot channel south of Seal Islands. 23, 71st Cong., 2d sess. Aug. 30, 1935 2 A 30-foot channel through Bulls Head Point, Point Edith, Senate committee print, 73d Cong., and Middle Ground Shoals to the mouth of New York 1st seas. (San Joaquin River and Slough. Stockton Channel, Calif.). 1The 2 latest published map is in Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. 4, 70th Cong., 1st sess. Included in the Public Works Administration program, Sept. 6, 1933. Local cooperation. Under the previous project adopted by the River and Harbor Act approved March 2, 1919, local interests contributed $65,000, of which $59,551 was expended as required contributed funds toward first cost of the project; the balance amounting to $5,449 was expended for maintenance of the previ- ous project. Local interests were also required to provide storage room for dredged material and to build the necessary impound- ing levees, which were subsequently utilized under the existing project. The River and Harbor Act approved January 21, 1927, adopted the existing project and also the 26-foot channel under improve- ment 5, San Joaquin River, Calif. Under this authorization, the local cooperation requirements pertained to work for San Joaquin River. Under the provisions of the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1930, local interests were required to contribute $20,000, the entire estimated cost of deepening the channel across Bulls Head Point Shoal to 30 feet. This requirement was voided by inclusion of this work in the public works program and subsequently adopted by the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1935. Terminal facilities. Along the channel between the western end of the bay and mouth of New York Slough, there are three wharves, all privately owned and used. Also, a naval magazine with wharves and warehouses has been constructed at Port Chicago, on the southern shore (mile 6). These facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. The total tonnage in the channel in calendar year 1960 was 9,870,963 tons, of which 5,086,340 tons was through traffic. 1742 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance: Opera- tions during the year accomplished by hired labor included pre- liminary surveys, miscellaneous inspections and reports, and condition surveys. The Government-owned hopper dredge Davison was utilized to remove 183,600 cubic yards of material in mainte- nance dredging between lower end of Bulls Head Shoal and upper end of Middle Ground Shoal. Total costs for maintenance during the fiscal year were $85,870. Condition at end of fiscal year. New work under the existing project was initiated in June 1930, and completed in 1934; a portion of this work was accomplished under the public works program. The portion of the existing project authorized prior to the public works program was completed in 1931 except for deepening the 26-foot channel across Bulls Head Point to 30 feet; this portion was subsequently included in the public works program. Work under the public works program was accomplished during 1933 and 1934. The channel is navigable during the entire year and provides access to San Francisco Bay from the navigation channels of San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers. The Delta Region of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers together with Suisun Bay and associated waterways is within reach of the large population of the San Francisco Bay area. Although no record is available of the numbers of craft or persons participating, recreational use is considered substantial. The controlling depth at mean lower low water in the main channel is 30 feet, and in the channel south of Seal Island is 20 feet. The project has been maintained in a con- dition to satisfy general and defense navigation requirements. Annual dredging is required to maintain the project depth and width in a satisfactory manner without undue interference to essential general and defense navigation requirements. Total costs for the existing project to June 30, 1962, exclusive of the work performed under the public works program at a cost of $1,537,878 as a part of the San Joaquin River 30-foot project, were of which $142,027 was for new work and $1,395,851 for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 1 2 New work: Appropriated .......... ........... ....... .. ............ . .... ........... a$200,928 Cost.. ............. ........ ..... ... ..... ................... 3200,928 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... . $31,227 $73,140 $81,750 $70,250 $85,843 1,455,668 Cost ........... ...... 31,227 73,140 81,732 70,241 85,870 1,455,668 21 Includes $58,901 for new work and $59,817 for maintenance for previous projects. In addition, $59,551 for new work and $5,449 for maintenance was expended from re- quired contributed funds for the previous project. 3 Exclusive of work accomplished under existing project at a cost of $207,198 from Public Works Administration funds allotted to San Joaquin River, Calif. 4. OLD RIVER, CALIF. Location. Old River is the most westerly branch of the inter- connecting tidal channels into which San Joaquin River divides in crossing its delta. It leave the main river 214 miles down-stream from the Mossdale State Highway Bridge, or 1312 miles above the RIVERS AND HARBORS - SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1743 mouth of Stockton Channel, and flows westerly and northerly 32 miles to its lower confluence with the main river 23 miles above its mouth in Suisun Bay. Existing project. The authorized project extends along Old River from its mouth near Venice Island to its source in the San Joaquin River near Mossdale and provides for a side channel 10 feet deep and 80 feet wide to Santa Fe wharves and Phillips can- nery at Orwood; for channels 10 feet deep and 100 feet wide in Grant Line Canal west of Doughty Cut, 10 feet deep and 80 feet wide from the westerly end of Doughty Cut to the Holly Sugar Factory, 2 miles north of Tracy, 8 feet deep and 80 feet wide from the southerly end of Doughty Cut to head of Old River, and 6 feet deep and 80 feet wide in Old River from the westerly end of Grant Line Canal to Lammers Ferry Road; and for entrances 8 feet deep and 80 feet wide to Fabian-Bell Canal at its westerly end and also westerly of Grant Line Bridge. All depths are referred to mean lower low water. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water at the head of Old River is about 3 feet; and at its mouth about 5.5 feet; ordinary flood ranges are, 16 and 8 feet respectively; extreme flood ranges are 20 and 11 feet, respectively. The Federal cost of new work for the completed portion was $23,185. Work accomplished in fiscal year 1939 included removal of snags and other obstructions in Old River channel from its head in San Joaquin River to Grant Line Canal and dredging in the channels of Grant Line Canal, Crocker Cut and Doughty Cut. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $14,243. The uncompleted portion of the project (comprising completion of the project channels up to and at Orwood; in Fabian-Bell Canal; in Grant Line Canal; from Grant Line Canal to the head of Old River in San Joaquin River; and in the original channel of Old River from Grant Line Canal up to Lammers Ferry Road) is considered to be inactive and has been excluded from the fore- going cost estimate. The cost of this portion was last revised in July 1954, and was estimated to be $62,815. The existing project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of August 26, 1937 (H. Doc. 151, 75th Cong., 1st sess.). This document contains the latest published map. Local cooperation. Local interests were required to furnish without cost to the United States all necessary rights-of-way and suitable spoil-disposal areas for new work and for subsequent maintenance as necessary, and to agree to provide public landings satisfactory to the Chief of Engineers on each side of the proposed channel in the Old River near Lammers Ferry Road and on the Fabian-Bell Canal west of Grant Line Bridge. Spoil-disposal areas have been provided for those channels so far completed; existing commerce does not indicate a need for the public landing on the Fabian-Bell Canal west of Grant Line Bridge. Total costs for all requirements to date of local cooperation for the completed portion of the project under terms of the project author- ization, including required non-Federal contributions, amounted to about $3,600 (1939). 1744 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 The uncompleted portion of the project is considered to be in- active and no work is contemplated thereon in the foreseeable future owing to an indicated lack of demand for the facility. Terminal facilities. The Santa Fe Railroad has a warehouse and wharf at Orwood for transfer of farm produce from boat to rail. The Phillips Cannery at Orwood has similar facilities. The Holly Sugar Co. Refinery and terminal near Tracy has a large wharf and an unloading basin with three mechanical unloading and conveying units connecting with a warehouse; there is also a passing basin one-half mile downstream. There are about 100 private bank land- ings along the project channels; some have sheds for storage. These are all privately owned and operated. Existing commerce does not indicate a need for provision of public landings. The total tonnage through the channels of the project in calendar year 1960 was 170,536 tons. Operation and results during fiscal year. Maintenance: Opera- tions during the year consisted of condition studies and mis- cellaneous inspections and reports, including maintenance of gages and gage readings by hired labor. Total costs during the fiscal year were $5,683 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. New work was accomplished in fiscal year 1939 in Old River channel from its head in San Joaquin River to Grant Line Canal and in the channels of Grant Line Canal, Crocker Cut, and Doughty Cut. Existing commerce does not indicate a need for completion of the remaining channel con- struction. The channel is navigable during the entire year and provides the only avenue of water transportation from the delta islands to certain agricultural processing plants. The project has been maintained in a condition to satisfy general navigation re- quirements. It is necessary to perform annual maintenance dredg- ing to maintain full channel dimensions in order to accommodate the using traffic. The two heads of navigation are at the head of Old River in San Joaquin River, and at the Holly Sugar Factory wharf, 2 miles north of Tracy. The controlling depths at the end of the fiscal year were: From the mouth of the river to Orwood, 11 miles, 10 feet; thence to the lower end of Grant Line Canal, 10 miles, 10 feet; thence: (a) to Holly Sugar Factory near Tracy, 5 feet (low water season), or (b) to head of Old River in San Joaquin River, 5 feet (low-water season). All depths refer to mean lower low water. Recreational use of this and adjacent waterways involves thou- sands of small craft and, although no record is available as to number of persons or small craft using the delta waterways, it is substantial and probably in excess of 3 million visitor-days an- nually. As a consequence of the amount of recreational traffic that uses this channel and interconnecting sloughs the adjacent banks and levees are eroding from wave wash in many sections of the chan- nel. Total costs for the project to June 30, 1962, were $393,188, of which $23,185 was for new work and $370,003 for maintenance. RIVERS AND HARBORS - SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1745 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.......... ............. .......... ........ .......... $23,185 Cost ........... ...... ...... . ... .................... 23,185 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... $39,720 $12,311 $3, 700 $9,850 $10,261 374,630 Cost .................. 39,720 12,311 3,587 9,915 5,683 370,003 Other new work data: Estimated additional amount needed to complete project .......................... (1) 1 Exclusive of the uncompleted portion of the project, which is considered to be inactive. The cost of this portion is $62,815 (July 1954 index). 5. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER, CALIF. Location. San Joaquin River rises in east-central California in the Sierra Nevada about 25 miles southeast of the Yosemite Valley and flows southwesterly to the town of Mendota, thence northerly to its confluence with Sacramento River about 48 miles northeast of San Francisco to empty into Suisun Bay near Collins- ville, Calif. Total length of the river is about 340 miles. Near the mouth, a distributary channel, New York Slough, 3 miles long, leads to the head of Suisun Bay at Pittsburg; thence a deep channel extends through this bay and others to San Francisco. The city of Stockton is on the east side of San Joaquin River about 40 miles above Pittsburg and access to the city has been provided by Stock- ton Channel, an artificial cut extending from the river about 21/4 miles into the city. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey sheet No. 5527.) Existing project. The San Joaquin River project for navigation was authorized in numerous River and Harbor Acts since 1876. It provides for the Stockton deep water channel to the city of Stockton and for minor channel improvements from Stockton Channel upstream for 86 miles to Hills Ferry to facilitate light- draft navigation. The 1927 River and Harbor Act authorized the original deep water channel with a depth of 26 feet, which was sub- sequently modified to 30 feet by the 1935 authorization, and the most recent modification of the project was authorized by the 1950 River and Harbor Act. This improvement provides for: (a) A channel 30 feet deep at mean lower low water and channel bottom width of 400 feet below Criminal Point (near river mile 25) and 225 feet above that point, from mouth of New York Slough to Mormon Channel at Stockton, a distance of 41 miles (suitably widened at bends and at entrances to New York Slough and to channels through shoals, with levees set back 230 feet from center of the channel); (b) a channel 30 feet deep and 150 feet wide from the existing turning basin to Weber Point, 1 mile; (c) a 9-foot depth, thence to head of naviga- tion at Center Street, one-half mile; (c) a 9-foot depth at Fremont Channel and McLeod Lake, arms of Stockton Channel; (e) a channel 9 feet deep and 100 feet wide in Mormon Channel from its mouth to Washington Street, head of navigation, about 1 mile; (f) suitable passing basins and a turning basin 30 feet deep, 960 feet wide and 1,100 to 1,900 feet long at Stockton; (g) a triangular- 1746 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 shaped settling basin 30 feet deep and average side length of about 1,000 feet at the San Joaquin River just above its junction with the deep-water channel (mile 42) and a second settling basin 30 feet deep, 100 feet wide and 1,200 feet long adjoining the deep water channel at the mouth of Calaveras River; (h) reconstruction to grade and section of about 4,000 feet of levee along north side of Venice Island Cut, and setting back of levees where required for channel improvements and placement of bank protection on face of such levees along San Joaquin River below Stockton as have been critically damaged by traffic-induced wave action; (i) cutting off sharp bends and making cutoffs in the river; (j) filling Mormon Channel and Mormon Slough above Washington Street with dredge spoil insofar as is economically feasible; (k) partial closing of side channels at Laird Slough and Paradise Cut by weirs to confine the low-waterflow to one main channel; and (1) snagging, removing overhanging trees, and constructing brush wing dams from the mouth of Stockton Channel to Hills Ferry, 86 miles, to facilitate light-draft navigation on this part of the river during higher stages of water. The following table shows the tide and flood conditions prevail- ing: Range in feet Miles from Place mouth of river Mean Extreme Ordinary Extreme tidal tidal ' flood flood Collinsville ........ . ........................ 0 5.8 7.0 8 10 Mouth of Stockton Channel ......................... 40 3.2 4.5 9 11 Mossdale Bridge ................................... 56 1.5 2.5 17 22 Hills Ferry ...................................... 126 .......... .......... .. 12 16 SMean lower low water to mean higher high water. The Federal cost for new work, completed in May 1960, is as follows: Estimated cost Modification Corps of Coast Guard Engineers (construction) (construction) Prior to 1950 modification .............................................. $4,009,938 $80,000 1950 modification .... ................................................ 11,876,179 ............. Total ............................................................. $5,886,117 $80,000 1 Includes $53,000 for preauthorization studies. Construction of the settling basin on San Joaquin River above the head of Burns Cutoff (1950 modification) is considered to be inactive and has been excluded from the project description and the foregoing cost estimate. The cost of this project unit was last revised in July 1959 and was estimated to be $1,150,000 for con- struction. The uncompleted units under the 1950 modification (Burns Cutoff Improvement, including railroad and highway bridge; new turning basin; enlargement of Upper Stockton Channel; and dredg- RIVERS AND HARBORS - SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1747 ing Mormon Channel) are to be restudied and have also been ex- cluded from the project description and the foregoing cost estimate. The Federal cost of these units was last revised in July 1960 and was estimated to be $8,387,000 comprising $4,000 for lands and $8,383,000 for construction. Maintenance of the channel to project depths after completion is the responsibility of the Federal Government. The average an- nual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $136,605. Maintenance of utilities and of existing and new levees is the responsibility of local interests. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Aug. 14, 1876 These acts provided for cutting of sharp bends and making Mar. 3, 1881 cutoffs in San Joaquin River below the mouth of Stock- July 5, 1884 ton Channel; dredging Mormon Channel; snagging, re- Aug. 11, 1888 moving obstructions, and constructing wing dams in July 13, 1892 San Joaquin River from Stockton Channel to Hills Ferry; Aug. 18, 1894 and the partial closing of side channels at Laird Slough June 3, 1896 and Paradise Cut, without adopting any specific di- mensions. June 25, 1910 A 9-foot channel up to Stockton .................... H. Doc. 1124, 60th Cong., 2d sess. July 25, 1912 Improvement of Fremont Channel and McLeod Lake at H. Doc. 581, 62d Cong., 2d sess. Stockton. Jan. 21, 1927 A 26-foot channel up to Stockton ................... H. Doc. 554, 68th Cong., 2d sess.' Aug. 30, 1935 2 The original 30-foot channel up to Stockton............ Senate committee print, 73d Cong. 1st sess. Aug. 26, 1937 The widened 30-foot channel up to Stockton............ Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. 15, 75th Cong., 1st sess. May 17, 1950 Modification of the navigation project to provide for con- H. Doc. 752, 80th Cong., 2d sess. struction of a new turning basin adjacent to Rough and Ready Island; widen existing turning basin at Stockton; enlargement of Stockton Channel between existing turning basin and Weber Point; construction of leveed channel, as necessary, around Rough and Ready Island, including construction of a combination railroad and highway bridge; dredging a settling basin on San Joaquin River above the head of Burns Cutoff; elimination of dredging of a portion of Mormon Channel; filling of a portion of Mormon Channel and Mormon Slough; and for levee changes and levee protective works below Stockton. 1 Contains latest published maps. 2 Included in the Public Works Administration program, Sept. 6, 1933. Local cooperation. Local interests are represented by Stockton Port District formed under the laws of the State of California as provided in chapter 1028 of the Statutes of 1931 for the purpose of providing the required local cooperation. All requirements for work accomplished under authorization of the River and Harbors Acts through August 26, 1937, and for the completed portion of the 1950 modification have been complied with. Authority was granted October 12, 1954, by the Comptroller of the Army for acceptance of funds to be contributed by the Port of Stockton progressively as the project is constructed. In No- vember 1954, $35,000 was contributed toward the enlargement of the turning basin at Stockton. Completed units of bank protection accomplished under this modification have been transferred to the Port District for maintenance. Total costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal con- tributions, are as follows: 1748 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Estimated costs ' Unit Required Lands and cash con- damages Total tribution (including relocations) River and Harbor Acts through August 26, 1937 ............. $1,307,500 $1,042,000 $2,349,500 1950 Modification (active portion) ......................... 35,000 135,000 170,000 ............... Totals .......................... 1,342,500 1,177,000 2,519,500 1 In addition to the above, local interests costs for Stockton deep water channel, and for terminal facilities required under terms of the project authorization, amounted to $5,865,000 (February 1954). In addition, private interests invested approximately $740,000 (February 1954) in facilities at the port. Construction of the settling basin on San Joaquin River above the head of Burns Cutoff (1950 modification) is considered to be inactive and has been excluded from the project description and the foregoing cost estimate. The cost of this project unit was last re- vised in July 1959 and was estimated to be $230,000, comprising $30,000 required cash contribution for construction and an ad- ditional outlay of $200,000 for lands and relocations. The remaining uncompleted units under the 1950 modification (Burns Cutoff improvement, including railroad and highway bridge; new turning basin; enlargement of Upper Stockton Chan- nel; and dredging Mormon Channel) are to be restudied and have also been excluded from the project description and the foregoing cost estimate. The cost of these units was last revised in July 1960 and was estimated to be $1,934,000, comprising $465,000 required cash contribution for construction and $1,469,000 ad- ditional outlay for lands, rights-of-way, and relocations. 'Terminalfacilities. The harbor facilities at the port of Stockton, Calif., consist of 55 piers, wharves, and docks which are located along the San Joaquin River and on the connecting Stockton, Mor- mon, and Fremont Channels. With the exception of four facilities on the San Joaquin River and three on Mormon Channel, all facili- ties are located on Stockton Channel or in proximity thereto. Nearly half of the port's water terminals are bulkhead-type shore wharves with sufficient depths of water to accommodate ordinary river craft; the ocean terminals are concrete marginal wharves; and the remainder are generally open pile, timber-decked piers, shore wharves, or offshore wharves. The harbor facilities include a ma- rine service station, facilities for handling general cargo, petrole- um, creosote, treated piling, fruits, vegetables, ore and other bulk materials. About one-half of the waterfront facilities are owned by the city of Stockton and are under the jurisdiction of the Stockton Port District governed by the board of port commissioners; there are 5,774 feet of berthing space available. Eleven oceangoing ves- sels can be accommodated at one time at the public ocean terminal. Certain facilities at the Stockton port terminal are in use for military purposes. A naval supply depot (Stockton Annex) has been completed on Rough and Ready Island, bounded by the Stock- RIVERS AND HARBORS - SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1749 ton deep-water channel on the north side, San Joaquin River on the east side, and Burns Cutoff on the south and west sides. Shallow-draft facilities on the upper channel include 12,500 lin- ear feet of wharves of which 8,620 linear feet are privately oper- ated, the remainder being operated by the Stockton Port District. Included along these wharves are transit sheds and storage ware- houses. The port owns and operates the belt-line railroad, which con- nects with three transcontinental railroads and serves all facilities in the area; highway trucks are afforded easy access by paved streets and roads. An excellent system of improved highways connects the port with the Pacific coastal areas, as well as the surrounding agricultural area. (For a further description of terminal facilities, see Port Series 32, the ports of Stockton and Sacramento, Calif., revised 1951.) Downstream from Stockton, the traffic is accommodated by bank landings and sheds, except at Antioch and near Pittsburg, where there are wharves for shallow- and deep-draft vessels. The terminal transfer facilities at the public ocean terminal of the port of Stockton are adequate for the present and immediate future. There has been a sustained annual growth of traffic in and out of the port of Stockton. The turning basin enlargement, ac- complished in 1955, facilitates the use of the loading and storage facilities added by the port of Stockton during recent years to ac- commodate the greatly increased tonnage handled by the port. The port has expanded its loading and storage facilities to handle iron ore brought in by rail from Nevada; it is expected that this item will reach 1,300,000 tons a year. The total tonnage along the project channels, including the port of Stockton, in calendar year 1960 was 4,466,555 tons. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: None. Maintenance: Dredging operations by Government-owned hop- per dredge Davison resulted in the removal of 36,760 cubic yards of material at six locations between Stockton and Pittsburg. Con- struction of spoil-area levee at permanent spoil area 9-S was initi- ated by contract. Operations during the fiscal year also included condition surveys of the channel at various locations, maintenance of gages and gage readings, preparation of plans and specifications, and miscellaneous field reconnaissance and reports, all of which were performed by hired labor. Total costs during the fiscal year were $50,879 from Federal funds, of which a credit of $1 was incurred for new work and costs of $50,880 were incurred for maintenance. Conditionat end of fiscal year. The active portion of the existing project was completed in May 1960. Construction of the project was initiated in December 1877; further modifications were sub- sequently authorized and accomplished as follows: 1750 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Modification Authorized Initiated Completed 9-foot channel up to Stockton. ............ ..................... 1910 1915 1923 Improvement of Fremont Channel and McLeod Lake. .................. .. 1912 1914 1914 26-foot channel up to Stockton ...................................... 1927 1930 1933 Dredging Mormon Channel from junction with Stockton deep-water channel to point near Washington Street Bridge at Stockton ................... 1927 1948 1948 Original 30-foot channel up to Stockton ............................. 1935 1934 1935 (Included under National Industrial Recovery Act.) Widened 30-foot channel .... .................................. 1937 1938 1940 Enlargement of existing turning basin ............................... 1950 1955 1955 Bank protection below Stockton......................... .......... 11950 1957 1960 1All bank protection under the 1950 modification has been transferred to the Port of Stock- ton for maintenance. The delta region of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River is ideal for fishing and aquatic sports and is within reach of the large popu- lation in and about the San Francisco Bay area. Although no at- tempt has been made to determine the numbers of craft or persons participating, recreational use is considered substantial; probably in excess of 10 million visitor-days annually. Controlling depths at mean lower low water are as follows: Section of waterway Depth Period of (feet) navigation San Joaquin River: From mouth of river in Suisun Bay to mouth of Stockton Channel and up Stockton 30 Entire year. Channel to mouth of Mormon Channel (41 miles). From mouth of Stockton Channel to Mossdale Bridge (16 miles) .................. 3 April-June, incl. From Mossdale Bridge to Hills Ferry, head of navigation (70 miles) I........... 3 Do. Stockton Channel: From mouth to Edison Street (0.75 mile) .................................... 22 Entire year. From Edison Street to Center Street (0.5 mile) ................................ 9 Do. Mormon Channel: From its mouth to Stockton Channel to Main Street in Stockton (0.9 mile)....... 9 Do. Main Street to Washington Street in Stockton, head of navigation ............... 6 Do. Fremont Channel and McLeod Lake, arms of Stockton Channel (0.5 mile) (both 9 Do. serve as small craft harbors). 1 Navigation in the section above the San Joaquin Bridge (Southern Pacific Railroad cross- ing), at Mossdale, is impracticable in the low stages after June. The deep-draft portion of the project has been maintained in condition to satisfy general navigation and defense navigation requirements. Annual maintenance dredging is required for re- moval of accumulated shoals caused by settlement of floodborne sand and silt to provide the project depths. Dredging has not been accomplished in the shallow-draft portion for over 20 years. The total costs for the project to June 30, 1962 were as follows: Funds Preauthorization New work Maintenance Total studies United States: General investigations ............... $53,000 .. ........ ........... $53,000 Regular .. ..................................... $4,674,769 $4,246,537 18,921,306 Public works... ................. ............... 21,158,348 ............... 21,158,348 Total United States funds.......... 53,000 5,833,117 4,246,537 10,132,654 Required contributions: 1,342,500 1,250 1,343,750 Total all funds .................... 53,000 7,175,617 4,247,787 11,476,404 21 Exclusive of $19,000 for inactive portion of 1950 modification. Includes $207,198 for the 30-foot channel in Suisun Bay channel. RIVERS AND HARBORS - SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1751 Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: .......... Appropriated $365,000 $600,863 $94,000 . .. $5,888,802 Cost.................. 249,861 780,003 111,035 $7,470 -$1 15,886,117 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... 117,718 190,341 131,399 192,700 164,042 4,359,710 Cost.................. 117,718 190,341 131,399 192,689 50,880 4,246,537 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ........................... $2,685 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 2,685 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project .......................... (2) 1Includes $1,158,348 from public work funds, of which $207,198 was for work accom- plished along the 30 foot channel in Suisun Bay Channel; excludes $19,000 expended for engineering for inactive portion of 1950 modification. aExcludes $1,131,000 (1959) and $8,387,000 (1960) for inactive and deferred for restudy portions of 1950 modification. CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ......... .......... .......... .......... ............ ..... $1,342,500 Cost................. .. ........ ......... .......... . . ........... 1,342,500 Maintenance: Appropriated ......... .......... .......... .................... .......... 1,250 Cost............. .... . ... .. ...... .. ........... ....... 1,250 Other new work data: Estimated additional amount needed to complete project.............................. (1) 0 1 Excludes inactive portions of 1950 modification. 6. STOCKTON AND MORMON CHANNELS (DIVERTING CANAL), CALIF. Location. This is an artificial cut located about 3 miles east of Stockton, Calif., which extends from Mormon Slough northwesterly about 41/2 miles to intersect the original Calaveras River Channel near the northeast corner of the city of Stockton. (See U.S. Geological Survey sheet, Stockton quadrangle.) Existing project. This project provides for diverting the waters of Mormon Slough before reaching Mormon and Stockton Channels for the purpose of preventing debris deposits in the navigable por- tions of Stockton and Mormon Channels. The results were obtained by construction of: (a) A diversion dam across Mormon Slough 3 miles east of Stockton; (b) a diverting canal 150 feet wide, with average cut of 8 feet, extending 4.63 miles to the north branch of the Calaveras River; (c) the enlargement of the Calaveras River to cross sectional area of 1,550 square feet, thence to its mouth at San Joaquin River, 5 miles; and (d) a levee along the left banks of the diverting canal and Calaveras River, using material excavated for the channel enlargement. The height of the levee is limited by necessary railway and highway crossings to about 3 feet above the contemplated flood surface. The canal is empty during the greater part of the year, but at times of extreme flood there is a depth of about 12 feet, and at ordinary flood a depth of about 10 feet. 1752 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 The total Federal cost of new work for the project, completed in 1923 was $253,151. The average maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $4,593. The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of June 13, 1902 (H. Doc. 152, 55th Cong., 3d sess., and An- nual Report for 1899, p. 3188). The latest published map is in House Document 256, 63d Congress, 1st session. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. For details, see Annual Report for 1922, page 1816. The bridges across the canal were built by the United States, but they have been maintained and four have been rebuilt by the local authorities. Total estimated cost for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, amounts to $30,700 (Dec. 1898). Terminal facilities. See report on San Joaquin River, Calif. Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance: Opera- tions during the year consisted of condition inspections and studies, field reconnaissance, and miscellaneous reports, all of which were accomplished by hired labor. In addition, spraying of trees and brush was accomplished by contract. Total cost during the fiscal year was $3,253. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of new work was initiated in November 1908; under this initial construction phase, work along the Calaveras River section was completed in October 1909, and the canal section of the diverting canal in September 1910. The project was then considered to be about 86 percent com- plete; no further new work was accomplished until fiscal year 1922. During fiscal years 1922 and 1923 additional new work was ac- complished in the Calaveras River section to complete the project. Most of the silt formerly deposited in Stockton and Mormon Chan- nels is diverted therefrom by this canal, obviating serious incon- veniences to navigation and expensive annual dredging. Annual maintenance activities, consisting of the provision of an adequate channel capacity for floodwaters by clearing brush and trees and construction of bank protection at critical locations to prevent slippage and erosion of banks caused by floodwaters, are required to preserve the effectiveness of the project. Total cost for the project to June 30, 1962, was $450,014, of which $253,151 was for new work and $196,863 for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ......... ... ....... ....................... ........ $253,151 Cost.......................... ......... ................... 253,151 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... . $5,261 $676 $8,085 $5,700 $5,692 199,313 Cost................. 5,261 676 5,615 8,158 3,253 196,863 RIVERS AND HARBORS - SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1753 7. OTHER AUTHORIZED NAVIGATION PROJECTS For last Cost to June 30, 1962 full report Estimated Cost Name of project see amount estimate Annual Operation required to (last date Report Construction and complete of revision) for- maintenance Feather River, Calif................. 1951 .............. 5,752 (2) Middle River and connecting channels, Calif. .......................... Mokelumne River, Calif. ............. 1951 1951 4$8,354 8,500 41,682 67,537 (2 6) (2 6) (5) (6) Reconnaissance and condition surveys... 1959 .............. 74,395 Not applicable Snagging and clearing under authority of sec. 3 of the River and Harbor Ac approved Mar. 2, 1945............... 1957 5,975 (e) 1 Includes $10 for maintenance for previous project. In addition, $6,160 for previous project and $3,840 for existing project, for maintenance, was expended from contributed funds. 2Maintenance project; channels currently adequate for commerce. 8 Tonnage through the channels in calendar year 1960 was: Middle River and connecting channels, 4 Calif., 8,336 tons and Mokelumne River, Calif., unreported. ncludes $1,600 for new work and $790 for maintenance for previous project, s Completed. 6 Maintenance not presently required as channels are adequate for commerce. 7 Minor survey conducted on Mokelumne River, Calif., during June 1962 at a cost of $80. 1754 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 8. SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, CALIF., FROM COLLINSVILLE TO SHASTA DAM Location. The Sacramento River rises in the Trinity Mountains in north-central California, flows in a general southerly direction about 374 miles and empties into Suisun Bay, an arm of San Francisco Bay at Collinsville, Calif. The works covered by this improvement are on the Sacramento River and tributaries from Collinsville to Shasta Dam, about mile 312. The drainage area above Rio Vista is 26,500 square miles. (See U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles of the area for Sacramento River and upper Butte Basin; Fluornoy and Fruto quadrangels for Black Butte Reservoir; and the Tuscan Buttes, Tehama, Redding, and Hooker quadrangles for Table Mountain Reservoir.) Existing project. The improvement of Sacramento River and tributaries, from Collinsville to Shasta Dam was authorized as a unit of a comprehensive plan for flood control and other related purposes in the Sacramento River Basin. Levee and channel im- provements: The active elements of the project comprise construc- tion of bank protection and incidental channel improvements on Sacramento River between Chico Landing and Red Bluff; levee revetment for Sutter, Tisdale, Sacramento and Yolo bypasses and the addition of approximately 430,000 linear feet of bank erosion control works and setback levees at critical locations now existing or expected to develop in the next 10 years, within the limits of the authorized or existing levees included in the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, as the initial phase of a long-range program to protect the integrity of the levee system. The project also in- cludes flood-plain zoning above Chico Landing, by local interests, to assure maintenance of present project floodway areas. In addi- tion to the above, the active units of the project include levee con- struction and/or channel enlargement on the following minor tributaries of the Sacramento River below Red Bluff; Chico and Mud Creeks, and Sandy Gulch; Butte and Little Chico Creeks; Cherokee Canal; Elder Creek; and Deer Creek (Tehama County). These improvements are for the purpose of flood control. The improvement provides for approximately 176 miles of chan- nel improvement and about 212 miles of levees with an average height of 12 feet and a freeboard of 3 feet. The improvement also provides for bypass revetment as required for protection of bypass levee slopes against erosion approximately 5.7 miles of bank pro- tection and 90 acres of clearing and snagging in areas critical and economically feasible at the time work is initiated together with the 430,000 linear feet of bank erosion control works and set- back levees at critical locations under the 1960 modification. Construction of the active units of the levee and channel im- provements, major and minor tributaries, authorized in 1944, was initiated in May 1949 and is about 44 percent complete; the 1958 modification, Chico Landing to Red Bluff, and the 1960 modifica- tion, Sacramento River Bank Protection, have not been initiated; the entire project is about 19 percent complete (including only the initial 10-year phase of the long-range program authorized in 1960). FLOOD CONTROL-SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1755 The above construction supplements the program of levee im- provements which are being accomplished pursuant to the Flood Control Act of March 1, 1917, as amended by subsequent acts, in- cluding the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941, and which are reported by California Debris Commission under improvement No. 4 "Sacramento River, Calif., Flood Control." The project is an integral part of the overall plan for flood control and other purposes in the Sacramento River Basin. It will sup- plement the reservoir units of the comprehensive plan by providing flood protection to certain unprotected or partially protected areas along Sacramento River. Such local areas affected by the active portion of the project improvements, authorized in 1944, include the city of Chico and other small communities, and about 80,000 acres of agricultural lands. In addition, the bypass revetment features of the project will provide protection to flood plain lands adjacent to the bypasses. In conjunction with authorized reser- voirs, these improvements will provide flood protection to some areas along the main river and to Highway 99E and 99W, to the main lines and feeder lines of the Southern Pacific Railroad, and to State and county highways. Construction of the bank protection and incidental channel im- provements between Chico Landing and Red Bluff, authorized in 1958, will help to stabilize the main river channel, alleviate the existing bank erosion problem and reduce downstream mainte- nance dredging. The zoning feature of the authorized plan would provent further impairment of existing floodway areas above Chico Landing. The Sacramento River, for many years, has meandered back and forth in its course from Red Bluff to Chico Landing, con- tinually eroding fertile areas and depositing the eroded material in navigation channels and in project floodways. Construction of the bank erosion control works and set-back levees, authorized in 1960, is needed to maintain the integrity of the levee system of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project so that it will continue to furnish the degree of protection for which it was designed, to reduce the costs of emergency repairs and down- stream dredging, and to reduce land losses caused by erosion. The authorization also provides for the construction of the Black Butte Reservoir, an earthfill dam, with a maximum height of 140 feet, to create a reservoir with a gross storage capacity of 160,000 acre-feet for flood control and for irrigation and related conserva- tion purposes. The improvement is located in Tehama and Glenn Counties about 9 miles westerly of Orland, Calif., on Stony Creek, a tributary entering the Sacramento River at mile 190. Recreation facilities will be provided for the initial 3-year pe- riod of operation after completion of the project. These facilities consist in general of three public access areas, including three picnic areas and one campground, and two boat launching ramps. The reservoir will provide flood protection to the towns of Orland and Hamilton City, to a major transcontinental highway, to a transcontinental railroad, to important food-processing plants, and to about 64,000 acres of agricultural land lying along the lower reaches of Stony Creek west of Sancramento River and, in addition, 1756 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 will provide about 56,800 acre-feet of new water annually for irrigation and related purposes. In conjunction with other author- ized units of the comprehensive plan for flood control and related purposes in the Sacramento River Basin, this reservoir will provide some flood protection to agricultural lands in Butte Basin and will augment the flood protection to land along Sacramento River and tributaries where levee and channel improvements have been provided. Construction of this unit was initiated in March 1960; the project is about 72 percent complete. The latest approved estimate of Federal cost for new work (July 1962) of the principal features is as follows: Estimated cost Project Lands and Construction ' damages (includ- Total ing relocations) Levee and channel improvements, Sacramento River and major and minor tributaries 2....... ................... ..... $12,500,000 ................ $12,500,000 Chico Landing to Red Bluff ............ ......... 2,030,000 ................ 2,030,000 Sacramento River, Calif., bank protection 3.................. 15,400,000................ 15,400,000 Black Butte Reservoir ................ ................. 11,882,000 $2,918,000 14,800,000 Total ..... .................................. 41,812,000 2,918,000 44,730,000 1 Includes the following amounts from general investigations appropriation for preauthori- zation studies: Sacramento River and major and minor tributaries, $43,000; Chico Landing to Red Bluff, $8,000; Sacramento River bank protection, $90,000; and Black Butte Reservoir, $20,000. 2 Active units of Sacramento River and major and minor tributaries. * Includes only the initial 10-year phase of long-range program authorized by 1960 modifica- tion. 'Includes $433,000 for recreational facilities. The following project units have been reclassified and are ex- cluded from the project description and the foregoing cost esti- mate: Unit Current Estimated classification cost' 1944 modification: Antelope Creek ...... ....................................... Inactive.............. $1,340,000 Lower Butte Basin .............................................. Deferred for restudy.. 2 47,286,500 Thomes Creek ................................................ Deferred for restudy.. 21,140,000 Willow Creek ............................................... Inactive .............. 1,290,000 Moulton Weir to Ord Bend and Parrott Grant Line to Chico Landing Deferred for restudy.. 5$7,200,000 (including Chico Landing Weir and Moulton Weir extension. 1950 modification: Upper Butte Basin ............ ....................... Deferred for restudy.. ,3,530,000 1 For construction. July 1960 price level; 2July 1954 price level. Exclusive of work applicable to the extension of Moulton Weir which has been retained in the active portion and subsequently reclassified to deferred for restudy in 1961. 5 July 1961 price level. In addition, Table Mountain (Iron Canyon) Reservoir is also considered to be "Deferred for restudy" and is excluded from the project description and foregoing cost estimate. The cost of this project unit, including the power facility, was last revised in July 1954 and was estimated to be $77,200,000, of which $4,417,900 was for lands and damages including relocations and $72,782,100 for construction. FLOOD CONTROL-SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1757 Operation and maintenance of the levee and channel improve- ments after completion will be the responsibility of local interests. Operation and maintenance of the Black Butte Reservoir will be the responsibility of the Federal Government. Local interests will reimburse the United States for annual costs allocated to irrigation and related conservation functions. The existing project was authorized by the following : Acts Work authorized Documents Dec. 22, 1944 Modification of Sacramento River Flood Control Project H. Doe. 649, 78th Cong., 2d sess. to provide for extensions in levees and other structures along Sacramento River and major and minor tribu- taries; construction of Black Butte Dam and Reservoir; construction of low-level Table Mountain Dam and Reservoir with power facilities; and provision of mone- tary authorization in amount of $15 million for initiation of the modification. May 17, 1950 Improvement for protection of Upper Butte Basin (included H. Doc. 367, 81st Cong., 1st sess. i full monetary authorization). July 3, 1958 Extension of existing Sacramento River Flood Control H. Doe. 272, 84th Cong., 2d sess. Project to Keswick Dam for the purpose of zoning the area below the dam and modification of the project by construction of bank protection and incidental channel improvements between Chico Landing and Red Bluff (included full monetary authorization). July 3, 1958 Additional monetary authorization of $17 million for comprehensive plan approved in Act of December 22, 1944. July 14, 1960 Further modification of Sacramento River Flood Control S. Doe. 103, 86th Cong., 2d sess. 1 Project by construction of initial 10-year phase of bank erosion control works and set-back levees on Sacra- mento River and provision of monetary authorization in amount of $14,240,000 for the prosecution of the modification. 2 1 Contains the latest published map. 2 Extension of bank protection beyond initial phase will require report on advisability of proceeding with additional work and authorization of that work. Total monetary authorization available, exclusive of preauthorization studies from general investigations appropriations, amounts to $51,800,000. Local cooperation. Levee and channel improvements, Sacramento River and major and minor tributaries: Local interests are re- quired to: (a) Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the project: (b) bear the expense of all necessary utility changes and modifications; (c) hold and save the United States free from claims for damages resulting from construction and operation of the project works; and (d) maintain and operate at their own expense all flood-control and bank protection works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. The State of California officially adopted the project by Chapter 1514 of the Statutes of 1945 and instructed the State Reclamation Board to carry out the required local cooperation. By letter dated March 4, 1945, the Reclamation Board furnished the Sacramento District an opinion by the State Attorney General that the assur- ances furnished by the State by Chapter 656 of the Statutes of 1939, State of California, for the Sacramento River Flood Control proj- ect were sufficient to cover this project. On March 22, 1948, the Chief of Engineers accepted this opinion as satisfactory for the required assurances. The Reclamation Board has furnished all rights-of-way and utility relocations required to date and has indicated that it will 1758 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 furnish all requirements as needed for future construction. Units of the project are transferred to the State of California for main- tenance and operation as they are completed. Chico Landing to Red Bluff: Local cooperation requirements are as detailed above for major and minor tributaries. In addition, local interests are required to assume the responsibility for flood plain zoning. The State of California officially adopted the project by Chapter 1912, Statutes of 1959, and authorized the State Recla- mation Board to carry out the required local cooperation. In January 1961, the Reclamation Board informally expressed its willingness and ability to furnish required assurances when formally requested. Flood plain zoning ordinance was adopted September 5, 1961, by the Tehama County Board of Supervisors; the ordinance provides suitable flood plain zoning in Tehama County. Formal assurances furnished May 7, 1962, for the Tehama County portion of the project by the Reclamation Board are cur- rently being reviewed for adequacy prior to acceptance by the District Engineer. It is expected that the Reclamation Board will provide all rights-of-way and utility relocations as required to meet the construction schedule for this portion of the improvement. Flood plain zoning actions have not been accomplished to date by Butte and Glenn Counties nor have the formal assurances been furnished from the Reclamation Board for these portions of the improvement. Sacramento River, Calif., bank protection: Local interests are to: (a) Contribute an amount in cash that, when added to the costs of lands, easements, rights-of-way, and utility charges, equals one-third of the cost of each unit of the remedial work, this con- tribution to be based on the cost of improvements shown by esti- mates approved by the Chief of Engineers to have economic superiority over possible alternative measures; and (b) prior to initiation of construction, give assurances satisfactory to the Secre- tary of the Army that they will: (1) furnish without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the proposed work; (2) make all necessary relocations and alterations to roads, bridges, irrigation and drainage facilities, and other utilities; (3) maintain and operate the completed individual project units in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; and (4) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works. In addition, for reaches where local interests request bank sta- bilization instead of the setbacks recommended by the Chief of Engineers, the local interests will contribute the costs over and above the costs of setbacks, and provide the local contribution as indicated above. The State of California officially adopted the project by Chapter 2188 of the Statutes of 1961 and instructed the Reclamation Board of the State of California to carry out the required local coopera- tion. That Board has assured the District Engineer that it is willing and able to meet the local cooperation requirements when formally requested. Assurances of local cooperation, received from the State Reclamation Board during April 1962, have been under review for adequacy prior to acceptance by the District FLOOD CONTROL-SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1759 Engineer; it is anticipated that such acceptance will be accomp- lished during July 1962. The State has appropriated funds in the amount of $270,000 for initiation of work on this project. Black Butte Dam and Reservoir: Local interests are required to make payment to the United States for the irrigation and related conservation functions of the project, but no local coopera- tion is required for construction of the dam and reservoir. The State of California officially adopted the project by chapter 1514 of the statutes of 1945. The State of California enacted legislation in April 1958 authorizing the State to participate and cooperate in multiple- purpose water projects authorized for construction by the Corps, and appropriated $10 million for such purpose. General authority of the State Department of Water Resources to contract with the United States is vested by section 11500, of chapter IV, division 6 of the California Water Code. A contract between the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation and the State of California for repayment of the cost of the irrigation and related conservation storage was executed on March 2, 1960. In general, the contract provides that the State will repay costs not covered by subsidiary contracts between water users and the Bureau of Reclamation. The State assumes full responsibility for repayment 7 years after notice is given by the contracting officer that the project is available for storage or delivery of water. Sub- sidiary contracts for water for municipal and industrial use are subject to approval by the Secretary of the Army. Funds for meeting the repayment responsibilities of the State of California were appropriated by the State legislature in 1959 and 1960. Discussions have been held with local interests on development of recreation facilities. Glenn and Tehama Counties signed the proposed license agree- ment January 23, 1962, to jointly administer, operate and maintain the reservoir area for public recreational purposes; the license agreement is pending approval of the Secretary of the Army. Total estimated costs (July 1962) for all requirements of local cooperation for new work under terms of the project authoriza- tions, including required non-Federal contributions, are as fol- lows: Lands and Reimbursement Unit damages includ- Required cash for irrigation Total ing relocations contribution and related functions Sacramento River and major and minor $4,950,000 ................... ......... 2$4,950,000 tributaries, levee and channel improve- ments. Chico Landing to Red Bluff ............. 190,000 .................. ... ....... 190,000 Sacramento River bank protection 3........ 2,460,000 4$5,200,000 ............... 47,660,000 Black Butte Dam and Reservoir.......... ............................. '$5,905,000 5,905,000 Total ........................... 7,600,000 5,200,000 5,905,000 18,705,000 1 Active units. 2 Of this amount, approximately 67 percent ($3,316,000) has been committed to June 30, 1962. SInitial 10-year phase only of long-range program authorized by 1960 modification. 4 Exclusive of costs for bank stabilization, where requested by local interests, over and above the costs of levee setbacks. 5Based on 39.9 percent of Federal first cost. 1760 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 The following project units have been reclassified and are ex- cluded from the foregoing cost estimate: Unit Current Estimated classification cost1 1944 modification: Antelope Creek .............................................. Inactive.............. 2340,000 Lower Butte Basin ........... Thomes Creek ................... ......................... ....................... Deferred for restudy.. do... ..... 3 42,285,000 2140,000 Willow Creek ......................... ....... ..... .......... .. Inactive ........... . 2120,000 Moulton Weir to Ord Ben and Parrott Grant Line to Chico Landing (iicluding Chico Landing Weir and Moulton Weir extension).... Deferred for restudy.. i940,000 1950 modification: Upper Butte Basin ........ .... ........... ...... ...... do ............... 31,787,000 x For lands and damages including relocations. 2July 1960 price level. July 1954 price level. 'Exclusive of work applicable to the extension of Moulton weir, retained in the active portion and subsequently reclassified to deferred for restudy in 1961. SJuly 1961 price level. The latest estimates (July 1962) of the annual cost to local interests for maintenance, operation, and replacements are: Estimated Unit cost Sacramento River and major and minor tributaries 1 ............... $94,300 Chico Landing to Red Bluff ..................................... 8,900 Sacramento River bank protection (initial phase) .................. 60,000 Black Butte Dam and Reservoir ................................. 63,900 1 Active units. 2 Required reimbursement to the United States (40.2 percent) of annual costs for opera- tion and maintenance for costs allocated to irrigation and related conservation functions of the reservoir. Operations and results during fiscal year. (a) Construction and enlargement of levee and channel improvements on Sacramento River: (1) Major and minor tributaries (active portions): Engi- neering and design, including surveys and mapping and prepara- tion of contract plans and specifications, was continued by hired labor. Channel improvement, levee construction and gaging sta- tion along Elder Creek, initiated by continuing contract in fiscal year 1961, was completed. A continuing contract for levee con- struction and channel improvement, Sacramento River to Sacra- mento Avenue, was awarded late in the fiscal year for the Chico and Mud Creeks and Sandy Gulch unit of the improvement; (2) Sacramento River, Chico Landing to Red Bluff: Engineering and design, including completion of the general design memorandum, surveys, and initiation of plans and specifications for the first construction unit, was continued by hired labor; and (3) Sacra- mento River bank protection: Funds were allotted to permit initia- tion of preconstruction planning in fiscal year 1962. Engineering and design, including completion of Design Memorandum No. 1 for the first construction unit and initiation of field surveys, was accomplished by hired labor. (b) Black Butte Reservoir: Engi- neering and design, including surveys and foundation investiga- tions and preparation of design memoranda and contract plans and specifications, and land acquisition was continued by hired labor. Status of construction initiated in fiscal year 1960 by con- tinuing contracts is as follows: Relocations of Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co. telephone lines, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. FLOOD CONTROL-SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1761 power distribution lines, and construction of the main dam and appurtenances were continued; due to the labor strike-lockout there was very little construction activity on the main dam contract dur- ing the period of May 7-June 27, 1962. Relocation of the Brownell Indian Cemetery was completed. The following construction was initiated by continuing contract during the fiscal year: Glenn County Road relocation by the Corps; reservoir clearing, first phase; and reservoir clearing, second phase. (c) Table Mountain (Iron Canyon) Reservoir: This improvement is considered to be "Deferred for restudy;" there were no operations and no costs were incurred. Total cost of new work for the entire project during the fiscal year was as follows: Funds Project unit United States Contributed Total Sacramento River levee and channel improvements: Major and minor tributaries ........................... $384,678 $114,296 $498,974 Chico Landing to Red Bluff ............... .......... 22,547 ................ 22,547 BlackSacramento River bank protection ..................... Butte Reservoir ........................... 44,119 3,570,498 ............ ................ 44,119 3,570,498 Total. .................. 4,021,842 114,296 4,136,138 Condition at end of fiscal year. (a) Construction and enlarge- ment of levees and channel improvements on Sacramento River; (1) Major and minor tributaries (active portions): Construction was initiated in May 1949; the Deer Creek and Butte Creek units were completed prior to suspension of construction in accordance with Presidential directive dated July 21, 1950, due to the Korean emergency. Work was resumed in fiscal year 1957; the Cherokee Canal and Elder Creek units have since been completed and the first contract for the Chico and Mud Creeks and Sandy Gulch unit was initiated late in fiscal year 1962. The active portion of this improvement is about 44 percent complete. Work remaining to complete the improvement includes com- pletion of work underway, the second and final contract for the Chico and Mud Creeks and Sandy Gulch unit, and construction of the bypass levee revetment. The project is scheduled for com- pletion after fiscal year 1965; (2) Sacramento River, Chico Land- ing to Red Bluff: Preconstruction planning, initiated in fiscal year 1961, was continued. Initiation of the first construction unit is scheduled during fiscal year 1963; project completion is currently scheduled for fiscal year 1965; (3) Sacramento River bank pro- tection: Reconstruction planning was initiated in fiscal year 1962; initiation of construction is indefinite; (b) Black Butte Reservoir: Construction was initiated in March 1960. Fabrication of outlet works gates and relocation of Tehama County Road were com- pleted during fiscal year 1961. Except for small parcels required for a gaging station, all the project lands required have been ac- quired; final settlement of condemnation cases is pending. Reser- voir clearing is about 40 percent complete; relocations of Glenn County Road, power distribution lines, and telephone lines are 8, 85, and 92 percent complete, respectively; and construction of 1762 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 the main dam and appurtenances is 80 percent complete. The overall project is about 72 percent complete. Current schedules call for initiation of the dam closure July 17, 1962, completion of closure by November 1, 1962, and project completion during June 1963. Work remaining to be done includes completion of work under- way, modification of Bureau of Reclamation north side diversion facility, basic public use facilities, resident operators quarters, sedimentation ranges, and basin hydrologic and communication facilities; (c) Table Mountain (Iron Canyon) Reservoir: This improvement is considered to be "Deferred for restudy." Total cost of new work for the entire project to June 30, 1962, was as follows: Funds Project Federal I Contributed 2 Total Sacramento River-levees and channel improvements: Major and minor tributaries....................... $5,485,172 $1,337,904 $6,823,076 Chico Landing to Red Bluff modification ................... 53,632 ................ 53,632 Sacramento River bank protection ......................... 134,119 ................ 134,119 Black Butte Reservoir ................................... 10,726,341 ................ 10,726,341 Totalall funds .................................... .16,399,264 1,337,904 17,737,168 'Includes the following amounts from general investigations appropriations for preauthori- zation studies: $43,000 for major and minor tributaries, Sacramento River; $8,000 for Chico Landing to Red Bluff; modification on Sacramento River; $90,000 for Sacramento River bank 2 protection; and $20,000 for Black Butte Reservoir. Contributed funds for miscellaneous construction at the expense of local interests in con- nection with acquisition of rights-of-way and utility alterations for Sacramento River and 3 major and minor tributaries (active portions). Exclusive of costs in the amount of $531,000 for the portions of Sacramento River and major and minor tributaries and $634,808 for Table Mountain (Iron Canyon) Dam and Reservoir which are considered to be inactive or deferred for restudy. Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: .......... $924,000 $1,358,900 $3,188,000 Appropriated $5,244,100 $4,309,500 1$17,351,932 Cost................. 974,597 1,139,427 2,654,822 5,417,723 4,021,842 116,399,264 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ........................ $ 174,892 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 ............................. 3,789,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ............... 3,963,892 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project .................... 223,589,068 1Exclusive of $634,808 for Table Mountain (Iron Canyon) Reservoir which has been "Deferred for restudy" and $531,000 for Sacramento River and major and minor tributaries portions 2Excludes which are considered to be "Inactive" and "Deferred for restudy." $10,665,500 (1954) and $10,590,000 (1960 and 1961) for "Inactive" and "De- ferred for restudy" portions of Sacramento River and major and minor tributaries and $76,565,192 (1954) for "Inactive" Table Mountain (Iron Canyon) Reservoir. Includes only the amount required to complete the initial 10-year phase of 1960 modification for Sacra- mento River bank protection. CONTRIBUTED FUNDS 1 Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: .......... $99,775 Appropriated $382,539 $539,000 $185,057 $52,000 $1,362,600 Cost.................. 99,775 382,539 376,551 260,514 114,296 1,337,904 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962...... .................. $19,696 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................ 19,696 1 Miscellaneous construction and engineering and design services (nonproject) accomplished at the expense of the State of California under local cooperation requirements in connec- tion with acquisition of rights-of-way and utility alterations. FLOOD CONTROL--SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1763 9. OROVILLE RESERVOIR, FEATHER RIVER, CALIF. Location. The Feather River rises in the northern portion of the Sierra Nevada. The three main forks flow in a southwesterly direction in deep, narrow gorges for about 100 miles to their con- fluence at the foothill line near Oroville, Calif. The main stream flows thence southerly for about 70 miles and empties into the Sacramento River at Verona about 20 miles above the city of Sacramento. Drainage area above Oroville at the foothill line is 3,611 square miles, mostly mountainous. (See U. S. Geological Survey topographic maps of the area.) Existing project. Federal participation consists of a contribu- tion toward the first cost of the Oroville Reservoir project, exclusive of the cost of power facilities, in an amount commensurate with the flood-control benefits to be attained. Construction of the im- provement, currently underway by the State of California, will inundate the Bidwell Bar Dam site, which dam was proposed as a Federal flood-control project in House Document 367, 81st Con- gress, 1st session. In that document the Chief of Engineers recom- mended authorization of a reservoir with storage capacity of 1,200,000 acre-feet at Bidwell Bar site on the Feather River or storage at a suitable alternate site. The Federal contribution is based on provision of a maximum of 750,000 acre-feet of reservoir storage space from mid-October to the first of April for flood-con- trol operation of the Oroville Reservoir. Oroville Reservoir is a multiple-purpose storage reservoir for municipal and industrial water supply, power generation, irriga- tion, flood control and other purposes, located on the Feather River, a tributary of Sacramento River, in Butte County, Calif. The dam will be situated about 51/2 miles upstream from the town of Oroville and about 70 miles above the mouth of Feather River and will comprise a 735-foot-high earth-and-rockfill structure with a total length of 6,800 feet to create a capacity of about 3,500,000 acre- feet. Included in the improvement are power-generating facilities of 600,000 kilowatts capacity. The project is about 14 percent complete, including power facilities. The project will provide flood protection to the cities of Marys- ville. Yuba City and Oroville, Calif., and to many smaller com- munities in the flood plain; to 283,000 acres of highly developed agricultural land; and to important highway and railroad routes. Virtually all of the flood-control accomplishments from the project consist of reduction in flood damages. The latest approved estimate of Federal contribution toward new work (July 1962) is $66 million exclusive of $375,000 inci- dental Federal costs for preauthorization studies and engineering costs in connection with flood-control reservations. The amount is based upon cost-allocation studies completed in fiscal year 1961 and approved by the President of the United States on January 10, 1962. The total Federal participation is based on 22 percent of the actual construction cost exclusive of the cost of power facilities; however, the Federal cost is limited to $85 million including actual Federal cost for engineering and administration of funds and 1764 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 including interest at 31/2 percent per annum on the actual Federal expenditures during the construction period. The existing project was adopted by the Flood Control Act of July 3, 1958. The authorization act provided that unless construc- tion of the Oroville Dam and Reservoir was undertaken within 4 years of the date of enactment of the authorization, the authority for the monetary contribution contained therein would expire. Full monetary authorization for the project was included in the act authorizing the project. Local cooperation. The project was authorized for construction by the State of California by chapter 1441 of the statutes of 1951; construction is proceeding as the initial project of the California water plan. In consideration of a Federal contribution toward the first cost of Oroville Reservoir, a formal agreement, based upon cost-allocation studies completed in fiscal year 1961, was consum- mated with the State on March 8, 1962, and approved by the Secre- tary of the Army April 19, 1962. The agreement provides for operation of Oroville Reservoir in such manner as will produce the flood-control benefits upon which the monetary contribution is predicated and operation of the flood-control reservation in ac- cordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. The State legislature appropriated $9 million during 1956 for advance planning on the project. Initiation of relocations in May 1957 fulfilled the proviso that the authority for a Federal contribution would expire unless construction of the dam and reservoir was started prior to July 1962. In November 1960, the electorate of the State approved a $1,750 million bond issue to finance the California water plan, such funds to be applied prin- cipally to the Feather River project. A contract for construction of diversion tunnel 1 was awarded in August 1961; construction is scheduled to be completed- early in calendar year 1963. Plans and specifications for the main dam were issued April 13, 1962; award is scheduled for August 1962. The reservoir project is scheduled to be completed in calendar year 1968. Total estimated first cost to the State of California of all require- ments of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization amounts to $373,325,000 (July 1962) for construction of Oroville Dam, powerplant and afterbay. A total of about $74,213,000 has been expended or obligated as of May 31, 1962, principally for acquisition of rights-of-way and relocation of railroad and high- way facilities. Annual maintenance, operation, and replacement costs are esti- mated at $4,321,000 (July 1962). Operations and results during fiscal year. Engineering was con- tinued. The final cost allocation was approved by the President of the United States on January 10, 1962. The contract for payment for flood-control storage was executed by the State and the District Engineer on March 8, 1962, and approved by the Secretary of the Army April 19, 1962. The State of California continued the State's engineering and construction of the project. Total Federal cost for the project during the fiscal year was $30,667 for new work. FLOOD CONTROL---SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1765 Condition at end of fiscal year. The final cost allocation and the formal contract for payment for flood-control storage have been approved. The State of California is continuing with construction of the project; for status of this construction see paragraph on Local cooperation. The project is about 14 percent complete, in- cluding power facilities, and is scheduled for completion in calen- dar year 1968. Total Federal cost to June 30, 1962, for the project was $177,516, of which $75,000 was for preauthorization studies and $102,516 for new work. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 19.59 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: .......... Appropriated $37,000 $28,000 $29,000 $50,000 $25,000 '$179,000 Cost.................. 38,196 26,505 27,961 44,245 30,667 '177,516 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .......................... $1,484 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 ................................ 15,000,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ............... .15,001,484 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ...................... 51,196,000 1Includes $75,000 from general investigations appropriations for preauthorization studies. 10. MIDDLE CREEK, CALIF. Location. The project lies north of Clear Lake in Lake County, Calif. Middle Creek is one of the principal tributaries of Clear Lake and enters the lake at its northern end. Scott and Clover Creeks are tributaries of Middle Creek, draining areas to the west and east, respectively. Alley Creek is an important tributary of Clover Creek. Total area drained by Middle Creek and its tribu- taries amounts to approximately 200 square miles, varying in ele- vation from about 1,300 to 4,800 feet. (See U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle for the Lakeport area.) Existing project. The project, for the purpose of flood control is in the vicinity of Upper Lake, Calif. The improvement provides for enlargement of existing levees and construction of additional levees and incidental channel improvement along the lower 7 miles of Middle Creek and along tributary streams; construction of a pumping plant for disposal of interior drainage; and construction of a diversion channel about 4,000 feet long, with a capacity of 8,000 cubic feet per second, together with two diversion structures, to divert Clover Creek floodflows around the town of Upper Lake. Construction includes levees with a total length of about 14.5 miles with an average height of 8 feet, 5,100 feet of bank protection, and about 6 miles of channel improvement. This project will provide flood protection to the town of Upper Lake and to about 4,000 acres of highly developed agricultural lands in the valley above Clear Lake. Clear Lake and the surround- ing region are important recreational areas for northern Califor- nia residents. Two State highways and numerous county roads traverse the project area. The latest approved estimate of Federal cost for new work (July 1962) is $2,650,000 for construction (including pre-authori- 1766 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 zation studies). Construction was initiated in July 1958 and is about 85 percent complete. Operation and maintenance of the improvement after comple- tion will be the responsibility of local interests. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of September 3, 1954. (See H. Doc. 367, 81st Cong., 1st sess., which contains the latest published map.) Full monetary authori- zation was provided by the authorization act. Local cooperation. The project was officially adopted by chapter 1949, Statutes of 1955, State of California, which provided that the State Reclamation Board would furnish the required assur- ances of local cooperation. Chapter 1396, Statutes of 1955, State of California, authorized the Lake County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to cooperate with the U.S. Government and the State in construction of the project. Local interests are re- quired to: (a) Furnish all lands, easements, and rights-of-way; (b) bear the expense of utility relocations and modifications; (c) hold and save the United States free from damage; and (d) main- tain and operate the project works after completion in accordance with instructions prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Assurances of local cooperation were accepted by Sacramento District November 25, 1957, for the Secretary of the Army. All rights-of-way required for construction have been furnished, and utility relocations have been accomplished. Total costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal con- tributions amounted to $1,340,000 (July 1962) and comprised $575,000 for lands and damages and $765,000 for relocations. Upstream portion of the project, including pumping plant, was accepted by the State on August 8, 1960, for maintenance and operation. The latest estimate of the cost to local interests for annual maintenance, operation, and the replacements is $16,400 (July 1962). Operations and results during fiscal year. Engineering and de- sign activities were continued. Levee construction from Bloody Island pumping plant to Clear Lake along Middle Creek and con- struction of Highline Ditch weir, initiated under a continuing con- tract in fiscal year 1961, was continued; however, construction activities were hampered due to subsidence of placed material in the levee. Construction was suspended for the winter and, due to the high lake level, could not be resumed until late in June 1962. Preproject flood protections was restored for the past winter season by sandbagging and/or dredged-fill additions. It was de- termined that the project will be completed by stage construction over a period of 4 to 5 years. The initial stage of this plan was initiated late in June 1962 under a change order to the existing contract. Total cost of new work for the project during the fiscal year was $348,339, of which $329,970 were from Federal funds and $18,369 from contributed funds, other (pursuant to requirements of local cooperation). Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction was initiated in fiscal year 1958; the project is about 85 percent complete. Work FLOOD CONTROL-SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1767 remaining comprises completion of the initial phase and accom- plishment of the balance of stage construction for the project. The project is scheduled for completion during fiscal year 1967. Total cost of new work for the project to June 30, 1962, was $2,481,777, of which $2,263,784 were from U.S. funds (including $19,000 for preauthorization studies) and $217,993 from con- tributed funds, other (pursuant to requirements of local coopera- tion). Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.......... $225,000 $526,000 $698,000 $440,000 $556,000 1$2,555,000 Cost.................. 52,259 637,714 646,525 508,775 329,970 12,263,784 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $112,028 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................... 112,028 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ..................... 95,000 1 Includes $19,000 from general investigations appropriations for preauthorization studies. CONTRIBUTED FUNDS' Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated......... .......... $215,000 ............ $20,000............ 235,000 Cost................. 5,771 $153,11 40,842 $18,369 217,993 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ....................... $12,106 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 12,106 1 Miscellaneous construction, engineering, and design services (nonproject) accomplished at the expense of the State of California under local cooperation requirements in connection with acquisition of rights-of-way and utility alterations. 11. CAMANCHE RESERVOIR, CALIF. Location. Camanche Reservoir is on Mokelumne River, which is located in central California immediately north of Stockton and about 70 miles northeast of San Francisco. It is the most northerly main tributary of the San Joaquin River. The North, Middle and South Forks of the Mokelumne River rise at elevations generally above 8,000 feet on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada and unite about 18 miles upstream from Pardee Dam to form the main stem of the river. The river then flows southwest through a canyon for about 30 miles to Camanche Dam at the edge of the valley floor. It then flows westward across the valley floor for approximately 35 miles to a junction with its major tributary, the Cosumnes River, from which it splits into two branches and meanders in a generally southerly direction for about 10 miles reuniting about 4 miles above its mouth in the San Joaquin River. The drainage area of Mokelumne River above the Camanche Dam is about 620 square miles. (See U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps of the area.) Existing project. Federal participation consists of a contribution toward the first cost of Camanche Reservoir, in an amount com- mensurate with the flood-control benefits to be attained. Existing storage on the Mokelumne River and its tributaries above Camanche Dam includes Pardee Reservoir, owned by the 1768 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 East Bay municipal utility district, with a capacity of 210,000 acre- feet; and Salt Springs, Upper and Lower Bear, and other small reservoirs owned by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. having an aggregate capacity of about 215,000 acre-feet. Camanche Reservoir, which is being constructed by the above utility district, is a multiple-purpose storage reservoir for flood control and water supply. The dam will be located on the main stem of Mokelumne River about 50 miles above the mouth of the river, approximately 10 miles downstream from existing Pardee Dam and 15 miles upstream from the city of Lodi. The improvement com- prises a 171-foot high zoned earth and gravel fill dam to create a reservoir with a gross storage capacity of 431,500 acre-feet. The Federal contribution is based on provision of a maximum of 200,000 acre-feet of reservoir storage for flood-control operation, generally during the winter months. Construction was initiated during April 1962. The project will provide a high degree of flood protection to the city of Lodi and to the towns of Woodbridge and Thornton; to sev- eral community centers; to U.S. Highways 50 and 99; to numerous utility crossings; and to several railroad lines. The project will also provide a high degree of protection to about 3,000 acres of urban and suburban areas and to about 69,000 acres of highly developed agricultural land adjacent to Mokelumne River. The latest approved estimate (July 1962) of Federal participa- tion toward new work is $10,670,000, including $420,000 incidental Federal costs and preauthorization studies. The amount is based on the cost-allocation report approved by the President of the United States on March 9, 1962, as modified slightly by the actual main dam contract. The Federal contribution to East Bay municipal utility district is based on 28.9 percent of the actual construction cost; however, the Federal contribution is limited to $14 million, excluding Federal costs for engineering, administration of funds, and interest on the Federal expenditure during the construction period. The Federal contribution was authorized by the Flood Control Act of July 14, 1960; full monetary authorization was provided by the authorization act. Local cooperation. Local interests are represented by the East Bay municipal utility district, Oakland, Calif. In consideration for a Federal contribution toward the first costs of construction, and prior to the making of such monetary contribution or any part thereof, local interests are to: (a) Enter into an agreement with the Department of the Army providing for operation of the dam in such manner as will produce the flood-control benefits upon which the monetary contribution is predicated; (b) operate the flood control reservation in the dam in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; and (c) enter into an agreement with the Department of the Army, to provide adequately for mitigation of damages to fish and wildlife, consistent with the other purposes of the project. A formal contract, based upon the cost-allocation studies com- pleted in fiscal year 1962, was consummated with the utility district FLOOD CONTROL-,SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1769 on March 19, 1962, and approved by the Secretary of the Army April 19, 1962. An agreement dated January 3, 1961, between the utility district and the State Department of Fish and Game relative to mitigation of damage to fish and wildlife was made a part of the above formal contract. The utility district has contracted with Amador and Calaveras County for upstream water rights. The utility district is progressing with construction of the proj- ect; contract for the main dam was awarded in March and construc- tion was initiated during April 1962. Project completion is sched- uled for July 1964. Total estimated first costs to local interests of all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization amount to $25,230,000 (July 1962), exclusive of the Federal contribution. There was no required non-Federal contribution. Annual maintenance, operation, and replacement costs, the re- sponsibility of local interests, are estimated at $156,000 (July 1962). Operationsand results during fiscal year. The review report was completed. A formal contract, based upon the cost-allocation stud- ies completed during the fiscal year, was consummated with the East Bay municipal utility district on March 19, 1962, and ap- proved by the Secretary of the Army April 19, 1962. Close coordi- nation was maintained with the utility district, the State and other local interests. The utility district initiated construction of the main dam during April 1962; however, construction agtivities were suspended during most of May and June 1962 due to the labor strike-lockout. Total cost for the project during the fiscal year was $12,261, for preauthorization studies. Conditionat end of fiscal year. The formal contract providing for flood-control storage in the reservoir has been approved by the Secretary of the Army. Construction of the main dam is underway. Current schedules call for initiation of dam closure during April 1963, completion of closure by November 1, 1963, and project com- pletion during July 1964. Total cost to June 30, 1962, for the project was $111,032, for pre- authorization studies. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 19581 1959 1 1960 1 1961 1 1962 1 June 30; 1962 New work: ......... Appropriated. $23,273 $9,325 $9,435 $24,000 $14,000 1$115,000 Cost ................. 20,380 12,477 9,176 21,771 12,261 1111,032 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ 1$3,968 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 ............................... 3,000,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................ 3,003,968 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ...................... 7,555,000 1 For preauthorization studies. 12. WALNUT CREEK, CALIF. Location. Walnut Creek Basin is about 15 miles east of San Fran- cisco Bay in a depression between the Berkeley Hills and Mount 1770 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Diablo in Contra Costa County, Calif. The principal stream system draining the area includes Walnut Creek and its major tributaries, San Ramon, Las Trampas, Pine, and Grayson Creeks. The Walnut Creek Basin has a drainage area of about 145 square miles; the drainage area of Walnut Creek at the city of Walnut Creek is 78 square miles. Walnut Creek terminates in Suisun Bay, a tidal arm of the San Francisco Bay system. The lower end of the creek is sometimes referred to as Pacheco Creek. Elevations range from sea level at the northerly boundary of the basin where it joins Suisun Bay to 3,849 feet above sea level at the summit of Mount Diablo near the southeastern boundary of the basin. (See U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles for the area.) Existing project. The project is located on Walnut Creek and on the lower reaches of its principal tributaries: Pacheco, Grayson, San Ramon and Las Trampas Creeks, in Contra Costa County. The improvement will extend from Suisun Bay to the head of the proj- ect about one mile above the southern limits of the city of Walnut Creek. The city of Walnut Creek is about 10 miles south of Suisun Bay. The project comprises extension of existing levees, construc- tion of new levees, construction of pumping plants for disposal of interior drainage, channel rectification and enlargement, and utili- zation of improvements constructed or planned by local interests. Federal construction has not been initiated. The improvement will supplement the existing project of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, comprising a 200 acre-foot re- tarding reservoir on Pine creek and minor channel rectifi- cation on tributaries upstream from the limits of the Corps proj- ect. Improvement of lower Pine Creek channel under the Pilot Watershed Project of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service has not been accomplished but its improvement under Public Law 566 is now under consideration. If the Public Law 566 project does not materialize, the local interests would construct some improvements in the reach. Accordingly, no improvements will be included in the Corps project for Pine Creek. In addition, concrete conduits constructed by local interests through the city of Walnut Creek will be incorporated in the Corps project. The plan provides for about 14.1 miles of channel, 4 reinforced-concrete drop structures, 1 stilling basin, 11.8 miles of levees and 4 pumping plants. The Corps project will provide flood protection to about 6,100 acres in the flood plain at and below the city of Walnut Creek. About one-half of this area lies within the urban and suburban areas of Walnut Creek, Concord, and Pacheco. Land use is rapidly evolving from agricultural use to suburban, because the area is within commuting distance of the San Francisco Bay area. The project would provide for protection against floods occurring less frequently than once in 100 years on the average, except along the lower Las Trampas and San Ramon Creeks where adjoining improvements constructed by local interests are de- signed to provide protection against floods with a frequency of 50 years. Operation and maintenance of the improvements after comple- tion will be the responsibility of local interests. FLOOD CONTROL--SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1771 The latest approved estimate of Federal cost for new work (July 1962) is $21,300,000, comprising $730,000 for relocation of railroad bridges and $20,570,000 for other construction (including preauthorization studies). The improvement was adopted by the Flood Control Act of July 14, 1960 (H. Doc. 76, 86th Cong., 1st sess., which contains the latest published map). Full monetary authorization was provided by the authorization act. Local cooperation. Prior to construction, local interests are required to give assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will: (a) Contribute in cash 7.4 percent of the cost of construction, in consideration of land-enhancement bene- fits, payable either in a lump sum prior to commencement of con- struction, or in installments prior to commencement of pertinent work items, in accordance with construction schedules as required by the Chief of Engineers, the final allocation of costs to be made after actual costs have been determined; (b) provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way nec- essary for construction of the proposed improvements, together with all alterations or relocations of roads, bridges, or utilities required therefor, except railroad facilities; (c) maintain and operate each effective element of the work after completion of that element and all work after completion thereof in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; and (d) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works. Formal assurances have not yet been requested. However, the Board of Directors of Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by resolution dated January 21, 1958, stated that it would furnish, or make arrangements to furnish, all the requirements of local cooperation. Such informal assurance was confirmed by the Board of Directors by resolution dated October 24, 1961. Total costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, amount to $7,550,000 (July 1962). These costs include a required cash contribution of $1,700,000 and an addi- tional outlay of $4,100,000 for lands and damages and $1,750,000 for relocations. Concrete conduits (to be incorporated in the Corps project) constructed through the city of Walnut Creek by local interests at an estimated cost of $1,500,000 are considered a preproject condi- tion and the cost thereof is not included in the above costs for requirements of local cooperation. The latest estimate (July 1962) of annual maintenance, oper- ation and replacement costs to local interests for this construction is $151,000. Operations and results during fiscal year. Funds were allotted in fiscal year 1962 to permit initiation of preconstruction planning. Office engineering, field surveys and explorations, and preparation of the general design memorandum for the first construction unit were initiated. 1772 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Total cost for the project during the fiscal year was $62,862 for new work. Condition at end of fiscal year. Preconstruction planning was initiated in fiscal year 1962; field surveys are about 93 percent complete. The general-design memorandum for the first construc- tion unit is scheduled for completion during the latter part of fiscal year 1963. Planning of the Corps project is being closely coordinated with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Total costs to June 30, 1962, for the project were $101,862, including $39,000 for preauthorization studies. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.......... 1$4,981 .... .... ... $99,000 2$138,000 Cost.................. 4,981 . ................................. 62,862 2101,862 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ........................ $16,709 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 ................................ 225,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................... 241,709 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project .................... 20,937,000 1 For preauthorization studies. 2Includes $39,000 from general investigations appropriations for preauthorization studies. 13. CALAVERAS RIVER AND LITTLEJOHN CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, INCLUDING NEW HOGAN AND FARMINGTON RESERVOIRS, CALIF. Location. The streams comprising the Calaveras River and Littlejohn Creek groups rise in the Sierra Nevada and its foothills, flow westerly across the flat lands of San Joaquin Valley and empty into the San Joaquin River directly, or through various sloughs, in the vicinity of Stockton, Calif. The Littlejohn Creek group drains 487 square miles, of which 184 miles are below the base of the foothills; the watershed is located in Calaveras, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin Counties. The three principal stream systems of the group are, from south to north, Lone Tree Creek, Littlejohn Creek, and Duck Creek. This group is bounded on the south by Stanislaus River watershed, and on the north by the Calaveras River group. The Calaveras River group drains 173 square miles below the base of the foothills and 560 square miles above. It is located in Calaveras and San Joaquin Coun- ties, and is bounded on the south by Littlejohn Creek group watershed, and on the north by Mokelumne River watershed. The two principal streams of the group are, from south to north, Calaveras River and Bear Creek. The valley lands are essen- tially a delta area in which the streams of both groups are more or less interconnected by creeks and swales. (See U.S. Geological Survey Valley Springs quadrangle for New Hogan Reservoir area and Trigo and Bachelor Valley quadrangles for Farmington Res- ervoir area.) Existing project. This consists of: (a) Construction of Farm- ington Dam and Reservoir, with a gross storage capacity of 52,000 acre-feet, a diversion channel from Duck Creek to Littlejohn Creek, two dikes across downstream channels leading from FLOOD CONTROL---SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1773 Duck Creek to Mormon Slough, and enlargement of downstream Littlejohn Creek Channels for the exclusive purpose of flood control. Farmington Reservoir is formed by an earthfill dam with a maximum height of about 58 feet and a length of about 7,800 feet; it is located on Littlejohn Creek 31/2 miles upstream from Farmington and about 18 miles easterly of Stockton, Calif. The outlet works are located in the right abutment and consist of two rectangular concrete conduits, each 6 by 9 feet, controlled by slide gates, and a stilling basin. A concrete broadcrested weir approximately 95 feet long, located in the right abutment, serves as the spillway. Construction of the main dam and spill- way was completed in June 1951. The Duck Creek diversion, located approximately 1 mile east of Farmington, comprises an earth dike across Duck Creek with two pipe outlets, a concrete overflow weir adjacent thereto, and a diversion channel approxi- mately 5,014 feet long with a capacity of 2,000 cubic feet per second to Littlejohn Creek. The two dikes across the downstream channels are of earthfill construction and are located approxi- mately 3 and 8 miles, respectively, west of Farmington. Duck Creek channel improvements were completed in November 1951. The Littlejohn Creek downstream channel improvement comprises an enlarged and improved channel from the vicinity of Farming- ton to French Camp. The improvement, consisting of clearing, channel excavation, and minor levee construction, was completed in April 1955. These improvements provide flood protection for about 58,000 acres of agricultural land, suburban areas, and indus- trial sites in the area immediately southeast of Stockton. Maintenance and operation of the dam, reservoir and appur- tenant gages are the responsibility of the Federal Government. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $10,410. Maintenance and operation of the channel improvements are the responsibility of local interests. (b) The New Hogan Project provides for construction of a dam on Calaveras River to create a reservoir with a gross capac- ity of 325,000 acre-feet for flood control, irrigation, and other related conservation purposes. The dam will be a combination rock-and-earthfill structure with maximum height of 200 feet and length of about 1,960 feet, together with four rolled-earthfill dikes having a combined length of about 1,355 feet and a maxi- mum height of 18 feet. A gated spillway will be located about 600 feet south of the left abutment of the dam. The improvement will be located on the Calaveras River, about 28 miles northeast of Stockton, Calif., and downstream from the present small Hogan Dam, which is owned and operated by the city of Stockton for partial flood protection of that city. Construction was initiated during May 1960 and is 51 percent complete. The project will provide flood protection to an area of about 46,000 acres of highly developed agricultural land along the Calaveras River; to about 14,000 acres of urban and suburban land in and adjacent to the city of Stockton which is now inade- quately protected against major floods; to main highways and rail- road lines; to industries and to access roads to important military installations within the Stockton area. In addition, it will provide 1774 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 about 71,800 acre-feet of new and reregulated water supply an- nually for irrigation and related purposes, including provision of a potential municipal water source for Stockton and its industries. The project will provide important recreational facilities for residents of the city of Stockton and surrounding areas. The initial overlook area was constructed by the Federal Government in fiscal year 1961. Operation and maintenance of the project will be the responsi- bility of the Federal Government. Local interests will reimburse the United States for the irrigation and related conservation func- tions of the project. (c) The levee and channel improvement of Bear Creek, San Joaquin County, provides for construction of about 38 miles of low levees and 22 miles of channel improvement for flood control purposes. The project extends from about 2 miles south of the town of Lockeford, Calif., along Bear Creek to Disappointment Slough, a delta channel which connects with San Joaquin River at mile 28.5. This construction would provide a channel with a capacity of 5,500 cubic feet per second, with 3 feet of levee free- board. Construction has not been initiated. The improvement will provide a high degree of flood protection to an area which is flooded, at least in part, on an average of 3 out of 4 years. The area to be protected includes about 30,000 acres of highly developed orchards, vineyards, and row croplands; suburban areas adjacent to the city of Stockton which are now unprotected against all but minor flows; and main highways, railways, and industrial developments. Operation and maintenance of the project will be the respon- sibility of local interests. The latest approved estimate of Federal cost for new work is as follows: Estimated cost Project Lands and Construction 1 damages Total 1 (including relocations) Farmington Dam and Reservoir. 2......................... $2,546,000 $1,145,000 $3,691,000 New Hogan Dam and Reservoir 3. ........................ 413,680,000 1,070,000 14,750,000 Bear Creek, San Joaquin County ......................... 62,920,000 ................ . 2,920,000 Total ................. ..................... ..... 19,146,000 2,215,000 21,361,000 1 Includes the following amounts for preauthorization studies; Farmington Reservoir, $13,300; New Hogan Reservoir, $25,000; and Bear Creek, San Joaquin County, $6,000. 2 Completed; July 1955 price level. " July 1962 price level. 4 Includes $390,000 for initial recreation facilities. a Includes estimated Federal reimbursement to local interests in the amount of one-half of the excess local interest costs of lands, rights-of-way and relocations over the estimated Fed- eral construction cost in accordance with section 3 of Public Law 738, 74th Congress, adopted June 22, 1936. Such reimbursement is estimated as $910,000 (July 1962). The existing project was adopted by the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944. (See H. Doc. 545, 78th Cong., 2d sess., which contains the latest published map. Full monetary authori- zation was provided by the Authorization Act. FLOOD CONTROL--SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1775 Recommended modifications of project. In House Document 368, 81st Congress, 1st session, a plan of improvement was recom- mended which would provide for construction of a levee on the right bank of the Stockton Diverting Canal and incidental channel improvement, such work to extend from its source at Mormon Slough to its confluence with the lower Calaveras River. The recommended work would supplement the authorized New Hogan Reservoir, and would control Calaveras River floods by confining regulated flows to leveed channels. The estimate of Federal cost for new work (1948) is $52,000. A review report for flood control on Mormon Slough and the diverting canal was authorized in July 1956. The report was ini- tiated in fiscal year 1961 and completed in fiscal year 1962. Local cooperation. (a) Farmington Dam and Reservoir: None was required for construction of Farmington Dam and Reservoir. All requirements have been compiled with for the channel im- provements of this project unit. For further details see Annual Report for 1954, page 1380. The Duck Creek diversion structures and dikes were transferred to the State of California for mainte- nance and operation in June 1952; the improved Littlejohn Creek channel was transferred in October 1957. (b) New Hogan Dam and Reservoir: Local interests are re- quired to pay an equitable part of the project first cost, and of the annual maintenance and operation charges, for conservation use of the project; maintain the channel of Mormon Slough down- stream to the diverting canal to the existing channel capacity for disposal of excess water in the Calaveras River service area; and transfer without cost to the United States the existing dam and related lands lying within the taking time for the New Hogan Reservoir. The State of California officially adopted the project by chapter 1514, statutes of 1945, State of California. Legislation enacted in April 1958 authorized the State to participate and cooperate in multiple-purpose water projects authorized for construction by the Corps, and appropriated $10 million for such purpose. By letter dated May 21, 1959, the State Reclamation Board, fur- nished to the District Engineer assurances that the Mormon Slough Channel from Bellota downstream to the diverting canal would be maintained to provide the existing channel capacity of 6,000 second-feet. The contract between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the California State Department of Water Resources, for repay- ment of the cost of the conservation storage was executed on March 2, 1960. The Bureau will administer the contract in ac- cordance with reclamation law. In general, the contract pro- vides that the State will repay costs not covered by subsidiary contracts between water users and the Bureau of Reclamation. The State assumes full responsibility for repayment 7 years after notice is given by the contracting officer that the project is avail- able for storage or delivery of water. Subsidiary contracts for water for municipal and industrial use are subject to approval by the Secretary of the Army. Funds for meeting the repayment 1776 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 responsibilities of the State of California were appropriated by the State Legislature in 1959 and 1960. The city of Stockton, as the present owner of the existing Hogan Dam and Reservoir and related lands, is required to trans- fer without cost to the United States the existing dam and all city-owned lands lying within the taking line for the New Hogan Reservoir. Rights-of-entry required for construction of the main dam and appurtenances were furnished June 20, 1960, by the city of Stockton. The city of Stockton will continue to operate the existing reservoir during the construction period. No known county, city, or other local agencies are interested in assuming responsibility for administration and management of the recrea- tion facilities. (c) Bear Creek Channel, San JIoaquin County; Local interests will be required to: (1) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the works; (2) make all necessary bridge and utility altera- tions; (3) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; and (4) maintain and operate all works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. The State of California officially adopted the project by chapter 1514, statutes of 1945, and in- structed the Reclamation Board of the State of California to carry out the required local cooperation. Assurances were accepted by the District Engineer June 4, 1962. The Board has entered into a contract with the San Joaquin County for the design, construc- tion, and inspection of county bridges affected by the project, and is negotiating with the Division of State Highways relative to State highways affected. It is expected that the Board will pro- vide all rights-of-way and relocations as required to meet the construction schedules. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation for first cost of new work under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, amount to: Lands and Required damages reimbursement Unit (including for irrigation Total relocations) and related functions Farmington Dam: Duck Creek and Littlejohn Creek channel improvements. 1. $319,300 ................ $319,300 New Hogan Dam and Reservoir 2.................. ..... . 244,000 4$5,339,500 5,583,500 Bear Creek Channel, San Joaquin County. 2.. ........... 42,920,000 ................ 2,920,000 Totals........................ ............. 3,483,300 5,339,500 8,822,800 1 Completed; July 1955 price level. 2 July 1962 price level. 8 Based on a reimbursement of 36.2 percent of Federal first cost. In addition, local interests are required to reimburse 38 percnt of the annual cost of maintenance, operation, and replace- ments. Excludes estimated Federal reimbursement to local interests in the amount of one-half of the excess local interest costs of lands, rights-of-way and relocations over the estimated Federal construction cost in accordance with section 3 of Public Law 738, 74th Congress, adopted June 22, 1936. Such reimbursement is estimated as $910,000 (July 1962). The latest estimates (July 1962) of the annual cost to local interests for maintenance, operation, and replacements are: FLOOD CONTROL--SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1777 Estimated Unit cost Farmington Reservoir: Duck Creek and Littlejohn Creek channel improvements ...... $20,000 New Hogan Dam and Reservoir: Required reimbursement for irrigation and related functions .. 62,300 Mormon Slough channel from Bellota downstream to the diverting canal .................................... 30,800 Bear Creek channel, San Joaquin County ........................ 31,800 Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: (a) Farmington Reservoir: None. (b) New Hogan Reservoir: Engineering, design, and land ac- quisition activities were continued by hired labor. Contract work relating to relocation of Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. lines and Southern Pacific Railroad facilities was completed. Construc- tion of the main dam and appurtenances, initiated in fiscal year 1961 by a continuing contract, was continued; however, construc- tion activities were suspended during most of May and June 1962 to the labor strike-lockout. In addition the following construction was initiated during the fiscal year: (1) Reservoir clearing, by contract; and (2) basic public-use facilities to meet recreation requirements during the initial 3 years of project operation, by continuing contract. The city of Stockton continued operation of the existing Hogan Reservoir for flood control and irrigation service during the con- struction period. (c) Bear Creek, San Joaquin County: Engineering and design activities, including surveys and explorations, were continued. The general-design memorandum was completed; plans and speci- fications for the first construction unit were initiated. Maintenance: Farmington Reservoir: Maintenance of the dam, outlet works, and service facilities, including condition and oper- ation studies, was accomplished by hired labor. Operation of the project was accomplished as required by hydrologic conditions under contract between San Joaquin County and the United States. Local interests performed routine maintenance on the channel im- provements. During the winter rain flood season, maximum flow of Duck Creek diversion was 730 cubic feet per second on February 10, 1962, contributing to a flow of 1,140 cubic feet per second at Little- john Creek at Farmington. Maximum outflow of 1,960 cubic feet per second and maximum storage of 10,800 acre-feet occurred on February 16, 1962; maximum hourly inflow of 7,770 cubic feet per second occurred February 15, 1962. During the February 1962 storm, peak inflow to the reservoir was about 10,800 cubic feet per second. This flow without the reservoir would have caused damages in the vicinity of Stockton, Calif., to urban, sub- urban and farm lands, to roads and highways, and to industrial areas, amounting to a total of about $1,400,000. With the reser- voir in operation the flows were nondamaging. 1778 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Total costs for all work during the fiscal year were as follows: Unit New work Maintenance Total United States funds: Farmington Reservoir ............... ............................ $13,065 $13,065 New Hogan Reservoir ............................. $4,176,847 ............. 4,176,847 Bear Creek Channel................................. 77,463............. 77,463 Total .................................... ...... 4,254,310 13,065 4,267,375 Condition at end of fiscal year. (a) Farmington Reservoir: Con- struction of Farmington project was initiated in July 1949, and was completed for beneficial flood-control operation in calendar year 1952. Duck Creek channel improvement was completed in November 1951; and channel improvement on south Littlejohn Creek was completed in May 1955. The reservoir, Duck Creek diversion facilities, and channel improvement of Littlejohn Creek are in operation. Condition of the dam and appurtenances is good. Approximately 2 miles of road are maintained by the Corps. Condition of the road is good. There are no recreation facilities and no public-use areas. All work on the project has been completed except for minor real estate costs. (b) New Hogan Reservoir: Construction was initiated in May 1960; relocations of roads and utilities have been completed. All lands required for construction of the main dam and appurte- nances and reservoir clearing have been acquired except for city of Stockton lands. Construction rights-of-entry, which were granted by the city, pending donation of these lands, have been extended from June 20th to December 20, 1962. A condemnation action will be filed by the Government at the request of the city due to title difficulties; actual possession will be deferred in order that the city may continue to operate the existing Hogan Dam during Federal construction of the new structure. Status of con- struction underway is as follows: Reservoir clearing, 89 percent complete; basic public-use facilities, 15 percent complete; and main dam and appurtenances, 47 percent complete. The overall proj- ect is about 54 percent complete. Current schedules call for ini- tiation of dam closure April 1, 1963, completion of closure by November 1, 1963, and project completion during June 1964. Work remaining to be done includes completion of work under- way, operators quarters, hydrologic and communication facilities and sedimentation ranges. (c) Bear Creek, San Joaquin County: Planning, initiated in fiscal year 1947 was suspended in fiscal year 1951 due to curtail- ment of civil works resulting from the Korean War. In fiscal year 1954 the project was classified "Deferred for restudy" due to local interests objections to the authorized levee and channel improvements. A review report, authorized in March 1954 and completed in fiscal year 1960, determined that provision of multi- purpose storage on Bear Creek as an alternative to the authorized project was not feasible. Very little of the planning which was accomplished prior to fiscal year 1961 could be utilized in con- tinuation due to changed conditions during the intervening years. FLOOD CONTROL---SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1779 The general-design memorandum has been completed; plans and specifications for the first construction unit are about 85 per- cent complete. Construction is currently scheduled for initiation during fiscal year 1963 and project completion during fiscal year 1965. Total cost of all work to June 30, 1962, was as follows: Unit and funds New work 1 Maintenance Total United States: Farmington Reservoir ................................. $3,689,141 2$84,519 $3,773,660 New Hogan Reservoir.. .. ................ ... ... . 7,556,377 ... ........ 7,556,377 Bear Creek channel ................................. 181,726 ............... 181,726 Total United States................ ............. 11,427,244 84,519 11,511,763 Contributed, Farmington Reservoir............ ...... .. 108,056 ... .......... 108,056 Total, all funds................................ .. 11,535,300 84,519 11,619,819 1 Includes the following Federal costs for preauthorization studies: Farmington Reservoir, $13,300; New Hogan Reservoir, $25,000; and Bear Creek Channel, $6,000. 2 For Federal operation and maintenance of the reservoir and appurtenant gages between July 1952 and June 30, 1962. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated.......... $70,000 $245,452 $1,020,149 $1,989,640 $5,281,400 25$12,735,178 Cost.................. 83,338 245,859 459,350 2,279,575 4,254,310 211,427,244 Maintenance: Appropriated ......... 12,258 7,200 7,886 11,650 13,000 84,650 Cost ................. 12,433 6,920 8,161 11,469 13.065 84,519 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .............................. $89,612 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 ................................ 3,450,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................... 3,539,612 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ........................ 5,175,822 1 In addition, $108,056 was expended for new work from contributed funds for miscellaneous construction under local cooperation requirements as related to acquisition of rights-of-way and utility alterations for Duck and Littlejohn Creeks channel imjovements as a part of the Farmington Reservoir unit. 2 Includes $44,300 from general investigations appropriations for preauthorization studies. 14. LOWER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, INCLUDING TUOLUMNE AND STANISLAUS RIVERS, CALIF. Location. The San Joaquin River has its sources in the Sierra Nevada, and flows generally southwest through the mountains and foothills to the vinicity of Friant, where it enters the flat alluvial valley through which it flows west 60 miles to Mendota midway of the valley floor. At Mendota the river turns north- west and flows 149 miles to Mossdale at the head of the San Joaquin Delta, an extensive area of reclaimed tidal swamplands through which the river flows with numerous side channels and sloughs to join the Sacramento River at the head of Suisun Bay near Pittsburg. The river drains an area of 17,000 square miles. The Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers, two of the principal tribu- taries of the San Joaquin River, likewise have their sources in the Sierra Nevada, and flow in a generally westerly direction through the mountains and foothills to enter the alluvial valley and join the main river from the east in its lower reaches. Stockton, at the head of the delta, and Fresno, just south of the San Joaquin watershed, are the principal commercial and distributing centers 1780 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 serving the area under consideration. (See U.S. Geological Sur- vey quadrangles of the area.) The lower San Joaquin River has been improved for navigation, the existing project providing for a 30-foot ship channel to Stockton and various minor improve- ments for the benefit of light-draft navigation in the delta chan- nels. Existing project. This improvement provides for: (a) As now authorized, construction of New Melones Dam and Reservoir on the Stanislaus River about 45 miles easterly of the city of Stockton, and about 25 miles upstream from the town of Oakdale, to create a reservoir with a gross storage capacity of 1,100,000 acre-feet for flood control, irrigation, and other related water conservation purposes. The dam would be located in Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties about three-quarters of a mile downstream from the ex- isting Melones Dam, which is owned and operated by the Oakdale and South San Joaquin Irrigation Districts. Facilities would be provided in the dam for a proposed 84,000-kilowatt downstream powerplant to replace the existing powerplant. Construction has not been initiated. New Melones Reservoir, as currently authorized, would provide needed flood protection to 25,000 acres of highly developed agri- cultural lands lying along the valley reaches of Stanislaus River and to suburban areas of small communities. In addition to flood- control benefits, the project would provide some 175,000 acre-feet of new water annually for irrigation and related purposes. It would also provide sufficient water for generation of about 321 million kilowatt-hours of additional usable power when a power- plant is authorized. In conjunction with storage projects on Tuolumne River and the authorized levees currently under con- struction on the San Joaquin River the project will provide a high degree of flood protection to the bottom land along the San Joaquin River below the Stanislaus River and to tracts in the upper delta. Two nainline railroads, U.S. Highway 99 and im- portant roads crossing the Stanislaus River, and railroads and highways crossing the San Joaquin River will be protected. Maintenance and operation of the dam and reservoir would be the responsibility of the Federal Government. Local interests will reimburse the United States for the irrigation and related con- servation functions of the project. (b) An expenditure toward the first cost of Cherry Valley Res- ervoir and the New Don Pedro Reservoir in the Tuolumne River Basin. Federal interest in the development is in the flood protec- tion to be afforded by reservoirs constructed by local interests, comprising the city and county of San Francisco and the Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts; the Federal Government will contribute toward first cost of the construction an amount com- mensurate with the flood-control benefits to be derived. The Federal Government has contributed a total of $9 million toward construction through June 30, 1962, exclusive of incidental Government costs. Ultimately the flood protection will be derived from the operation for flood control of at least 340,000 acre-feet of storage in the New Don Pedro Reservoir. First phase of the development by local interests was the con- FLOOD CONTROL-SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1781 struction, completed in fiscal year 1957, for municipal water sup- ply, power generation, and other purposes of the Cherry Valley Reservoir, in the upper Tuolumne River watershed, about 25 miles east of the town of Sonora, Calif. The dam is a composite earth and rock embankment 315 feet high and about 2,500 feet long, which creates a reservoir with a capacity of 268,000 acre- feet below the spillway crest. The local interests will operate this reservoir and the existing Hetch Hetchy and Don Pedro Reser- voirs for flood control until such time as the New Don Pedro Res- ervoir is constructed and placed in operation. Second phase of the development will be construction of New Don Pedro Dam on Tuolumne River a tributary of San Joaquin River in Tuolumne County, about 32 miles east of the city of Modesto. The improvement will comprise a rock and earthfill dam to create a reservoir capacity of 2,030,000 acre-feet for the purpose of municipal water supply, power generation, irrigation, and flood control. Construction of New Don Pedro Reservoir has not been ini- tiated. The Tuolumne River Reservoir will provide flood protection to part of the city of Modesto and to about 8,000 acres of farm- lands and rural communities in the Tuolumne River valley; and, in conjunction with the authorized Lower San Joaquin levees project storage on the Stanislaus River, and flood-control opera- tions of Friant Reservoir (USBR) on San Joaquin River, will assist in providing protection against floods to an area of 136,000 acres of croplands and a number of small communities along San Joaquin River. (c) A levee and channel improvement project located on the San Joaquin River and major tributaries upstream of the delta near Stockton, Calif. It provides for improvement of the existing chan- nel and levee system on the San Joaquin River upstream from the delta to the mouth of the Merced River, and on the lower reaches of the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers by raising and strength- ening the existing levees; construction of new levees; revetment of river banks where required; and removal of accumulated snags in the main river channel. The improvement also pro- vides for the acquisition, by local interests, of flowage rights on natural overflow lands where necessary to insure continued ef- fectiveness of channel storage on the San Joaquin River, Public Law 327, 84th Congress, 1st session, approved August 9, 1955, modified the project to permit local interests to construct levees and channel improvements upstream from Merced River, where required, in lieu of acquiring flowage easements. Construction of such improvements is currently being done by the State of Cali- fornia. The State plan of improvement is being coordinated with that of the Federal Government. Construction of the Federal por- tion of the project was initiated in July 1956 and is 46 percent complete. This project is an integral unit of the overall plan for flood control and other purposes on the San Joaquin River and tribu- taries and supplements the reservoir units of the overall plan, 1782 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 involving flood-control storage on the Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers and in the existing Friant Reservoir on the upper San Joaquin River, by providing required channel capacity for regu- lated flows. Levee and channel improvements, together with the reservoir storage, will provide urgently needed flood protection to a rich agricultural area of approximately 136,000 acres to nu- merous commercial and public installations, and to a suburban area adjacent to the city of Stockton. The latest approved estimate of Federal costs for new work (July 1962 except as noted) is as follows: Estimated cost 1 Unit Lands and Construction damages Total (including relocations) New Melones Dam and Reservoir ....................... 2$71,630,000 $16,370,000 3$88,000,000 Tuolumne River Basin: Cherry Valley Dam and Reservoir (completed) .......... . 9,280,646 ................ 9,280, 646 New Don Pedro Dam and Reservoir......... ............ 5,894,000 ................ 5,894,000 Subtotal-Tuolumne River Basin ................... 15,174,646 ................ 15,174,646 Lower San Joaquin River and tributaries ................... 13,100,000 ............ 13,100,000 Totals............................................ 99,904,646 16,370,000 116,274,646 1 Includes the following amounts for preauthorization studies from general investigations appropriation: New Melones Dam, $50,000; Cherry Valley Dam, $45,000; New Don Pedro Dam, $15,000; and Lower San Joaquin River and tributaries, $34,000. 2 For a 1,100,000 acre-foot reservoir; includes hydroelectric generating facilities which are not yet authorized. (See the following paragraph, Recommended modifications of project.) 3 July 1960 price level. 4 Comprises Federal contribution of $9 million and incidental Federal costs of $280,646, includ- ing preauthorization studies. 5 Comprises Federal contribution of $5,484,000 and incidental Federal costs of $410,000, in- cluding preauthorization studies. The left bank levee in the Tuolumne River to Merced River reach is considered to be inactive and has been excluded from the foregoing cost estimate. The cost of this project unit was last revised in July 1960 and was estimated to be $300,000 for construction. The existing project was adopted by the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, (See House Flood Control Committee Doc. 2, 78th Cong., 2d sess., which contains the latest published map); as modified by Public Law 327, 84th Congress, 1st session, approved August 9, 1955. The 1944 Flood Control Act authorized $8 million for partial accomplishment of the project. Further monetary authoriza- tions of $2,500,000, $5 million, and $13 million were provided for this project by Public Laws 235, 83d Congress, 1st session; 780, 83d Congress, 2d session; and 85-500, 85th Congress, 2d session, July 3, 1958, making a total monetary authorization of $28,500,000 available. Recommended modifications of project. In House Document 367, 81st Congress, 1st session, it was recommended that power- generating facilities, not now included in the authorized project, be constructed concurrently with and as part of New Melones Dam. For an initial installation of 41,000 kilowatts, the first cost was estimated (1948) at $4,727,000, and the annual cost of FLOOD CONTROL---SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1783 maintenance and operation at $194,400. In Senate Report 298, 83d Congress, the Committee on Public Works took note of the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers in House Document 367, 81st Congress, for an installation of 41,000 kilowatts of power-generating facilities and recommended a report on economic feasibility be prepared. This report was completed and submitted to the Senate Committee on Public Works in July 1957. The re- port concluded that the New Melones project as presently author- ized for flood control and conservation is economically justified but that the addition of power facilities, installed capacity of 84,000 kilowatts, would more fully develop the water resources of the Stanislaus River. Preparation of a revised feasibility report was approved by Congressional appropriation committees in October 1959; the re- vised report was approved by the Bureau of the Budget late in fiscal year 1962 and will be submitted to Congress early in fiscal year 1963. The report includes the recommendation that Congress enact legislation to authorize the New Melones facilities for con- struction of the project by the Corps of Engineers and, upon completion of construction, operation and maintenance of the proj- ect by the Bureau of Reclamation as a part of the Central Valley project. The plan of development provides for a rock-shell dam and a reservoir with a capacity of 2,400,000 acre-feet and a power- plant with installed capacity of 150,000 kilowatts at an estimated cost of $114 million (July 1961) for flood control, irrigation, power, and recreation. A bill was introduced in Congress June 14, 1961, (H. R. 7665), to reauthorize the project substantially as recommended in the above report. Local cooperation. (a) New Melones Reservoir (Stanislaus River): The State of California officially adopted the project as currently authorized by Chapter 1514, Statutes of State of Cali- fornia, 1945. In addition, authority for the Department of Water Resources to participate and cooperate with the United States in the planning of construction, operation, maintenance and fi- nancing of the project is contained in chapter 2417, Statutes of State of California, 1957. Local interests are required to pay an equitable part of the project first cost, and of the annual mainte- nance and operation charges, irrigation and related conservation functions of the project. The payments will be made in accordance with Reclamation Law. Such payments will be based on cost allo- cation studies made by the Department of the Army. Total esti- mated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal con- tributions, will not be known until the cost allocation study has been completed; however, the allocation to irrigation is presently estimated (July 1960) at 40.6 percent of Federal first cost and 21.2 percent of the annual operation, maintenance and replace- ment costs. (b) In Tuolumne Basin: The State of California officially adopted the project by Chapter 1514, Statutes of State of Califor- nia, 1945. In consideration of the Federal contribution toward the first costs of construction, local interests are required to con- struct, maintain, and operate New Don Pedro Reservoir, allocate 1784 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 a specified storage therein for flood control, and operate such flood-control reservation in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. A contract was negotiated in 1949 with local interests, compris- ing the city and county of San Francisco and the Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts, whereby they agreed to provide 340,000 acre-feet of flood-control storage in New Don Pedro Reservoir when constructed, in exchange for a Federal contri- bution estimated at $12 million. Local interests have provided a portion of the required flood-control storage since December 1949. Construction of Cherry Valley Reservoir, and provision of interim flood control storage therein as well as in existing Don Pedro and Hetch Hetchy Reservoirs has provided approximately 75 percent of the flood-control requirements for the overall de- velopment. Federal payments totaling $9 million have been made to the local interests for this first phase. Local interests are proceeding with planning for construction of the New Don Pedro Reservoir and expect to initiate construction early in calendar year 1963. Current schedules call for power-on-the-line in June 1965 and project completion late in calendar year 1965. Delay in initiation of construction is due to the fact that the Federal Power Commission granted the State Fish and Game Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the right to intervene in the irrigation districts' application for the power license. A public hearing concerning the Federal Power Commission license is scheduled to be held in San Francisco July 23, 1962. It is under- stood that the local agencies and the fish and wildlife interests are now making considerable progress in negotiations for down- stream maintenance flows, and that a compromise agreement may be reached before the date of the hearing. Bond issues for the proj- ect received the overwhelming approval of voters in the elections held November 7, 1961, in Modesto, Turlock, and San Francisco. Total costs for all requirements of local cooperation for Cherry Valley Reservoir, completed in 1957, under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, amounted to $5 million. Total estimated costs (July 1962) for all requirements of local cooperation for New Don Pedro Dam and Reservoir under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal con- tributions, amount to $66,700,000. (c) San Joaquin River: The State of California officially adopted the project by Chapter 1514, Statutes of State of California, 1945. Chapter 1048, California Statutes of 1955, amended the water code and approved the execution of a plan which includes provisions for the State to construct levee and channel improve- ment works upstream from the mouth of Merced River, as re- quired, in lieu of furnishing flowage easements, to protect such lands against floods. In addition to bearing the cost of improvements as required along the San Joaquin River upstream from the mouth of the Merced River, local interests are required, for the Federal im- provement downstream from the mouth of the Merced River, FLOOD CONTROL---SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1785 to: (1) Furnish flowage rights to overflow certain lands along the San Joaquin River and furnish all lands, easements, and rights- of-way for construction or improvement of levees; (2) accomplish all necessary utility alterations and relocations; (3) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works and their subsequent maintenance and operation; and (4) maintain all levee and channel improvements after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Local interests are represented by the State Reclamation Board. Assurances of local cooperation were accepted January 6, 1956, by Sacramento District, Corps of Engineers for the Secretary of the Army. All lands, easements, and rights-of-way for Federal construc- tion have been furnished by the State of California as required to date and most of the utility alterations and relocations are accomplished under the Federal construction contracts with funds provided by local interests. Requirements for future construction will be furnished as needed. Since 1959 the State has completed contracts for about 69 miles of new levee including appurtenant features and 60 miles of sur- facing on existing levees on the non-Federal portion of the project above the mouth of Merced River. Advertising for additional units of the project levees and appurtenances is not currently scheduled. The entire State project will include construction of approxi- mately 375 miles of levees, along with major bridges and control structures. The work will extend along the San Joaquin River from the juncture with the Merced River in Merced County, up- stream to approximately 45 miles below Friant Dam near Fresno. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation below the mouth of the Merced River under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, amount to $3,500,000 (July 1962) for lands and damages, includ- ing relocations. Of this amount, approximately 38 percent ($1,330,000) has been expended or committed through June 30, 1962. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation above the mouth of the Merced River under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contributions were estimated (June 1962) by the State Reclamation Board to be $16,200,000 for State construction and $700,000 for lands and relocation of utilities by local interests, a total of $16,900,000. Of this amount the State had expended about $6,937,000 as of June 1, 1962, including about $670,000 for planning; $1,308,000 for rights-of-way and rights-of-way engineering; and $4,959,000 for design and construction. Maintenance and operation of the levee and channel improve- ments for the Federal improvement downstream from the mouth of the Merced River after completion are the responsibility of local interests. Completed units are transferred to the State of California for maintenance. The latest estimate (July 1962) of annual maintenance and replacements costs to local interests for 1786 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 this construction is $203,000. In addition, maintenance and opera- tion of the improvements under the State construction upstream from the mouth of the Merced River after completion are also the responsibility of local interests. Operations and results during fiscal year. (a) New Melones Reservoir (Stanislaus River): The revised feasibility report, in- cluding recommendation for congressional modification of the project, was submitted to the Bureau of the Budget on May 24, 1962, and was approved by the Bureau and sent to the Secretary of the Army for transmittal to Congress. (See paragraph on Recommended modifications of project.) (b) Tuolumne River reservoirs (exclusive of Cherry Valley Reservoir) : Cost allocation studies were completed; contacts with local interests for coordination of planning activities on New Don Pedro Reservoir were accomplished. (c) Lower San Joaquin River and tributaries: Engineering, including surveying and mapping and preparation of contract plans and specifications was continued. Construction of levees and bank protection along San Joaquin River, Walthall Slough to Old River and Banta Carbona Intake to Old River, initiated under continuing contract in fiscal year 1961, was completed. In addi- tion, the following work was initiated under continuing contracts: (1) Levee construction and bank protection, both banks, San Joaquin River, between Stockton Channel and head of Old River, currently 48 percent complete; and (2) levee construction, pump- ing plant, and navigation structure for passing small recreation craft along Walthall Slough to the north line of Reclamation Dis- trict 2075, including the Wetherbee Lake improvement. Total cost for the entire project during the fiscal year for new work was as follows: Project Federal funds Contributed Total funds New Melones Reservoir, Stanislaus River .............. .. $4,937 ................ $4,937 Tuolumne River Basin reservoirs, including Cherry Valley Reservoir ............... ................... ....... 16,577 ................ 16,577 Lower San Joaquin River and tributaries ................... 1,098,477 $103,354 1,201,831 Total....... ........... .... ......... ..... 1,119,991 103,354 1,223,345 1 Contributed funds for miscellaneous engineering and construction (nonproject) at the ex- pense of local interests in connection with acquisition of rights-of-way for Lower San Joaquin River and tributaries. Condition at end of fiscal year. New work: (a) New Melones Reservoir: Planning, initiated in fiscal year 1946, was suspended in fiscal year 1951 due to the general curtailment of civil works resulting from the Korean conflict. At the request of the Public Works Committees of Congress, a special feasibility report on the project was submitted. Revised feasibility report, initiated in fiscal year 1960, was approved by the Bureau of the Budget late in fiscal year 1962; the report is scheduled to be submitted to Con- gress in fiscal year 1963. Construction has not been initiated. (b) Tuolumne River Basin: (1) Cherry Valley Reservoir: Con- struction of Cherry Valley Reservoir, and provision of interim FLOOD CONTROL-SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1787 flood-control storage therein and in the existing Don Pedro Reser- voir to be operated until the New Don Pedro Reservoir is constructed, have provided approximately 75 percent of the flood- control requirements previously contemplated for the overall de- velopment, and $9 million in Federal payments have been made to local interests for the initial phase. Initial Federal contribu- tion was made in 1950. (2) Tuolumne River Reservoirs (exclusive of Cherry Valley Reservoir): Cost allocation studies have been completed; contacts with local interests for coordination of plan- ning activities on New Don Pedro Reservoir (phase II) are being maintained. Preconstruction planning is in progress by local in- terests; Federal planning comprises review of designs. Local in- terests estimate that construction will be initiated early in calendar year 1963; current schedules call for power-on-the-line in June 1965 and project completion late in calendar year 1965. (c) Lower San Joaquin River and tributaries: Construction was initiated in July 1956; the project is about 46 percent complete. General design memorandum is complete. Cooperative studies with the State of California have been made to determine plans for preservation of natural valley storage above Merced River. Construction status of river reaches is as follows: River reach Percent complete San Joaquin River, deep-water channel to head of Old River ........ 76 Old River, Middle River and Paradise Cut ...................... 26 San Joaquin River, Old River to Stanislaus River ................ 36 San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River to Tuolumne River ............ O0 San Joaquin River, Tuolumne River to Merced River .............. 100 State of California construction on the non-Federal portion of the project, initiated late in fiscal year 1960, is currently underway. The total cost for the entire project to June 30, 1962, for new work was as follows: Project Federal funds Contributed Total funds, other New Melones Reservoir, Stanislaus River ................... ................ $283,604 Tuolumne River Basin: Cherry Valley Reservoir ........................... 29,280,646 ................ 9,280,646 New Don Pedro Reservoir............................ 3105,385 ................ 105,385 Lower San Joaquin River and Tributaries ................... 6,083,405 ,$846,441 6,929,846 Total........... ........................... 15,753,040 846,441 16,599,481 1Includes $50,000 for preauthorization studies. 2 Includes $9 million direct Federal contribution to local interests and $280,646 incidental Federal costs (including $45,000 for preauthorization studies). S Incidental Federal costs (including $15,000 for preauthorization studies). Includes $34,000 for preauthorization studies. 5 Contributed funds for miscellaneous engineering and construction (nonproject) at the ex- pense of local interests in connection with acquisition of rights-of-way for Lower San Joaquin River and tributaries. Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS 1788 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Cost and financial statement--Continued Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $25,921 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 .................................. 1,700,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 1,725,921 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ............... ....... 98,821,607 1Includes 2 $144,000 from general investigations appropriations for preauthorization studies. Including power generating facilities not yet authorized for New Melones Reservoir. CONTRIBUTED FUNDS 1 Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .................... $255,000 $232,000 $130,000 $233,300 $1,065,300 Cost.................. $44,149 68,526 215,343 314,960 103,354 846,441 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $183,188 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................... 183,188 'Contributed funds for miscellaneous engineering and construction (nonproject) at expense of local interests under local cooperation requirements in connection with acquisition of rights- of-way from Lower San Joaquin River and tributaries--levee and channel improvements. 15. MERCED RIVER, CALIF. Location. Merced River is located in central California about 85 miles southeast of San Francisco and 10 miles north of Merced. It is the most southerly of the four main tributaries to the San Joaquin River, and has its source in numerous small glacial lakes on the high western slope of the Sierra Nevada within the bound- aries of Yosemite National Park. Merced River flows in an al- most westerly direction for about 150 miles to its mouth in the San Joaquin River near the town of Newman, approximately 50 miles southeast of Stockton, Calif. The total drainage area at the mouth, amounting to 1,275 square miles, ranges in elevation from about 13,000 feet in the headwaters region to about 50 feet at the mouth. The drainage area above Exchequer Dam located about 60 miles from the river mouth at elevation 865 feet, amounts to approximately 1,020 square miles. (See U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps of the area.) Existing project. The Federal project consists of a Federal contribution in the interest of flood control toward the first cost of multiple-purpose dams and reservoirs to be constructed on Merced River by the Merced Irrigation District. The project com- prises: (a) Enlargement of existing Exchequer Reservoir to a capacity of 1 million acre-feet with a flood control reservation of 400,000 acre-feet; (b) construction of a 415,000 acre-foot reservoir at the Bagby site, about 12 miles upstream from Exchequer Dam; and (c) construction of the 190,000 acre-foot capacity Snelling Reservoir, about 10 miles downstream from Exchequer Dam. Project functions will include flood control, irrigation, and power. Flood control operation of New Exchequer Reservoir will pro- vide flood protection to about 50,000 acres of agricultural lands adjacent to Merced River and about 285,000 acres of primarily agricultural lands, including the fringe areas of several communi- ties, in the lower San Joaquin River and delta flood plains. The latest approved estimate of Federal expenditure toward new work (July 1962) is $12 million, including $11,500,000 contribu- tion to local interests and $500,000 incidental Federal costs and FLOOD CONTROL--SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1789 preauthorization studies. The Federal contribution is based on a fixed percentage of the actual construction cost of New Exchequer Dam and Reservoir, exclusive of power facilities. The fixed percentage and estimated contribution are to be determined from studies now under review by higher authority. The existing project was adopted by the Flood Control Act of July 14, 1960. The authorization act provided that unless con- struction of the development is undertaken within 4 years from the date of enactment of the authorization, the authority for the monetary contribution therein shall expire. Full monetary author- ization was provided by the authorization act. Local cooperation. Local interests are represented by the Merced Irrigation District. In consideration of a Federal contribution toward the first costs of construction, and prior to the making of such monetary contribution or any part thereof, local interests are to: (a) Enter into an agreement with the Department of the Army, providing for operation of the dam or dams in such manner as will produce the flood control benefits upon which the monetary contribution is predicated; and (b) operate the flood control reservation in the dam or dams in accordance with rules prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. The irrigation district has been issued a Federal Power Com- mission permit (project 2179) and has applied for a license to construct the project. The State Water Rights Board approved the irrigation district application for water rights necessary for operation of the project by decision D979 in August 1960. The irrigation district has stated on numerous occasions its willingness to provide the required local cooperation. Consulting engineers have been retained to design and supervise construction of the project and to cooperate with the Corps on cost allocation studies. A revenue bond issue of $130 million was approved by voters in June 1961 to finance construction of the project. Total estimated first costs to local interests of all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization amount to $95 million (July 1962), comprising $70 million for the dams and reservoirs, exclusive of the Federal contribution, and $25 million for power facilities. Maintenance and operation of the project will be the responsi- bility of local interests. Operationsand results during fiscal year. Engineering activities during the fiscal year included completion of cost allocation studies, now under review by local interests and higher echelons of the Corps, and review of local interests' designs and cost estimates. Total cost for the project during the fiscal year was $16,848, for preauthorization studies. Conditionat end of fiscal year. The review report recommending amount of Federal contribution is scheduled to be formally sub- mitted during fiscal year 1963. Close coordination with Merced Irrigation District and the consulting engineering firm has been maintained. Total cost to June 30, 1962, for the project was $42,434, for preauthorization studies. 1790 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: $3,303 Appropriated........... $3,697 $3,000 $18,000 $15,000 1$43,000 3,303 Cost.................. 3,000 2,315 16,968 16,848 142,434 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $566 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 ..................... 1.............8 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 8,566 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ....................... 11,949,000 1 For preauthorization studies. 16. MERCED COUNTY STREAM GROUP, CALIF. Location. The streams comprising the Merced County stream group rise in the Sierra Nevada foothills of the Central Valley of California and flow in a general westerly direction to join the San Joaquin River west of the city of Merced. The streams form three general groups; Bear Creek with its tributaries, Black Rascal Canal, Fahrens and Burns Creeks; Mariposa Creek with its tributaries, Miles and Owens Creeks; and Deadmans Creek with its tributaries, Little Deadmans, Big Deadmans, and Dutchmans Creek. The latter group crosses an area of pasture land and flood control improvements are not provided for this group. The remainder of the Merced County stream group drains an upper area of 398 square miles, ranging from mountains to low foothills, and a lower area of 312 square miles of broad alluvial valley. The flow of the streams of the Merced County group is intermittent. (See U.S. Geological Survey Haystack Mountain quadrangle for Burns Reservoir area and Indian Gulch quadrangle for Bear, Owens, and Mariposa Reservoirs areas.) Existing project. Improvement of Merced County stream group is a unit in the comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Basins. The project consists of four retarding-type reservoirs and provides for channel improvements, in the vicinity of the city of Merced, Calif., for the exclusive purpose of flood control. Mariposa Dam, completed in November 1948, comprises an earthfill main dam 1,330 feet long with a maximum height of about 88 feet and two auxiliary dikes aggregating 1,380 feet in length; the reservoir has a gross storage capacity of 15,000 acre-feet; the spillway is located in a saddle near the left abutment of the main dam. The dam is located on Mariposa Creek about 18 miles east of Merced. Owens Dam, completed in October 1949, consists of an earthfill main dam with a maximum height of 75 feet and a crest length of 790 feet and an auxiliary dike approximately 375 feet long in a saddle near the left abutment; the gross storage capacity of the reservoir is 3,600 acre-feet; the spillway is located in a saddle near the left abutment of the auxiliary dike. Owens Dam is located on Owens Creek about 16 miles east of Merced. Burns Dam, completed in January 1950, is an earthfill structure with a maximum height of 53 feet and a crest length of 4,074 feet; FLOOD CONTROL---SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1791 and five auxiliary dikes aggregating 4,764 feet in length; the reser- voir has a gross storage capacity of 7,000 acre-feet; the spillway is located near the right abutment. Burns Dam is located on Burns Creek about 13 miles northeast of Merced. Bear Dam, completed in December 1954, is an earthfill structure with a maximum height of 92 feet and a crest length of 1,830 feet; an ungated saddle spillway; and an auxiliary dike about 290 feet long; the reservoir has a gross storage capacity of 7,700 acre-feet. Bear Dam is located on Bear Creek about 16 miles northeast of Merced. Diversion of flow from Black Rascal Creek to Bear Creek was accomplished by means of a 3,000 second-foot capacity canal with a length of 1.3 miles, and diversion of flow from Owens Creek to Mariposa Creek, by means of a 400 second-foot capacity canal with a length of 1.6 miles. These improvements were completed in April 1956 and are located east of Merced 4 and 11 miles, respectively. In addition, channel enlargement of a constricted portion of Miles Creek and restoration of impaired channel capacities of Burns, Owens, and Mariposa Creeks was accomplished in 1956 by responsible local interests at their expense. Improvement of Bear Creek and Black Rascal Slough, below their confluence, has been deferred by local interests pending possible improvements downstream, outside the limits of the project. The project provides flood protection to about 136,000 acres of agricultural lands, to the city of Merced, to the towns of Planada and Le Grand and other smaller communities, and to highway and transportation facilities. In addition, the project reduces maximum floodflows from the Merced County stream group into the San Joaquin River. The total Federal cost of new work for the project, completed in fiscal year 1957, was $2,761,259, including $10,000 for pre- authorization studies. Operation and maintenance of the project and the existing chan- nel improvements is the responsibility of local interests. Operation and maintenance of the reservoirs and appurtenant gaging facili- ties is the responsibility of the Federal Government. The average annual Federal mantenance cost during the past 5 years was $12,949. The existing project was adopted by the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944. (See H. Doc. 473, 78th Cong., 2d sess., which contains the latest published map.) Full monetary authorization was provided by the authorization act. Local cooperation. Construction of the project was subject to the conditions that the State of California or other responsible local agencies give assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they would: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all land, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construction; (b) bear the expense of all necessary highway and utility changes, (c) complete the enlargement of the channel of Miles Creek and restore the channel capacities of Black Rascal, 1792 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1-962 Burns, Bear, Owens, and Mariposa Creeks in accordance with the plan of the district engineer; (d) hold and save the United States free from damages resulting from construction of the works; and (e) except for the reservoirs, dams, and appurtenant gages, main- tain and operate the completed project works and existing channel in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Chapter 1514, Statutes of State of California, 1945, provided for the furnishing of the required assurances which were accepted by the Secretary of the Army on January 22, 1948. All lands, easements, and rights-of-way were furnished by the State of California as required, in accordance with the above assurances. Senate bill 1659, Chapter 1118, Statutes of State of California of 1953, authorized the State Reclamation Board to provide the enlargement and restore the channel capacities of the creeks enumerated in (c) above. This work was completed in fiscal year 1956, with the exception of improvement of Bear Creek and Black Rascal Slough below their confluence, which has been deferred pending possible improvements downstream, outside the limits of the project. Total costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal con- tributions, amounted to $1,148,000 (April 1959). Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: None. Maintenance: Maintenance and operation of the dams and reservoirs and condition and operation studies, including periodic gage reading and other operational functions were accomplished throughout the fiscal year by hired labor. Local interests per- formed routine maintenance on existing channels. Runoff from drainage areas above the Merced County stream group reservoirs was below normal for the year. Only negligible storage of water occurred a few times during the winter-rain flood season. Maximum storage in the reservoirs occurred as follows: Reservoir Maximum storage Date Bear Reservoir ....... 1,290 acre-feet ....... February 11, 1962 Burns Reservoir.... .2,780 acre-feet ....... February 15, 1962 Mariposa Reservoir ... 6,610 acre-feet ....... February 12, 1962 Owens Reservoir ..... 920 acre-feet ....... February 11 and 12, 1962 During the February 1962 storm, flows of damaging magnitude occurred only on Burns Creek. Peak inflow to Burns Reservoir was about 11,500 cubic feet per second. This flow without the reservoir would have damaged rural and urban areas in the vicinity of Merced, Calif., in the amount of about $120,000. With the reservoir in operation the flows were nondamaging. Total costs for the project during the fiscal year were $18,127, all for Federal operation and maintenance of the four completed reservoirs and appurtenances. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction under this im- provement was initiated in March 1948, with the construction of Mariposa Dam and Reservoir, which was completed in November 1948. Construction of Owens Dam and Reservoir, initiated in FLOOD CONTROL-SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1793 March 1949, was completed in October 1949, and Burns Dam and Reservoir, initiated in July 1949 was completed in January 1950. Bear Dam and Reservoir, initiated in April 1954 was completed in December 1954. Black Rascal and Owens Creek diversion channels and stream-gaging stations were completed in April 1956. Local interests completed the channel enlargement and restora- tion of channel capacities of Miles, Burns, Owens, and Mariposa Creeks in 1956 at their expense. Improvement of Bear Creek and Black Rascal Slough, below their confluence, has been deferred pending possible improvements downstream, outside the limits of the project. Completed project and existing channels, are in good condition. There are no recreation facilities and no public-use areas. There are approximately 15 miles of access road maintained by the Corps. Condition of the road is good. Total costs for the project to June 30, 1962, were as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total costs costs costs United States .......................................... Contributed ................... ....................... '$2,761,259 2$127,643 $2,888,902 66,532 ............... 66,532 Total .. ..................................... 2,827,791 127,643 2,955,434 1 Including $10,000 for preauthorization studies. 2 Total Federal costs for operation and maintenance of the four completed reservoirs and appurtenances between July 1948 and June 30, 1962. 8 Contributed funds pursuant to requirements of local cooperation for work desired at expense of local interest. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962' New work: Appropriated................... -$2,741 . . . .. ...... 2........... $2,761,259 Cost............... ........ 908.......... ....................... 22,761,259 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... $8,427 13,400 $9,367 $15,950 $18,300 128,342 Cost................. 8,427 13,073 9,694 15,423 18,127 127,643 1 In addition, $66,532 was expended for new work from contributed funds for miscellaneous construction under local cooperation requirements as related to acquisition of rights-of-way and utility alterations for the project. 2 Includes $10,000 from general investigations appropriations for preauthorization studies. 17. PINE FLAT RESERVOIR AND KINGS RIVER, CALIF. Location. The area covered by this project comprises the upper watershed of Kings River, its alluvial fan or delta, and the reclaimed lakebed known as Tulare Lake. The upper basin above the town of Piedra is rugged and mountainous. Below Piedra the river enters the relatively flat alluvial valley where the river divides, one branch known as Fresno Slough flowing north to join the San Joaquin River, and the second south to Tulare Lake, an area which in its unreclaimed state varied from a completely dry condition to a body of water some 750 square miles in extent. There is no natural outlet from this lake as it is separated from the San Joaquin Basin by a low ridge, but lake waters have escaped over this ridge at least once since settlement of the region. Tulare Lake also receives floodwaters of Tule, Kaweah, and Kern Rivers 1794 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 in some years. The area below Piedra, including Tulare Lake, is known as the Kings River service area. (See U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles of the area.) Existing project. The improvement is a unit in the compre- hensive plan for flood control and other related purposes for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Basins. The project consists of a 429- foot-high concrete gravity dam, including a gated overflow sec- tion with a maximum discharge capacity of 391,000 cubic feet per second, creating a reservoir with a gross storage capacity of 1 million acre-feet, for flood control, irrigation, and related purposes. Outlet provisions for future power development are included in the dam, but Federal construction of power-generating facilities is not authorized. The dam is located on Kings River, about 25 miles east of the city of Fresno, Calif., and about 4 miles upstream from the town of Piedra; construction of the dam was completed in June 1954. The improvement also includes a limited amount of channel improvement on Kings River and its distributaries on the valley floor about 25 miles south of Fresno. The channel improve- ment work will enlarge channel capacities and regulate flows in the lower branches of the Kings River. The channel improvement work has not been initiated. There are seven public-use and recreation areas: one main- tained by the Corps of Engineers, two by the United States Forest Service, three by concession, and one by Fresno County. Recreation facilities at the Deer Creek area, other than Code 710 facilities, were completed in June 1958 and comprised a park- ing area and turnout on Deer Creek road. Initial improvement of Deer Creek Road with Code 710 funds, for boat-launching purposes, was completed in December 1959. Further development of this area is being accomplished by private concessionare under terms of a commercial lease. Basic public-use facilities for the Island Park area were provided during fiscal years 1961 and 1962; these facilities comprise access road, parking areas, picnic facili- ties, water supply and sanitary facilities, and a boat-launching ramp. In addition, Federal construction of additional recreational facilities will be accomplished at the Island Park, and Trimmer View Deer Creek sites. This construction will be funded from Code 710 appropriations for "Recreation Facilities at Completed Projects." The improvement will provide flood protection for about 80,000 acres of rich agricultural lands in the Kings River area and, in conjunction with the completed Isabella Reservoir on Kern River, Success Reservoir on Tule River, and Terminus Reservoir (com- plete except for minor cleanup) on Kaweah River, will provide flood protection to 260,000 acres of rich croplands in the Tulare Lake area. In addition, the project will improve the irrigation water supply with an average of 165,000 acre-feet of new water annually by retention of floodflows, and will provide a means of regulating the normal supply. The improvement to irrigation will benefit 460,000 acres in the Kings River service area and 260,000 acres in the Tulare Lake area. The latest approved estimate of Federal cost for new work FLOOD CONTROL--SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1795 (July 1962) is $40,500,000 of which $4,702,000 is for lands and damages including relocations, $35,798,000 for construction, in- cluding $47,000 for preauthorization studies, and $10,000 for recreational facilities. The latest estimate of Federal cost of recreational facilities for Pine Flat Reservoir, to be funded from Code 710 appropriations for "Recreation Facilities at Completed Projects," is $750,000 (July 1962) exclusive of recreation facilities previously provided at a cost of $10,000. Operation and maintenance of the dam and reservoir is the responsibility of the Federal Government. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $156,719. Local interests will reimburse the United States for the irriga- tion and related accomplishments of the project. Responsibility rests with the Department of Interior for negotiating a permanent repayment contract. In addition, local interests will be required to maintain the channel improvement work when completed. The existing project was adopted by the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944. (See H. Doc. 630, 76th Cong., 3d sess., which contains the latest published map.) Full monetary authorization was provided by the Authorization Act. Local cooperation. The State of California officially adopted the project by Chapter 1514 of the Statutes of 1945, State of Cali- fornia. Local interests are required to pay for the irrigation and related accomplishments of the dam and reservoir portion of the project. For the downstream channel improvement work, local interests are required to: (a) Furnish all lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for construction; (b) hold and save the United States free from damages due to construction and sub- sequent operation and maintenance of channel improvement, and (c) maintain the channel improvements after completion in ac- cordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Pending negotiations of the final contract, the Bureau of Rec- lamation is providing conservation water to the local interests under an interim contract, for which the irrigation interests have paid a total of $5,731,531 for service through December 31, 1961. Operation and maintenance costs attributable to irrigation func- tions are included in these payments. In addition, provision for storage of power water, under a Department of Army contract with Pacific Gas and Electric Co., has resulted in payment of approximately $1,096,643 for such storage through December 31, 1961. Local interests for the downstream channel improvements are represented by the Kings River Conservation district; assurances of local cooperation were accepted by the district engineer on November 20, 1959. Rights-of-way required for this construction, to be initiated in fiscal year 1963, are scheduled to be furnished by January 1, 1963. Under the provisions of the War Department Civil Appropria- tions Act of 1947, the Secretary of War, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Interior, as published in House Document 136, 80th Congress, 1st session, determined the division of first cost to irrigation should be set at an amount not to exceed $14,250,000. 1796 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 The exact amount is to be agreed upon by the Department of Interior and the local agencies directly concerned. In addition, local interests are required to pay 37.4 percent of the annual opera- tion, maintenance and replacement cost for the dam and reservoir. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation for the downstream channel improvements, including required non-Federal contributions, amount to $325,000 (July 1962). Esti- mated cost of maintenance and operation and replacements for this work is $18,000 (July 1962). The Tahiti Diamond Corp. has undertaken the development and management of recreation facilities in the Deer Creek Recreation area for use of the public in accordance with lease granted by the Secretary of Army on October 21, 1959. In addition, two concessionaires (one each at Lombardo's Fishing Village and Trimmer area) have provided public use facilities in accordance with lease agreements with the Secretary of the Army. Fresno County has developed public-use facilities on an 85-acre tract immediately downstream from the dam for picnicking, camp- ing, swimming, and playground activities, at an estimated cost of $17,000, under the provisions of a license agreement. The U.S. Forest Service operates a camp ground at the upper end of the reservoir and at two sites along the reservoir perimeter at the Sycamore Creek site. Total cost of development of these two sites is about $34,000. Operationsand results during fiscal year. New work: Engineer- ing, design, and instrumentation studies were continued by hired labor. Contact was maintained with the U.S. Bureau of Reclama- tion regarding a long-term contract for conservation operation of the project. Fiscal year activities for Code 710 recreation facilities included completion of the Federal public-use facilities for the Island Park recreation area, by hired labor and contract. Maintenance: Maintenance and operation of the dam and reser- voir, service facilities, channel and river control structures, and public recreational facilities was accomplished by hired labor dur- ing the year. No major repairs or replacements of flood control or irrigation equipment were required during the fiscal year. Pine Flat Reservoir was operated during the fiscal year for flood control purposes and for irrigation purposes under an interim contract with Kings River Conservation District, and for storage of power water under a contract with Pacific Gas & Electric Company. Runoff of Kings River above Pine Flat was about normal for the year. Maximum storage in the reservoir occurred on June 25, 1962, and amounted to 658,000 acre-feet, of which 645,000 acre-feet was irrigation water and 13,000 acre-feet was power water. The Kings River Conservation District has completely returned the 90,083 acre-feet loaned to the Conservation District by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., during the 1960-61 water year. Release of water for irrigation use totaled 1,280,000 acre-feet. No flood control releases were necessary. Total costs during the year for the project were $272,029, of which $102,496 was for new work (including $87,232 for recreation facilities from Code 710 funds) and $169,533 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction was initiated in FLOOD CONTROL---SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1797 April 1947; the project is about 97 percent complete. Construction of the main dam was initiated in January 1950, and completed in June 1954. The dam has been operating since February 1954 to provide the flood protection for which it was designed. The dam and appurtenances are in good condition. The 2.3 miles of project roads are in good condition. There are seven pub- lic-use and recreation areas: Two maintained by the U.S. Forest Service, three by concession, one by Fresno County, and one by the Corps of Engineers. Two launching ramps and associated parking areas are also maintained by the Corps. Public attendance in the reservoir area for calendar year 1961 was estimated at about 414,000 visitor-days. Work remaining to be done consists of installation of gages and communication facilities for operation purposes, the provision of channel improvements, and the completion of recreation facili- ties in connection with the overall development of the reservoir area. The radiotransmitting snow gages and associated relay station are required for efficient operation of the project during the snowmelt periods. These gages will be installed at remote sites at high elevations in the watershed after the snow gages already installed for this project have operated satisfactorily. Construction of channel improvements is scheduled for initiation in fiscal year 1963. Engineering and design is also required in connection with the above activities. Total cost of new work for the project to June 30, 1962 was $39,427,215, including $245,100 for recreational facilities. Total cost of maintenance for Federal operation and mainte- nance of Pine Flat Reservoir and appurtenances was $1,180,744 between July 1953 and June 30, 1962. Total cost of all work for the project to June 30, 1962, was $40,607,959. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.......... $100,000 ' 17,500 '$153,300 1263,590 1-- 46,000 ' $39,438,935 Cost .................. 100,866 235,264 2114,574 2142,778 2102,496 2 '39,427,215 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... 141,574 162,500 147,557 175,700 162,400 1,188,416 Cost.................. 141,675 158,543 146,067 167,779 169,533 1,180,744 Other new work data ": Unobligated balance, year ending June 30, 1962 4a .......................... $11,720 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 4b ... .50,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 4c ................ 61,720 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project 4 ................. . . ... 1,761,065 ' Includes Code 710 funds for recreational facilities: Fiscal year 1959, $10,500; fiscal year 1960, $62,000; fiscal year 1961, $101,600; fiscal year 1962, $75,000; Total to date $249,100. 2 Includes Code 710 funds for recreational facilities: Fiscal year 1959, $10,480; fiscal year 1960, $22,616; fiscal year 1961, $124,772; fiscal year 1962, $87,232; Total to date $245,100. 3 Includes $47,000 for general investigations appropriations for preauthorization studies. 4Includes Code 710 funds for recreational facilities: a. $4,000. b. $50,000. c. $54,000. d. $500,900. 18. KAWEAH AND TULE RIVERS, INCLUDING TERMINUS AND SUCCESS RESERVOIRS, CALIF. Location. The area covered by this project comprises the upper watersheds of Kaweah and Tule Rivers, their valleys and alluvial 1798 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 fans, and the reclaimed Tulare Lake area, their common terminus. The Kaweah River Basin above Terminus Dam is a fan-shaped area draining 560 square miles of mountainous terrain on the western slope of the southern Sierra Nevada. The main stream is formed about 10 miles above the head of its delta, near the town of Three Rivers, by the confluence of the north, middle, and south forks. The main stream flows westerly about 10 miles through foothills and emerges on the valley floor at McKay Point, where it divides into a northern and southern channel, the flow to each being controlled by weirs. St. Johns River, the northerly channel, flows westerly about 23 miles and unites with Cotton- wood Creek to form Cross Creek which continues southwesterly for about 35 miles where it unites with Tule River about 4 miles south of Corcoran, Calif. From McKay Point, the southerly chan- nel, still called Kaweah River, flows southwesterly 4 miles and then divides into numerous distributary channels. Flows in these channels not diverted for irrigation or lost by seepage finally enter Tulare Lake Basin via Tule River. Tule River Basin adjoins the Kaweah Basin on the south. The main Tule River is formed by the confluence of its north middle, and south forks near Springville. The north and middle forks join about 10 miles above Success Dam, and the south fork joins the main river within the limits of the reservoir area. About 3 miles below the dam near the city of Porterville the river reaches the valley floor, divides into numerous distributary channels that serve the rich agricultural area, and continues across the alluvial fan to Tulare Lake, some 40 miles to the west. The drainage area above the dam is 388 square miles. Tulare Lake has been largely reclaimed and is a valuable crop-producing area. (See U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles of the area.) Existing project. The improvement provides for construction of the Terminus and Success Reservoir projects for flood control, irrigation, and other water-conservation purposes. Terminus Reservoir, complete except for minor cleanup, is located on Kaweah River about 20 miles east of the city of Visalia, Calif. The project consists of a rolled earthfill and rock shell main dam structure 250 feet high and 2,375 feet long, an auxiliary earth- fill dam 130 feet high and 870 feet long, and an ungated spillway located in the left abutment of the dam. The reservoir has a gross storage capacity of 150,000 acre-feet. Spreading facilities of the capacity contemplated in the authorizing document, comprising a complex system of channels, basins, and other irrigation facilities, have been constructed by local interests since preparation of the survey report. Such spreading development is fully adequate for project purposes. Excess waters will be spread, so far as they can be absorbed, into the existing downstream system of irrigation channels and spreading basins for ground water replenishment in an area that is normally deficient in irrigation supply. During servere flood conditions, 5,500 cubic feet per second will be released to the down- stream channel system. Excess waters which cannot be absorbed by the service area will be intercepted by the Lakeland Canal, which FLOOD CONTROL-SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1799 has a capacity of 500 cubic feet per second, and will be used on about 70,000 acres to the east and south of Tulare Lake or spread over non-water-right lands to the east of Tulare Lake basin to the extent feasible, and the remainder will flow to the Tulare lakebed area. Therefore, storage of some Kaweah River water in Tulare Lake will still be necessary. Success Reservoir, completed in May 1961, is located on Tule River about 5 miles east of Porterville, Calif. The project com- prises a rolled earthfill main dam structure 142 feet high and 3,490 feet long, an auxiliary rolled-earthfill dam or dike 42 feet high and 7,650 feet long across Frazier Valley about 31/ miles northwesterly from the main dam, and an ungated spillway. The reservoir has a gross storage capacity of 80,000 acre-feet. Due to the increasing demand for additional outdoor recrea- tional areas, some of the basic public-use facilities required for the first 3 years after project completion were included in the construction program. Other basic facilities are being provided by the County of Tulare under a license agreement. Development at Terminus Reservoir comprised construction of basic facilities at two areas by the Corps jointly with the County of Tulare. Development at Success Reservoir comprised construction of basic facilities at two areas by the Corps jointly with the county of Tulare, and construction at two additional areas by the county. Construction of these facilities was accomplished during fiscal year 1962 at both reservoirs. The reservoirs are units in the comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Basin. Terminus Reservoir will provide a high degree of flood protection to about 126,000 acres of agricultural and suburban lands in the Kaweah River area and for the city of Visalia and adjacent urban and suburban areas. Success Reservoir will provide a high degree of flood protection to about 60,000 acres of agricultural and sub- urban lands along the Tule River and distributaries and to the Porterville urban area. In addition, Terminus and Success Reser- voirs will provide an average annual new and redistributed water supply of 80,500 acre-feet for irrigation use. These two reservoirs in conjunction with the completed Pine Flat and Isabella Reser- voirs, will help to provide flood protection to 260,000 acres of highly productive agricultural land in the Tulare Lake area. The latest approved estimate of Federal cost of new work (July 1962) is as follows: Estimated cost Project Lands and damages Construction (including Tot: I relocations) Terminus Dam and Reservoir .......................... '$13,335,000 $6,365,000 $19,700,000 Success Dam and Reservoir ............................. 29,605,000 4,725,000 14,330,000 Total ......... .............................. 22,940,000 11,090,000 34,030,000 1 Includes $66,000 for preauthorization studies and $220,000 for recreational facilities. 2Includes $56,000 for preauthorization studies and $195,000 for recreational facilities. 1800 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Federal construction of the spreading facilities for Terminus Reservoir is considered to be inactive and has been excluded from the foregoing cost estimate. The cost of this project unit was last revised in July 1957 and was estimated to be $750,000 for construction. Maintenance and operation of the reservoirs will be the re- sponsibility of the Federal Government. Maintenance and opera- tion of the channels and diversions under project conditions at Success Reservoir and the existing spreading works for Terminus Reservoir will be the responsibility of local interests. The initial (fiscal year 1962) Federal maintenance cost for Success Reservoir was $67,494. Maintenance costs have not yet been incurred for Terminus Reservoir. The existing project was adopted by the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944. This act authorized $4,600,000 for the initia- tion and partial accomplishment of the construction of Success and Terminus Reservoirs. Additional monetary authorization for completion of this comprehensive plan was provided by Public Law 85-500, 85th Congress, 2d session, approved July 3, 1958. (See House Flood Control Committee Doc. 1, 78th Cong., 2d sess., and H. Doc. 559, 78th Cong., 2d sess., which contains the latest published map.) Local cooperation. The State of California officially adopted the project by chapter 1514 of the Statutes of 1945, State of Cali- fornia. Local interests are required to pay the portion of the first cost and of the annual costs of operation, maintenance and re- placement allocated to the conservation functions of the project. In addition, local interests will be required to maintain and oper- ate the downstream channel and diversion systems for disposal of floodwaters by spreading or other means. Local interests for Success Reservoir are primarily represented by the Vandalia, Porterville, and Lower Tule River Irrigation Districts and the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, which represent over 90 percent of the irrigated land and water-right holders along the Tule River below the damsite. These districts adopted resolutions, in August and September 1956, expressing their acceptance of the preliminary cost allocation and their willingness to enter into a contract with the United States for repayment of the project cost allocated to irrigation. The irrigation costs are currently estimated (July 1962) at $1,361,400 for first cost and 9.5 percent of annual costs for operation and maintenance. Local interests have indicated that they will continue to maintain the downstream channel systems to provide the required capacity. Local interests for Terminus Reservoir are represented by the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District. This district ex- pressed acceptance of the preliminary cost allocation February 4, 1958, and furnished written assurances of willingness to contract with the United States for repayment for the conservation serv- ice from the project and on July 28, 1960, advised the Bureau of Reclamation that it accepts responsibility for repayment of the project costs allocated to the irrigation functions. The costs for conservation functions are currently estimated (July 1962) at FLOOD CONTROL--SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1801 $2,777,700 for first cost and 14.1 percent of annual costs for opera- tion and maintenance. Maintenance of the downstream channel systems to accommodate flows corresponding to 5,500 cubic feet per second at McKay Point is basic to project operation. Local interests have assured the district engineer that they will continue to operate and maintain the spreading works and downstream channel systems to provide the required capacity. Negotiations are continuing between the Bureau of Reclamation and the local interests for long-term repayment contracts for the conservation functions of Success and Terminus Reservoirs. The contracts for interim conservation operation of the two projects have been approved by the water users, the regional office of the Bureau, and the Commissioner of Reclamation. The reservoirs are being operated for irrigation storage as well as flood control and incidental recreation use. Tulare County has acquired water at Success Reservoir and is making arrangements for acquisition of water at Terminus Reservoir for the recreation pools. Consumma- tion of the long-term irrigation repayment contracts will probably be deferred until a decision is reached on terms of repayment for contracts for Isabella and Pine Flat Reservoirs. The spreading works contemplated for Terminus Project have been constructed by local interests. Total costs for this construc- tion have been estimated at about $750,000 (July 1957). Tulare County was granted a 25-year license for planning, development, and management of the public recreational areas at Success Reservoir July 10, 1960, and at Terminus Reservoir, June 5, 1961. Basic public-use facilities constructed by the Corps at Success Reservoir were transferred to the jurisdiction of Tulare County on January 18, 1962; the facilities at Terminus were trans- ferred June 20, 1962. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: (a) Terminus Reservoir: Engineering and design actvities were continued and sedimentation ranges were completed by hired labor. Land acquisition activities were continued; all lands required for the project have been acquired. Work, initiated during fiscal year 1960, under relocation contracts with the Southern California Edison Co. and Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. for relocation of transmission and telephone lines, was completed. Construction of the main dam and appurtenances, initiated in February 1959 by continuing contract, was completed except for minor cleanup items; closure was completed during November 1961; dedication ceremony was held May 18, 1962. Construction of basic public-use facilities to meet the recreational requirements during the initial 3 years of project operation were accomplished by contract; these facilities were transferred to the jurisdiction of Tulare County June 20, 1962. (b) Success Reservoir: Engineering and design activities were continued and sedimentation ranges were completed by hired labor. Minor real estate activities were continued. Minor modifications to the main dam and outlet works and the construction of basic public-use facilities to meet the recreational requirements during the initial 3 years of project operation were accomplished by con- tract. The basic public-use facilities were transferred to the 1802 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 jurisdiction of Tulare County on January 18, 1962. Purchase of operation and maintenance tools and equipment required for proj- ect operation was initiated. The main dam dedication ceremony was held May 18, 1962. Contact was maintained with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation relative to their negotiations with the local water users for permanent repayment contracts for repayment for the conserva- tion functions of the projects. Maintenance: Terminus Reservoir: The contract for interim conservation operation of the project was approved by the Com- missioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation May 4, 1962. Maxi- mum storage occurred May 20, 1962, and amounted to 4,890 acre-feet, all of which was irrigation water. Success Reservoir: Maintenance and operation of the main dam and appurtenant facilities was initiated by hired labor during fiscal year 1962. The contract for interim conservation operation of the project was approved by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation by telephone March 31, 1962, and subsequently formally approved during May 1962. Irrigation storage, in excess of 5,800 acre-feet for recreation pool, was initiated on that date. Conservation release totalled 54,600 acre-feet; of this amount 4,600 acre-feet were released to Pioneer Ditch. Maximum storage occurred June 7 and 8, 1962, and amounted to 25,800 acre-feet, of which 20,100 acre-feet represented irrigation water. Total costs for all work during the fiscal year were as follows: Project unit New work Maintenance Total United States funds: Terminus Reservoir ................................ $3,084,411 ................ $3,084,411 Success Reservoir..................... ........... . 409,351 '$67,494 476,845 Total ...................... .......... ....... 3,493,762 67,494 3,561,256 1 Initial Federal operation and maintenance of the reservoir and appurtenant facilities. Condition at end of fiscal year. New work: (a) Terminus Reser- voir: Construction of the project was initiated in July 1957; the overall project is 98 percent complete. Construction of the main dam and appurtenances, initiated in February 1959, was completed in June 1962 except for minor cleanup items. The dam has been operating since November 1961 to provide the flood protection for which it was designed; conservation impoundment was commenced on May 4, 1962. The dam and appurtenances are in good condition. Basic public-use facilities constructed by the Federal Government have been transferred to the jurisdiction of Tulare County; the county is proceeding with further development of public-use facilities in the recreational areas. Items remaining to complete the project consist of completion of work underway; operators quarters; auxiliary pumping facility for Lemon Cove Ditch; installation of precipitation temperature stations; and final settlement for lands upon decision of pending court cases. FLOOD CONTROL--SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1803 (b) Success Reservoir: Construction of the project was initiated in November 1956; the overall project is 98 percent complete. Con- struction of the main dam and appurtenances, initiated in October 1958, was completed in May 1961. The dam has been operating since October 1960 to provide the flood protection for which it was designed; conservation impoundment was commenced on March 31, 1962. The dam and appurtenances are in good condition. Basic public-use facilities constructed by the Federal Government have been transferred to the jurisdiction of Tulare County; the county is proceeding with further development of public-use facilities in the recreational areas. Public attendance in the reservoir area for calendar year 1961 was estimated at 80,600 visitor-days. Items remaining to complete the project consist of installation of precipitation temperature stations; operators quarters; and final settlement for lands upon decision of pending court cases. Total cost of all work to June 30, 1962, was as follows: Project unit New work 1 Maintenance Total United States funds: Terminus Reservoir.............. ................. $18,938,434 ................ $18,938,434 Success Reservoir ................................ 13,939,362 $67,494 14,006,856 Total ......................................... 32,877,796 67,494 32,945,290 1 Includes $122,000 from general investigations appropriations f.)r preauthorization studies, of which $56,000 was for Success Reservoir and $66,000 for Terminus Reservoir. 2 For Federal operation and maintenance of Success Reservoir and appurtenances between July 1961 and June 30, 1962. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... $618,000 $9,114,000 $9,288,000 $7,384,000 $2,898,000 '$33,406,789 Cost ................. 1,657,866 7,375,477 10,686,662 6,812,507 3,493,762 132,877,796 Maintenance: Appropriated ...... .......... .. .. .... .......... 71,300 71,300 Cost ................ ...... .... .......... .......... .......... 67,494 67,494 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ......................... $119,527 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................... 119,527 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ........................ 623,211 1 Includes $122,000 from general investigations appropriations for preauthorization studies. 19. ISABELLA RESERVOIR, KERN RIVER, CALIF. Location. The area covered by this project comprises the upper watershed of Kern River, its valley alluvial fan (which includes the Buena Vista Lake area and a large portion of that part of the San Joaquin Valley floor south of Tulare Lake), and the Tulare Lake area. Kern River is the most southerly of the major streams flowing into the southern San Joaquin Valley (Tulare Lake Basin) and drains an area of some 2,400 square miles in the Sierra Nevada. North Fork and South Fork, headwaters of Kern River, have their sources in the high Sierra Nevada, flow south 83 and 82 miles, respectively, and join near the town of Isabella to form Kern River, which flows southwest 72 miles past the city of 1804 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Bakersfield to a point in the valley trough just north of Buena Vista Lake. River flows at this point are either diverted into the Buena Vista Lake Basin for temporary storage or are carried northwest along the trough of the valley toward Tulare Lake by improved flood and irrigation channels. Under normal conditions of runoff the flow of Kern River below Bakersfield is gradually dissipated by irrigation diversions so that Kern River water reaches Tulare Lake only during large floods. (See U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles of the area.) Existing project. The improvement is a unit in the compre- hensive plan for flood control and other related purposes for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Basins. The project consists of a 185- foot-high earthfill structure, an ungated concrete spillway in the left abutment with a discharge capacity of 53,000 cubic feet per second, and a 100-foot-high earthfill auxiliary dam, creating a reservoir with a gross storage capacity of 570,000 acre-feet, for flood control, irrigation, and related purposes. Outlet facilities for the Borel Power Canal are included in the auxiliary dam. The dam is located about 50 miles northeast of the city of Bakersfield, Calif., near the confluence of the North and South Forks of Kern River; the auxiliary dam is about one-half mile east of the main dam. Construction of the dam was completed in April 1953. Since April 1954, when conservation storage began in Isabella Reservoir, the public has made increasing use of the reservoir area for recreational purposes. The Corps of Engineers has provided an observation point with paved parking area in the vicinity of the main dam. Kern County has developed 10 camp- ground areas. In addition, there are three boating concessions. Further development of recreation facilities is under the adminis- tration of Kern County, which has been granted a 25-year license for such activities. The improvement provides flood protection for about 350,000 acres of agricultural land and oilfields in the Kern River area and for the city of Bakersfield. In conjunction with the completed Pine Flat Reservoir on Kings River, and Success Reservoir on Tule River, and Terminus Reservoir on Kaweah River, flood protection is being provided to 260,000 acres of cropland in the Tulare Lake area. The project also provides an improvement in the average annual irrigation water supply amounting to about 50,000 acre-feet of new water, through reduction in evaporation losses, and provides means for regulating the irrigation supply. No power facilities were provided in the authorized construction, but existing down- stream plants benefit incidentally from reservoir regulation. The latest estimate of Federal cost for new work (July 1962) is $22 million of which $12,137,000 is for lands and damages, in- cluding relocations and $9,863,000 for construction (including $80,000 for preauthorization studies and $11,600 for recreation facilities). Operation and maintenance of the dam and reservoir is the responsibility of the Federal Government. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $78,600. Local interests will reimburse the United States for the conservation accomplishments of the project. FLOOD CONTROL---SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1805 The existing project was adopted by the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944. (See H. Doc. 513, 78th Cong., 2d sess., which contains the latest published map.) Full monetary authorization was provided by the authorization act. Local cooperation. The State of California officially adopted the project by Chapter 1514 of the Statutes of 1945, State of California. Local interests are required to pay for the conservation accom- plishments of the dam and reservoir portion of the project. Repayment arrangements, for which negotiations are currently underway, will be made by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, under reclamation law. In addition, local interests are required to pay 21.7 percent of the annual operation, maintenance and replacement cost for the dam and reservoir. Pending negotiations of the final contract, the Bureau of Reclamation is providing irrigation service under an interim contract with North Kern, Buena Vista, and Tulare Lake Water Storage Districts. Under provisions of this interim contract, local interests have paid a total of $1,314,663 for irrigation service through December 31, 1961; these payments include the operation and maintenance costs applicable to conserva- tion benefits. In addition, incidental power benefits to downstream existing plants will be paid for by Southern California Edison Co. and Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the amount is being determined by the Federal Power Commission and will be collected by that agency. Kern County has undertaken the administration of recreation and development and maintenance of public-use areas at the project in accordance with license granted by the Secretary of the Army on February 15, 1955, for a period of 25 years. Total cost of recreation facilities developed is over $1,200,000, $200,000 of this amount was a grant from the California Wildlife Conservation Board. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: Minor engineering and design and real estate activities were continued by hired labor. Monthly and/or weekly well readings were con- tinued to determine the cause of seepage which occurred during the fall of 1958 on subdivided property 1 mile downstream from the auxiliary dam. Studies to date indicate that seepage was caused primarily by hydrostatic pressures in the deeper pervious soils. The pressures in no way affect the safety of the auxiliary dam. Hired labor was also utilized in connection with the radio-reporting snow gages and relay station. Maintenance: Operation of the reservoir was continued. The structures were maintained in a serviceable condition; no major repairs or replacements of flood control or irrigation equipment were required during the fiscal year. Isabella Reservoir was operated during the fiscal year for flood control purposes and for irrigation purposes under an interim con- tract with North Kern Water Storage District, Buena Vista Water Storage District, and Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District. Runoff of Kern River was slightly below normal for the year. Maximum storage occurred on June 29, 1962, and amounted to 173,700 acre-feet, of which 163,600 acre-feet was irrigation water 1806 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 and 10,100 acre-feet was stored for recreation. Release of water for irrigation use totaled 437,100 acre-feet, of which 215,000 acre- feet was released through the Borel Canal and 222,000 acre-feet was released through the Kern River outlets. No releases for flood control were necessary. Total costs during the fiscal year for the project were $109,154, of which $18,622 was for new work and $90,532 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction was initiated in March 1948; the project is 99 percent complete. Construction of the main dam and Borel Canal outlet works and appurtenances and completion of the auxiliary dam was completed in April 1953. Storage impoundment commenced on December 11, 1952. The project is operating to provide the flood-protection and conserva- tion benefits for which it was designed. The dam and appurtenances are in good condition. Public at- tendance in the reservoir area for calendar year 1961 was esti- mated at 606,000 visitor-days, with a peak day of 30,000 visitors. Items remaining to complete the project consist of completion of radio-transmitting snow gages and associated relay stations (hydrologic facilities required for the efficient operation of the project during snowmelt periods); completion of final real estate audit and final real estate project map; and taking of well readings in connection with study of seepage downstream from the auxiliary dam. The gages and relay stations are being installed at remote sites at high elevations in the watershed. Total cost of new work for the project to June 30, 1962, was $21,879,717 (including $80,000 for preauthorization and $11,600 for recreation facilities). Total cost of maintenance for Federal operation and mainte- nance of the reservoir and appurtenances was $584,077 between July 1953 and June 30, 1962. Total cost for the entire project to June 30, 1962, was $22,463,794. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: .......... Appropriated $162,765 $25,000 $16,826 $15,836 $18,759 1$21,921,820 Cost.................. 473,252 98,067 33,013 27,116 18,622 '21,879,717 Maintenance: Appropriated........... 65,218 68,665 83,980 93,700 83,000 586,714 Cost.................. 65,951 67,812 79,171 89,533 90,532 584,077 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .............................. $12,766 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ...................... 12,766 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ........................... 78,180 1 Includes $80,000 from general investigations appropriations for preauthorization studies. 20. TRUCKEE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, CALIF. AND NEV. Location. The Truckee River Basin comprises 3,100 square miles in eastern California and western Nevada. The river begins at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, and flows northerly and easterly through Truckee, Calif., and Reno, Nev., to Pyramid Lake in FLOOD CONTROL-SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1807 Nevada. (See U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles for Truckee and Reno.) Existing project. The project provided for enlargement of the Truckee River channel for a distance of about 3,200 feet down- stream from the existing control structure at Lake Tahoe. Such enlargement has increased the capacity of the outlet from 1,600 to 2,500 cubic feet per second at a lake level of 6,228 feet, and from 2,100 to about 3,300 cubic feet per second at a lake level of 6,229.1 feet, which is the maximum storage level specified by legal agreement. The improvement permits larger releases from the lake than were possible under preproject conditions, thus, alleviating high-lake-level damages to lakeshore property. Because of the possibility of increased releases from the lake, a limited amount of flood-protection work will be necessary between Lake Tahoe and the town of Truckee to prevent any increase in the frequency or severity of damage in that reach. This work will consist of low levees and/or channel improvement at intermittent locations. In addition, the project provided for enlargement of the Truckee River channel through Truckee Meadows, beginning at the Second Street Bridge in Reno and extending downstream a distance of 7.5 miles. That improvement has increased the channel capacity from about 3,000 to 6,000 cubic feet per second. The work consists of widening, deepening, and straightening the exist- ing channel, and the removal of obstructive rock reefs. Such work will reduce the amount of overbank storage in Truckee Meadows, thus increasing the rate of floodflows in the down- stream river reach. The project also provides for improving the channel by snagging and clearing at intermittent locations between Vista and Pyramid Lake, which is now underway. Construction of the project was initiated in August 1959 and is about 80 percent complete. Local interests will construct, or otherwise provide at their own expense, suitable debris-removal facilities at the existing Derby Dam. Maintenance and operation of the project works after completion will be the responsibility of local interests. The project provides partial protection to commercial and residential developments along the shore of Lake Tahoe and to about 2,000 acres of agricultural land along Truckee River. It is designed to fit into a basinwide plan for flood control and allied purposes which will include the authorized and proposed units of the Washoe Reclamation project of the U.S. Bureau of Reclama- tion. The Truckee Meadows feature of the improvement will greatly reduce both the frequency and duration of flooding in the large agricultural area in the Truckee Meadows, as well as improve drainage and sanitary conditions in outlying portions of Reno and Sparks. The latest approved estimate of Federal cost for new work is $1,200,000 (July 1962), for construction. (Includes $50,000 for preauthorization studies.) The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of September 3, 1954. (See H. Doc. 497, 83d Cong., 2d sess., which contains the latest published map.) The authorization act provided 1808 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 that the authorization for improvement of Truckee River, Calif. and Nev., should not become effective unless and until "Washoe Reclamation Project" on Truckee and Carson Rivers, Calif. and Nev. had been authorized pursuant to law. The Washoe proj- ect, as presently contemplated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, includes the Stampede Reservoir on Little Truckee River, Prosser Reservoir (currently under construction) on Prosser Creek, a tributary of Truckee River, and Watasheamu Reservoir on East Carson River, together with associated power, drainage and irriga- tion facilities. Stampede and Prosser Reservoirs would be operated to furnish flood protection to the city of Reno in addition to supple- menting the channel improvements in the Truckee Meadows area. The Washoe project was authorized by Public Law 858, 84th Congress, 2d session approved August 1, 1956, as modified by Public Law 85-706, 85th Congress, 2d session. Full monetary authorization was provided by the Authorizations Act. Local cooperation. Local interests furnished assurances satis- factory to the Secretary of the Army that they would provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights- of-way required for construction; relocate all roads and utilities required; provide suitable debris-removal facilities at Derby Dam; hold and save the United States free from damages; and maintain and operate all works after completion. Legislation enacted in March 1959 by the State of Nevada authorized the director of natural resources to comply with local cooperation requirements for the Nevada portion of the project. By chapter 84, statutes of 1958 the State of California authorized the California Department of Water Resources to provide the re- quired assurances and to otherwise fulfill the local cooperation requirements for the California portion of the project. Assur- ances were accepted for the Nevada portion on April 6, 1959, and for the California portion on April 21, 1959. All local cooperation required for work accomplished to date has been provided; it is expected that future rights-of-way will be provided as required. The State of Nevada has also entered into an agreement with the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District relative to the removal of debris from the channel and does not at this time contemplate the installation of any facilities for this purpose. Completed units have been transferred to local interests for maintenance and opera- tion as follows: State of Nevada-Truckee Meadows Channel improvements, May 1960; additional compensatory channel work along Truckee River, April 1961; and State of California-below Lake Tahoe outlet, July 1960. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including all required non-Federal contributions, amount to $224,000 (July 1962), com- prising $171,000 for lands and relocations and $53,000 for debris removal facilities for Derby Dam. These costs to local interests are, however, considered tentative at this time pending determina- tion of the scope of work at intermittent locations. The annual FLOOD CONTROL---SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1809 cost for maintenance and operation is estimated at $24,000 (July 1962). Operations and results during fiscal year. Engineering and design activities were continued by hired labor. Intermittent chan- nel improvements from Wadsworth to Pyramid Lake, Nev., within the boundaries of the Indian Reservation were initiated by hired labor and rented equipment. An inspection of the Truckee River between Lake Tahoe, Calif., and Reno, Nev., was made during June 1962 to determine the remaining intermittent channel work necessary in this reach. Total cost of new work for the project during the fiscal year was $126,381. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project was initiated in August 1959; channel improvements for Truckee Meadows below Reno, Nev., were completed in March 1960 and near Lake Tahoe, Calif., in June 1960. Additional intermittent channel improvements along Truckee River between Truckee Meadows and Wadsworth, Nev., were completed in March 1961. Work remaining to be done comprises completion of work under- way and construction of intermittent channel improvements be- tween Lake Tahoe and Reno. Exact locations of these improvements have not yet been fully determined and method and type of rectifica- tion will depend on results of studies of nature of existing condi- tions and effect of upstream channel improvements. Current schedules call for project completion in fiscal year 1964. Total costs to June 30, 1962, for the project were $962,067, including $50,000 were for preauthorization studies. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: .......... Appropriated $50, 000 $124,000 $513,000 $120,000 $253,000 1$1,110,000 Cost.................. 19,778 43,523 579,051 143,333 126,381 1962,067 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .............................. $126,161 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................... 126,161 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ........................ 90,000 1 Includes $50,000 from general investigations appropriations for preauthorization studies. 21. GLEASON CREEK, NEV. Location. Gleason Creek basin is located in the Robinson water- shed in east central Nevada along the eastern face of Egan Moun- tain range. The basin, about 73 square miles in area, has a maxi- mum length of about 19 miles and an average width of about 4 miles. Elevations range from about 6,000 feet to about 8,000 feet. Gleason and Murry Creeks are the principal tributaries of the Robinson watershed. Gleason Creek rises in the mountains northwest of Ely, and Murry Creek joins it from the south; the combined waters flow through the city of Ely in a generally north- easterly direction and discharge onto waste land in Steptoe Valley, a closed mountain basin. (See U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles for the area.) 1810 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Existing project. The improvement provides for construction of a 52-foot-high earthfill dam to create a reservoir with gross storage capacity of 1,500 acre-feet, for the exclusive purpose of flood control. Keystone Reservoir would be located on Gleason Creek about 7 miles west of the town of Ely, White Pine County, Nev. Construction has not been initiated. The project would materially reduce flood damages in the city of Ely by regulating the runoff of Gleason Creek above the dam. Operation and maintenance of the completed project would be the responsibility of local interests. The latest estimate of Federal cost for new work (July 1962) is $425,000, for construction (including preauthorization studies). Local interests are required to make a monetary contribution presently estimated at $28,000 toward the project cost allocated to production of local flood-control benefits payable as construc- tion proceeds or pursuant to a contract providing for repayment with interest within 50 years. It is presently estimated that the ultimate cost to the Federal Government will be $397,000. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of July 14, 1960. (See H. Doc. 388, 86th Cong., 2d sess., which contains the latest published map.) Full monetary authorization was provided by the Authorization Act. Local cooperation. Local interests are to: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way for the improvement; (b) bear the cost of all necessary altera- tions and construction of highway facilities, other structures, and utilities; (c) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; (d) maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; (e) preserve and maintain the stream channels through Ely to capacities existing in 1958; (f) adequately inform interests affected that the project does not pro- vide protection against maximum floods; and (g) assume at least 20 percent of the cost (except costs of planning, design, and acquisi- tion of water rights) of the completed project allocated to the production of local flood-control benefits, payable either as con- struction proceeds or pursuant to a contract providing for repay- ment with interest within 50 years. The actual cost or fair market value of lands, easements, rights-of-way, and work per- formed or services rendered prior to completion of construction of the project, which are furnished by local interests shall be included in the share of the cost to be borne by the local interests. Formal assurances have not been requested. The city council of Ely, Nev., had furnished assurances in the form of a reso- lution approved January 8, 1959, that the requirements of local cooperation would be met; however, at that time the local coopera- tion requirements did not include any monetary contribution addi- tional to expenditures for the provisions (a) through (e) outlined above. The city council has been requested by the district engi- neer, Sacramento District, to furnish a statement as to whether the new requirements involving a monetary contribution will be furnished when formally requested. According to advice received FLOOD CONTROL--SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1811 from the director of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the city is investigating the possibility of a bond issue to raise the necessary funds. The director also stated that he had told the city that perhaps the department could pro- vide the funds on a loan basis. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non- Federal contributions, amount to $68,000 (July 1962). These costs include a required cash contribution of $28,000 and an addi- tional outlay of $40,000 for lands and damages and relocations. The latest estimate (July 1962) of annual maintenance, opera- tion, and replacement costs to local interests for this construction is $6,000. Operations and results during fiscal year. Minor engineering office work was accomplished during the fiscal year by hired labor. Total costs during the fiscal year were $763. Condition at end of fiscal year. Preconstruction planning was initiated in fiscal year 1961; design memorandum 1, hydrology and reservoir regulation has been completed. Further preconstruction planning has been deferred due to lack of definite indication that local cooperation requirements will be met. Total costs for the project to June 30, 1962, were $48,648, including $45,000 for pre- authorization studies. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.......... $17,064 $13,500 ............ $18,000 -$5,448 157,552 Cost.................. 17,064 13,500 ............ 2,884 763 '48,648 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ................... .......... $8,904 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................... 8,904 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ......................... 367,448 1Includes $45,000 from general investigations appropriations for preauthorization studies. 22. WEBER RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, UTAH Location. Weber River rises in the Uinta Mountains in eastern Utah and flows northwesterly about 135 miles through the Wasatch Mountains to Great Salt Lake. Ogden River, the most important tributary, originates in the Pine View Reservoir, flows in a narrow canyon to a point near Ogden, Utah, and joins Weber River about 23 miles upstream from Great Salt Lake. The basin contains 2,181 square miles, which are mostly mountainous except for bench and delta lands near the lake. The tributaries, with the exception of Ogden River, are steep mountain streams which contribute heavily to flood runoff with small sustained flows of high volume. The Willard Mountain area comprises 105 square miles of the rugged west slope of the Wasatch Mountains, imme- diately adjacent to and north of the Weber River Basin, which are drained directly into Great Salt Lake by 5 small perennial streams and about 20 intermittent streams. Box Elder Creek, the principal stream, drains about 35 square miles of the area. Other individual streams drain about 5 square miles or less. The 1812 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 streams are all short, and are precipitous in the upper reaches. Below the foothill line many of them have no well-defined channel, and floodflows fan out over debris cones. Existing project. The project extends from the town of Mor- gan, Utah, downstream along the Weber River about 26 miles to the city of Ogden, Utah. It provides for construction of ap- proximately 5 miles of discontinuous low levees, bank protection where required, approximately 12 miles of clearing and snagging, and channel improvement and removal of two diversion dams in the city of Ogden. Removal of the two diversion dams is the responsibility of local interests. This work will supplement flood control obtainable from the multiple-purpose reservoirs of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Weber Basin project, key units of which are: (a) Pineview Reservoir on Ogden River, and Wanship and Echo Reservoirs on Weber River, all of which have been com- pleted; and (b) East Canyon Reservoir on East Canyon Creek and Lost Creek Reservoir on Lost Creek, for which construction has not yet been initiated. Construction of the channel improve- ments will not be initiated until a suitable agreement for oper- ation of Bureau of Reclamation Reservoirs for flood control is reached between the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Interior, and will be deferred until a dependable minimum de- gree of flood regulations, at least equivalent to that obtainable from firm operation of the existing Echo Reservoir for flood control, is provided upstream therefrom. The latest approved estimate of Federal cost for new work is $785,000 (July 1962), comprising $100,000 for relocation of rail- road bridge and $685,000 for construction (including preauthoriza- tion studies). The Corps project will afford protection to about 1,200 acres located within the city of Ogden and embracing residential, busi- ness, industrial and manufacturing improvements, railroads and railroad yards, irrigation structures, utilities and public property; about 100 acres located in the town of Morgan and embracing residential, business, utility, and public property; and about 20,000 acres of improved agricultural land. The project is a unit of the basinwide flood-control program which includes reservoir storage, and levee and channel work. The existing project was adopted by the Flood Control Act of July 3, 1958 (see H. Doc. 158, 84th Cong., 1st sess., which con- tains the latest published map). Full monetary authorization was provided by the authorization act. Local cooperation. Responsible local interests will be required to give assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will: (a) Furnish without cost to the United States all lands, easements and rights-of-way necessary for construction; (b) un- dertake all road, bridge, and utility alterations and relocations required for the project; (c) remove at their expense Hooper and Plain City Dams from the Weber River as soon as the need there- for has been obviated by development of the Weber Basin project; (d) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; and (e) maintain the improved channel FLOOD CONTROL---SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1813 after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army and preserve or restore and thereafter maintain all of the channels downstream from the existing and authorized reservoirs to the capacities prevailing in 1952. Formal assurances, requested during April 1962, were received as follows: Weber County commissioners for Weber County, May 2, 1962; Weber Basin Conservancy District for Summit County, May 7, 1962; and Davis County commissioners for Davis County, May 10, 1962. These assurances are being reviewed for legal and financial adequacy prior to acceptance by the district engineer. Morgan County furnished informal assurance March 1, 1962; how- ever, by letter dated June 28, 1962, the county stated that they are unable to participate in the project due to the costs involved. A study is currently underway to determine what effect this de- velopment will have on the project and on the construction schedule. Total estimated costs (July 1962) for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, amount to $175,000, for lands and damages and relocations. Operations and results during fiscal year. Engineering and de- sign activities were continued by hired labor; field surveys and the general design memorandum were completed. Plans and specifi- cations are 60 percent complete and are scheduled for completion during fiscal year 1963. The reservoir regulation manual covering operation of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation upstream reservoirs was completed. Total cost for the project during the fiscal year was $34,694, for new work. Condition at end of fiscal year. Preconstruction planning was initiated in fiscal year 1961; field surveys to determine alinement of of levees and location of borrow areas were completed in July 1961. Final approval of the reservoir regulation manual for Bureau up- stream reservoirs awaits execution of the contract between the Bureau and the Weber River Water Users Association for use of flood control space in Echo Reservoir; the Bureau expects contract consummation and final approval of the manual during calendar year 1962. Construction is currently scheduled for initiation during the fourth quarter, fiscal year 1963. Total costs to June 30, 1962, for the project were $90,306, in- cluding $40,000 for preauthorization studies. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated......... .......... .......... .......... $38,500 $43,600 1$122,100 Cost ................. . ......... .......... 15,612 34,694 190,306 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .............................. $31,793 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 ........... .................... 150,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................... 181,793 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ........................ 512,900 1 Includes $40,000 from general investigations appropriations for preauthorized studies. 1814 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 23. LITTLE DELL RESERVOIR, UTAH Location. The Little Dell Reservoir would be located on Dell Creek, about 8 miles east of Salt Lake City, Utah. Dell Creek has a drainage area of about 16 square miles at the damsite, rising at elevation 7,600 feet on the western slope of the Wasatch Moun- tains. It flows in a southerly direction and enters Parleys Creek at the head of existing Mountain Dell Reservoir, which is owned and operated by Salt Lake City, and is used for domestic water supply. Parleys Creek has a total drainage area of 51 square miles, rising at elevation 8,500 feet. The stream flows through Salt Lake City, principally in an underground conduit, to the Jor- dan River. (See U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles of the area.) Existing project. The improvement would provide for construc- tion of a 170-foot-high earthfill dam to create a reservoir with gross storage capacity of 8,000 acre-feet, for flood control and municipal water supply. The Little Dell Reservoir would be operated in conjunction with the existing Mountain Dell Reservoir (3,000 acre-feet capacity), located about 1.5 miles downstream. Construction has not been initiated. The project would, in conjunction with Mountain Dell Reser- voir, control all record snowmelt floods. The portion of Salt Lake City within the area to be protected constitutes the principal busi- ness and industrial development as well as some of the most con- centrated residential developments. The area to be protected com- prises about 3,800 acres. In addition, the project would make avail- able an additional minimum water supply of about 4,000 acre-feet. Maintenance and operation of the project after completion will be the responsibility of local interests. The latest estimate of Federal cost for new work (July 1962) is $5,480,000, for construction (including preauthorization studies). Local interests are required to make a monetary con- tribution presently estimated at $439,000 toward the project cost allocated to production of local flood-control benefits, payable as construction proceeds or pursuant to a contract providing for repayment with interest within 50 years. Also, local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Government for costs allocated to the water-supply function over a period not to exceed 50 years, with interest. The water-supply reimbursement is presently esti- mated at $1,973,000. The portion of the first cost to be ultimately borne by the Federal Government is presently estimated at $3,068,000. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of July 14, 1960. (See H. Doc. 213, 86th Cong., 1st sess., which con- tains the latest published map.) Full monetary authorization was provided by the Authorization Act. Local cooperation. Local interests are to: (1) Reimburse the United States for cost allocated to water-supply functions (36.5 percent of the Federal construction cost), to be paid either (a) in a lump sum prior to commencement of construction, (b) in annual amounts during the period of construction, proportional to the estimated annual Federal construction costs, or (c) in equal annual payments, including interest during construction and FLOOD CONTROL---SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1815 interest on the unpaid balance, not to exceed 50 years from the date on which storage is first used for water-supply purposes; (2) furnish without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the works, including the undertaking of all necessary alterations and relocations of highways, utilities, and other structures; (3) maintain and oper- ate the project without cost to the United States as a coordinated unit with the existing Mountain Dell Reservoir, both projects to be operated for flood control in accordance with rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; (4) settle in ac- cordance with applicable State laws all water rights problems re- lated to construction and operation of the project; (5) preserve or restore and thereafter maintain the stream channel downstream from the two reservoirs to the Jordan River to the capacity existing in 1958; and (6) assume at least 20 percent of the cost (except costs of planning, design, and acquisition of water rights) of the completed project allocated to the production of local flood-control benefits, payable either as construction proceeds or pursuant to a contract providing for repayment with interest within 50 years. The actual cost, or fair market value of lands, easements, rights- of-way, and work performed or services rendered prior to comple- tion of construction of the project, which are furnished by local interests, shall be included in the share of the cost to be borne by the local interests. Formal assurances have not been requested. The Salt Lake City Corp. had furnished assurances in the form of a resolution adopted August 26, 1958, that the requirements of local cooperation would be met; however, at that time the local cooperation requirements did not include any monetary contribution additional to expendi- tures toward rights-of-way, utility revisions and water-supply benefits. Local interests were contacted in October 1960 in regard to cash contribution requirements included in the Authorization Act; draft of repayment contract was furnished to local interests for review and comment in January 1962. In January 1962, the Salt Lake City Corp. passed sponsorship responsibility to Metro- politan Water District of Salt Lake City. Local interests will not commit themselves on support of the Corps project until they have studied possible alternatives including construction by local agen- cies. The report of the consultant, retained by local interests to study the Corps plan and alternative plans and to make recom- mendations, probably will not be available until late in fiscal year 1963. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non- Federal contributions, amount to $2,812,000 (July 1962). These costs include a required monetary contribution of $2,412,000 com- prising $439,000 for local flood-control benefits and $1,973,000 for water-supply benefits, and an additional outlay of $400,000 for lands and damages and utility revisions. The latest estimate (July 1962) of annual maintenance, opera- tion, and replacement costs to local interests for this construction is $13,000. Operations and results during fiscal year. Funds were allotted 1816 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 in fiscal year 1962 to permit initiation of preconstruction planning. Office engineering was initiated by hired labor; design memoranda 1 and 2, hydrology and reservoir regulation, were completed. Total cost for the project during the fiscal year was $14,574, for new work. Condition at end of fiscal year. Preconstruction planning was initiated in fiscal year 1962; design memoranda covering hydrology and reservoir regulation were completed. Other than continuation of nominal coordination activities, all planning work by the Corps has been stopped until local interests have completed their study of possible alternative solutions pertinent to construction of the project (see paragraph on local cooperation). Total costs to June 30, 1962, for the project were $89,574, in- cluding $75,000 for preauthorization studies. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated......... ......... . . . ..... .... .... ...... $15,500 '$90,500 Cost ................. ........... ....... . ... ... ....... 14,574 189,574 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ........................ $926 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ..................... 926 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ....................... 5,389,500 1 Includes $75,000 for preauthorization studies 24. OTHER AUTHORIZED FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS For last Cost to June 30, 1962 full report Estimated Cost Name of project see amount estimate Annual Operation required to (last date Report Construction and complete of revision) for- maintenance American River, Calif.............. 1959 '$2,127, 848 ............. ................ () Big Dry Creek Reservoir and diversion, Calif.. .......................... 1955 ' '41,374,931 ............................ () Folsom Reservoir, American River, Calif.. 1957 463,060,236 ............ 14,964 $63,075,200 (July 1962) Humboldt River and tributaries, Nev.... 1951 6 '25,510 .............. (7) 710,900,000 (July1954) Little Valley Wash, Magna, Utah....... 1951 ........................ ..... 707,000 8707,000 (July 1954) Salt Lake City, Jordan River, Utah..... 1961 '1,307,488 ........................... 91,308,500 2 Sevier River, near Redmond, Utah...... 1952 ' 929,000 ............................ (2) Spanish Fork River, Utah............. 1955 '149,000 ... 411,000 11460,000 (July 1960) Emergency flood-control work under authority of Public Law 138 and 318, 78th Cong., Public Law 75, 79th Cong., and 102, 80th Cong. .......... 1951,09,99............ 1951 3,069,099 (') Emergency bank protection under au- thority of sec. 14 of the Flood Control Act approved July 24, 1946.......... 1953 1239,852 ........................ (2) Emergency flood-control work under authority of sec. 208 of the Flood Con- trol Act approved June 30, 1948...... 1953 .............. ' 1,919,202 ................ (2) 1Includes $2,000 from general investigations appropriation for preauthorization studies. In addition, $54,919 was expended from contributed funds for miscellaneous construction accom- plished for local interests pursuant to requirements for local cooperation. Total costs for all re- quirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contribution, amounted to $951,000 (1959). Completed. 3Includes $5,000 from general investigations appropriation for preauthorization studies. In FLOOD CONTROL--SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1817 addition, $44,008 was expended from contributed funds for miscellaneous construction accom- plished in connection with bridge construction pursuant to requirements of local cooperation. Total cost to local interests for all requirements of local cooperation amounted to $370,000 (1959). 4 Includes $90,000 from general investigations appropriation for preauthorization studies. Costs of $241 incurred during fiscal year 1962 primarily for minor real estate audit costs. 5 Completed except for minor real estate costs. Transferred to Bureau of Reclamation in May 1956 for operation and maintenance of the project by that agency in conjunction with other units of the Central Valley project. 6 For restudy of project. Restudy, initiated in fiscal year 1962 is 35 percent complete. 7In addition, as currently authorized, local interests would be required to contribute $2,762,000 toward the cost of construction, making a total first cost of $13,662,000 (July 1954). This project currently being restudied. 8 Considered to be inactive. SIncludes $76,000 from general investigations appropriation for preauthorization studies. Total estimated costs to local interests for all requirements of local cooperation amounted to $463,000 (July 1962), comprising $193,000 for lands and damages and $270,000 for relocations completed except for final pay on relocation contracts. Costs of $9,081 incurred during fiscal year 1962 for minor engineering and payment on relocation contracts. 1U Includes $10,000 from general investigations appropriation for preauthorization studies. In addition, $48,000 was expended from required contributed funds toward the first cost. Total costs to local interests for all requirements of local cooperation, including required contributions, were $118,000 (1951). 11Includes $29,000 from general investigations appropriation for preauthorization studies. Total estimated costs to local interests for all requirements of local cooperation are $155,000 (July 1960). This project has been deferred for restudy. 12 In addition, $12,861 was expended from required contributed funds. 18 In addition, $184,986 was expended from required contributed funds. 14 During the February 1962 storm, peak inflow into Big Dry Creek Reservoir was about 600 cubic feet per second. This flow without the reservoir would have damaged farm lands and high- ly developed urban areas in the vicinity of Fresno, Calif., in the amount of about $240,000. With the reservoir in operation the flows were nondamaging. 15 The preliminary estimate of flood damages on the Humboldt River resulting from the Febru- ary 1962 flood is about $1 million. Agricultural lands; irrigation facilities; roads, highways, and railroads; and urban areas, principally in the general vicinity of Elko, Nev., were damaged. Had the authorized Corps project for Humboldt River and tributaries been completed and in operation, the damage to urban areas and to roads, highways, and railroads would have been eliminated and damages to agricultural lands would have been only nominal. In addition to the flood damages that would have been prevented by the authorized project, most of the floodwaters which were eventually wasted on nonproductive lands could have beeen stored for later beneficial use. 25. INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FLOOD CONTROL WORKS Section 3 of the Flood Control Act approved June 22, 1936, and subsequent acts, require local interests to furnish assurances that they will maintain and operate certain local-protection projects after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Approved regulations for operation and maintenance of flood-control works, part 208, title 33, Code of Federal Regulations provide for semiannual inspection of com- pleted projects. District engineers are responsible for the adminis- tration of these regulations within the boundaries of their respective districts in order to insure maximum benefits, from the projects. The average annual cost of this work in Sacramento District during the past 5 years was $9,263. The maintenance inspections conducted during the fiscal year indicate that existing agreements and regulations are being com- plied with on completed flood-control works. Continuing effort is required to improve maintenance practices and active steps are being taken by responsible State and local agencies to achieve de- sired results. Local interests were advised, as necessary, of meas- ures required to maintain these projects in accordance with Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 Maintenance: Appropriated ......... $7, 000 $9,900 I$9,650$9,900 $10,000 $66, 500 Cos.t ............. 7,005 9,779 9,740 9,931 9,862 66,362 1818 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 standards prescribed by regulations. Total cost of maintenance during the year was $9,862. Total costs for maintenance to June 30, 1962, were $66,362. 26. FLOOD CONTROL WORK UNDER SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION The following activities were conducted under authority of Public Law 99, 84th Congress, approved June 28, 1955: Advance preparation for flood emergencies, revision of flood-emergency manuals, inspection of non-Federal flood-control works, flood- emergency exercises, and emergency repair work. Activities in connection with flood control emergencies were accomplished at the following locations. Rights-of-way and assur- ances relative to holding the United States free from damages and future maintenance of project work were received prior to initiation of emergency work. Emergency flood control activities-repair,flood fighting and rescue work (Public Law 99, 84th Cong., 1st session and antecedent legislation) Date Date of Date Federal Project Location authorized construction completed cost' start Bethel Island ............. Bethel Island, Calif...... Dec. 12, 1961 Dec. 12, 1961 Dec. 18, 1961 43,910 Elko and Battle Mt., Nev.. Elko and Battle Mt., Nev. Feb. 13, 1962 Feb. 13, 1962 Feb. 17, 1962 32,528 Flood-emergency investi- Malad City, Idaho...... Feb. 15, 1962 Feb. 15, 1962 Feb. 15, 1962 +153 gation. Flood-emergency investi- Snowville, Utah ......... Feb. 16, 1962 Feb. 16, 1962 Feb. 16, 1962 453 gation. 1Actual fiscal year 1962 Federal cost. 2 Emergency repairs with hired labor and rented equipment. 3 Emergency action to provide assistance stockpiling material for sandbagging and strenghten- ing protecting dikes. Field investigation only. Small flood control projects not specifically authorized by Congress (Public Law 685, 84th Cong., July 11, 1956) Date Date of Date Federal Project Location authorized construction completed cost start California: Duck Creek .......... South of Stockton, San July 29, 1959 ................ .......... $1$345,000 Joaquin County. (July 1960) Green Valley Creek.... Solano County.......... Nov. 17, 1958 June 18, 1962 Scheduled 1134,000 Oct. 1962 (July 1962) McClure Creek....... Near Tehama, Tehama Jan. 3, 1961 ............................. 1260,000 County. (July 1961) Utah: Barton and Mill Creeks. Davis County........... Apr. 24, 1962 ......................... 2250,000 to 300,000 (July 1962) Big Wash............ Milford, Beaver County.. Oct. 3, 1958 Aug. 10, 1961 Dec. 15, 1961 3217,879 Burch Creek.......... South Ogden, Weber May 1, 1961 ........................... 1250,000 County. (Jan. 1962) Kays Creek.......... Layton, Davis County... May 4, 1961 ........................... 250,000 (July 1961) 1 Estimated Federal cost. 2 Preliminary estimated Federal cost. 3 Final Federal cost. 27. SCHEDULING OF FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS Section 7 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 reads as follows: "Hereafter, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of War to pre- scribe regulations for the use of storage allocated for flood control FLOOD CONTROL---SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1819 or navigation at all reservoirs constructed wholly or in part with Federal funds provided on the basis of such purposes, and the operation of any such project shall be in accordance with such regulations * * *" The work accomplished under this category consists of activities necessary in the basin-wide coordination of flood control and navi- gation releases from reservoirs operated by other agencies. Assistance was furnished the Bureau of Reclamation relative to problems encountered in the 1962 flood-control operation of Pine- view Reservoir. Summaries of monthly operations at Folsom, Friant, Shasta, Wanship, Echo, Pineview, Don Pedro, Cherry Valley, Hetch Hetchy, and Big Dry Creek Reservoirs were pre- pared and distributed. The reservoir regulation manuals for Shasta Dam and Reservoir and Truckee River Reservoirs for flood control were prepared for final approval. Preparation of the reser- voir regulation manual for flood control for Friant Dam and Reservoir was undertaken. The cost of this work during the fiscal year was $12,866. Total cost of this work to June 30, 1962, was $77,524. 1820 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 28. SURVEYS Work performed under this category includes all investigations of authorized navigation and flood control survey and review studies for the purpose of determining the advisability of recom- mending projects for construction which are economically feasible within specific water basins. The rapidly developing economy of the Nation requires that the Federal Government keep its program of authorized public works coordinated with current and prospec- tive needs for rivers and harbors improvement, flood control, and related purposes. The scope and extent of the navigation, flood control, and water resources problems involved affect national and local economy and security. In addition, this category includes Corps of Engineers activities required for the purpose of coordination with other Federal agencies in programs which are primarily the responsibility of the other agencies. These coordination activities include studies under the following authorities: (a) Collaboration with the Department of Agriculture in its activities under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Public Law 566), as amended by Public Law 1018 (Aug. 7, 1956). This objective requires that cognizance be taken of constructed and contemplated upstream and downstream works, with a view to developing the best overall basin program. For this purpose, studies are conducted to bring about coordination between the Public Law 566 program and the flood control work of the Corps of Engineers, to insure optimum development. (b) Cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation in evaluation of the effect upon floods of proposed projects under the regular reclamation program. Studies made by the Bureau of Reclama- tion of the flood control features of proposed reclamation projects are submitted to the Corps of Engineers with a request for a re- view and a determination of the flood-control benefits. The Corps utilizes the data collected by the Bureau, but makes an independent study and examination of the project. The studies of the two agencies are coordinated at field level. The report of the Chief of Engineers is utilized by the Secretary of the Interior in making allocation of project costs to flood control. (c) Collaboration with the Bureau of Reclamation in its ac- tivities under the Small Reclamation Projects, Public Law 984, 84th Congress (70 Stat. 1044), which authorizes the Bureau to make loans for construction, rehabilitation and betterment of small reclamation projects, under specific criteria established by the authorizing legislation. The Corps performs studies of the flood control features of proposed small reclamation projects as a service to the applicants for loans and nonreimbursable grants by the Secretary of the Interior. Application of the Federal flood control policy to "small reclamation projects" would require the Federal Government to bear the cost of determining the value of the flood control benefits, since under the flood control acts the Federal Government bears the costs of investigations and surveys. During the fiscal year work under this category included the following: GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS-SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1821 Number of studies Fiscal Classification year cost Initiated Continued Completed Navigation studies .................................... 0 1 0 $40,841 Flood-control studies ................ ................... 2 9 2 192,352 Special studies: Public Law 566 (Soil Conservation Service) ............... 0 0 0 218 Public Law 984 (Bureau) ............................ 1 0 1 2,487 Other coordination with Bureau ........................... 1 2 0 9,000 Totals............................................. 4 12 3 $244,899 The balance unexpended on June 30, 1962, $40,497, and antici- pated allotment for fiscal year 1963 of $185,100, a total of $225,597, will be applied during fiscal year 1963 to payment of expenses to be incurred for continuation of investigations and studies under this category. 29. COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA Section 206 of the Flood Control Act approved July 14, 1960 (Public Law 86-645) authorized the Secretary of the Army, through the Chief of Engineers, to provide flood plain information to States and responsible local governmental agencies upon their request to aid them in providing for use and regulation of use of flood plain areas. This activity comprises the compilation and dissemination, upon responsible local request, of information of floods and potential flood damages, including identification of areas subject to inunda- tion by floods of various magnitudes and frequencies, and general criteria for guidance in the use of flood plain areas; and provision of engineering advice to local interests for their use in planning to ameliorate the flood hazard. During the fiscal year, flood plain information studies on streams in Sacramento County were initiated at the request of Sacramento County officials. Total costs during fiscal year 1962 were $17,778. The balance unexpended on June 30, 1962, amounting to $12,222 plus an antic- ipated allotment of $20,000, a total of $32,222, will be applied during fiscal year 1963 to completion of the above studies and to initiation of studies for additional streams as assigned. 30. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Hydrologic studies conducted under this activity are essential basic activities pertaining to navigation, flood control, and related programs, which are essential to the proper evaluation of water resources of river basins. These studies provide a background of information and experience which is subsequently utilized in the design, construction, and operation of water-control structures; the studies are not properly chargeable to authorized projects or reports. Civil works investigations are designed to assist in the solution of unsolved or incompletely solved problems associated with de- sign, construction and operation, and maintenance of civil works projects. These investigations are engineering problems which 1822 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 are encountered over a wide segment of the area of the civil func- tions performed by the Corps of Engineers. The solutions are disseminated to permit optimum utilization of the results through- out the Corps of Engineers. Miscellaneous hydrologic studies in connection with the col- lection and study of basic data were conducted to the extent per- mitted by the very limited funds available for fiscal year 1962. Streamflow data and recording rain-gage data were obtained from the operations of general coverage stations in the Corps of Engi- neers stream-gaging program and independent general coverage rain gages operated by Sacramento District which could not be assigned to authorized project or examination and survey inves- tigations. Analysis of current flood potential on all principal streams of the Sacramento District was accomplished from current runoff, snow cover, and soil-moisture data. Aerial reconnaissance surveys were conducted of the snowfields in the Sierra Nevada area for progress of snowmelt runoff. In addition, a flood report- ing network was maintained throughout the district in cooperation with U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Weather Bureau, U.S. Geological Survey, State of California, and local interests. The above studies provided for partial assembly and analysis of basic data covering the Sacramento-San Joaquin Basins and for use in reviewing the regulations for Shasta, Folsom and Friant Reservoirs, operated by the Bureau of Reclamation. Civil works investigation on flood-volume studies, west coast: Technical bulletin on generalized rainflood frequencies for Cali- fornia, Oregon, and Washington, was completed and distributed to Corps of Engineers offices and cooperating agencies. A research note on a reliability test of hydrologic frequency methods was com- pleted and distributed. A general study to develop simplified snow- melt runoff volume-frequency charts for west coast, Columbia River Basin, and Great Basin streams was initiated. Civil works investigation on flood volume studies, west coast: Technical bulletin on generalized snowmelt runoff frequencies was completed and submitted for approval. A study of low-flow volume frequencies and a study of coincident frequencies were initiated. Consultant services were furnished to various Corps of Engineer offices. The paper, "Statistical Methods in Hydrology," was ex- panded and brought up to date for use in Corps offices as a guide manual. A civil works investigation to determine suitability of epoxy resin toward reduction of erosion and cavitation in sluice conduits in flood control dams designed and constructed by the Corps of Engineers was continued during the fiscal year. The epoxy resin was applied in selected areas in conduits at Pine Flat Reservoir, Kings River, Calif. Tests have been made with flows under heads ranging from 200 to 380 feet at full gate opening and at approxi- mately 200 feet head with partial gate opening. During fiscal year 1962 a limited number of tests were made at partial gate openings and at approximately 200 feet of head. Further partial gate opening tests will be made in fiscal year 1963 if suitable head con- ditions are obtained. A series of project bulletins will be issued GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS-SACRAMENTO, CALIF., DISTRICT 1823 describing the application of materials and procedures for the mixtures tested and the results attained. The costs during the fiscal year for research and development were $31,376, comprising $9,977 for hydrological studies and $21,- 399 for civil works investigations. The balance unexpended at the end of the fiscal year amounting to $820 plus an anticipated allotment of $30,000, a total of $30,820, will be applied to hydrologic studies and civil works investigations planned for fiscal year 1963. IMPROVEMENT OF RIVERS AND HARBORS IN THE HONOLULU, HAWAII, DISTRICT* This district comprises the Hawaiian, Line, Gilbert, Marshall, Midway, Wake, and Johnston Islands, and such islands in the South Pacific Ocean lying between the 159th meridian of east longitude and 108th meridian of west longitude as may be under the jurisdic- tion of the United States. IMPROVEMENTS Page Page Navigation Flood Control 1. Nawiliwili Harbor, Hawaii 1825 11. Hanapepe River, Hawaii .. 1838 2. Port Allen Harbor, Hawaii 1826 12. Wailoa stream and tribu- 3. Honolulu Harbor, Hawaii 1828 taries, Hawaii ........ 1839 4. Kaunakakai Harbor, 13. Other authorized flood con- Hawaii ............... 1830 trol project .......... 1840 5. Kahului Harbor, Hawaii .. 1832 14. Inspection of completed 6. Kawaihae Harbor, Hawaii 1833 flood control works .... 1840 7. Hilo Harbor, Hawaii .... 1835 15. Flood control work under 8. Navigation projects on special authorization .. 1841 which reconnaissance and condition surveys Shore Protection only were conducted dur- 16. Authorized shore-protection ing the fiscal year ..... 1836 1842 9. Other authorized naviga- projects.............. tion projects .......... 1837 10. Navigation work under General Investigations special authorization ... 1837 17. Surveys ................ 1843 1. NAWILIWILI HARBOR, HAWAII Location. This harbor is on the southeast coast of the island of Kauai, and about 100 nautical miles northwest of Honolulu. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 4111.) Existing project. This provides for a rubble-mound breakwater about 2,150 feet in length; for an entrance channel 40 feet deep with a minimum width of 600 feet and a length of about 2,400 feet; for a harbor basin 35 feet deep, with a maximum width of 1,540 feet and a maximum length of 1,950 feet; and a revetted fill on the west side of the harbor. The plane of reference is mean lower low water. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is about 1.8 feet. The extreme tidal range is about 4 feet. The cost of new work completed in June 1960 is $2,360,985, of which $2,127,724 is Federal cost and $233,261 is non-Federal cost. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $231,531. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Mar. 2, 1919 An entrance channel 35 feet deep; a harbor basin 1,100 H. Doc. 609, 62d Cong., 2d sess., as feet wide, 35 feet deep, and about 1,950 feet long; and a modified by the Chief of Engineers. rubber-mound breakwater. Sept. 3, 1954 Deepening entrance channel to 40 feet; enlarging harbor H. Doc. 453, 83d Cong., 2d sees. basin; and constructing a revetted-fill area. (Modified (contains latest published map). by the Chief of Engineers.) 1825 1826 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total costs (expended by the State of Hawaii) for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non- Federal contributions, amount to $1,977,605 (June 1961). Terminal facilities. The State of Hawaii owns a reinforced- concrete wharf with two sheds. Bulk-storage facilities and pipe- lines are available for petroleum products, liquid fertilizer and molasses. There is also a bulk sugar plant of 28,000-ton storage capacity with a conveyor system capable of loading at rate of about 750 tons per hour. The facilities of the harbor are open to all on equal terms and are considered adequate for existing com- merce. Operationsand results during fiscal year. Maintenance: Mainte- nance dredging was partially completed by the U.S. hopper dredge Davison. A total of 147,832 cubic yards of material was removed from critical areas, at a total cost of $73,082. Surveillance work was also performed by hired labor on the breakwater at a total cost of $474. The total cost of maintenance for the fiscal year was $73,556 from regular funds. In addition, condition studies were made by hired labor on the breakwater at a total cost of $532 from reconnaissance and condi- tion survey funds. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project is complete. The work authorized by the act of March 2, 1919, was completed in 1930. The work authorized by the act of September 3, 1954, was completed on June 30, 1960. The controlling depths as of June 1962 were 39.9 feet in the outer entrance channel, 39 feet in the inner channel with lesser depths toward the sides of the channel and a critical depth of 30.8 at the northerly limits of the inner channel, and 32 feet in the harbor basin. Costs for existing project to June 30, 1962, were as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total ......................................... Regular $2,127,724 $1,698,010 $3,825,734 Contributed ............... ......................... 233,261 233,261 Total............... ........................ 2,360,985 1,698,010 4,058,995 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ................... ... ....... -- 19,000 -$454.......... 12,127,724 Cost .................. $1,534 $25,958 149,085 18 ............. 12,127,724 M aintenance: Appropriated..........267,691 818,400 -4,208 ............. $85,300 1,709,754 Cost.................. 33,195 1,013,047 37,818 38 73,556 1,698,010 1 Excludes $233,261 non-Federal contribution. 2. PORT ALLEN HARBOR, HAWAII Location. This harbor is located in Hanapepe Bay on the south- ern coast of the island of Kauai, about 110 nautical miles northwest of Honolulu. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 4108.) RIVERS AND HARBORS - HONOLULU, HAWAII, DISTRICT 1827 Existing project. This provides for a rubble-mound breakwater 1,200 feet long on the east side of the bay; a harbor basin 1,200 feet wide, 1,500 feet long, and 35 feet deep; and an entrance chan- nel 500 feet wide and 35 feet deep. The plane of reference is mean lower low water. The range of tide between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 1.7 feet, and the extreme tidal range under ordinary conditions is 2.7 feet. The cost of new work completed in 1948 is $952,645, of which $752,645 is Federal cost and $200,000 is non-Federal cost. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $8,059. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Aug. 30, 19351 Construction of a breakwater 1,200 feet long; dredging of H. Doc. 30, 73d Cong., 1st sess. a harbor basin about 1,000 feet wide, 1,500 feet long, and 35 feet deep; and an entrance channel 500 feet wide and 35 feet deep. Mar. 2, 1945 Additional dredging of an area at the northerly side of the H. Doc. 180, 77th Cong., 1st sess. existing project 200 feet wide, 1,200 feet long, and 35 (contains latest published map). feet deep. 1 Included in the Public Works Administration program, Sept. 6, 1933. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total costs (expended by the State of Hawaii) for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non- Federal contributions, amount to $1,035,916 (June 1961). Terminal facilities. There is one pier and a storage shed owned and operated by the State of Hawaii. Bulk-storage facilities and pipelines are available for petroleum products, liquid fertilizer and molasses. The facilities are open to all on equal terms and are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance: Main- tenance dredging was partially completed by the U.S. hopper dredge Davison. A total of 140,924 cubic yards of material was removed from critical areas at a total cost of $40,295 from regular funds. In addition, maps of the previous fiscal year reconnaissance condition survey were completed by hired labor at a cost of $112. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in 1948. The work authorized by the act of 1935 was com- pleted in September 1935. The controlling depth as of June 1962 was 29 feet in the harbor basin. The costs for the existing project to June 30, 1962 were as fol- lows: Funds New work Maintenance Total Regular ...... .......... ......................... $72,645 $159,133 $231,778 Public works ............... ......................... 680,000 .680,000 Contributed ............ ...... ....... . ...... . 200,000 200,000................ 200,000 Total............ ....................... 952,645 159,133 1,111,778 1828 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.............. .... .............................. .......... 1$752,645 Cost................. . .... ........ .......... .......... ......... 1752,645 Maintenance: Appropriated............ ........................................ $41,300 160,138 ......... Cost................ 40,295 .............................. 159,133 'Excludes $200,000 non-Federal contribution. 3. HONOLULU HARBOR, HAWAII Location. This harbor is on the south coast of the island of Oahu, about 2,100 nautical miles from San Francisco. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 4109.) Existing project. This provides for an entrance channel 40 feet deep, 500 feet wide, and 4,000 feet long; an outer harbor basin 35 feet deep, about 1,520 feet wide, and 3,300 feet long; a channel connecting the outer harbor basin with Kapalama Basin, 35 feet deep, 1,000 feet wide through the first 1,000 feet, thence 600 feet wide for a distance of 2,400 feet; an inner harbor basin (Kapalama Basin) 35 feet deep, about 1,000 feet wide, and 3,400 feet long; a slip on the easterly side of pier 39, 35 feet deep and 1,000 feet long; a second entrance channel extending seaward from the west end of Kapalama Basin, 35 feet deep, 10,300 feet long and the width varying from 451 feet, at the end of Kapalama Basin, to a maxi- mum of 960 feet in the emergency turning basin in Keehi Lagoon, and 400 feet for the remaining length of the channel seaward of the turning basin; and a double-leaf bascule bridge across the second entrance channel, having a minimum clear horizontal draw opening of 250 feet. The plane of reference is mean lower low water. The range of tide between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 1.9 feet, and the extreme tidal range under ordinary conditions is 2.3 feet. The latest (March 1962) approved estimate of cost for new work is $8,483,700. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents and reports Mar. 3, 1905 Deepening to 35 feet the inner harbor with a general width Annual Report, 1905, p. 2565. of 1,200 feet and easing the curve between the entrance channel and the inner harbor. Aug. 8, 1917 For the channel 1,000 feet long ......................... H. Doc. 392, 64th Cong., 1st sess. July 3, 1930 Channel connecting Honolulu Harbor and Kapalama H. Doc. 753, 69th Cong., 2d sess. Basin. Aug. 30, 1935' Enlarging entrance channel to present project dimensions, widening of the harbor basin by 320 feet and the main- H. Doc. 54, 73d Cong., 1st seas. tenance of the improved 400-foot wide portion of the reserved channel. July 24, 1946 A depth of 35 feet over the full width of 600 feet through- H. Doc. 705, 79th Cong., 2d sess. out the reserved channel; a turning basin in Kapalama Basin 35 feet deep by 1,000 feet wide and 3,000 feet long; and a slip of like depth 1,000 feet long on the easterly side of pier 39. Sept. 3, 1954 The second entrance channel; and installation of a move- H. Doc. 717, 81st Cong., 2d sess. able-type bridge across the 2d entrance channel. (Modi- (contains latest published map). fled by the Chief of Engineers.) 1 Included in the Public Works Administration program Sept., 6, 1933. RIVERS AND HARBORS - HONOLULU, HAWAII, DISTRICT 1829 The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $29,291. Local cooperation. Fully complied with for work performed to date. The act of September 3, 1954, requires local interests to: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and spoil-disposal areas necessary for the construc- tion and subsequent maintenance of the project, when and as re- quired; (b) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; (c) relinquish to the United States, without royalty charge, all salvageable material removed from the channel; and (d) take title to the proposed drawbridge after con- struction and maintain and operate it in accordance with regula- tions prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. All requirements of local cooperation have been formally as- sured by the State director of transportation. Revised Laws of Hawaii, 1955, chapter 112, section 4, authorizes the director of transportation to operate and maintain the bridge across the sec- ond entrance channel. Total costs (expended by State of Hawaii) for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization amount to $12,925,455 (June 1961). Terminal facilities. There are 38 piers and 2 marginal wharves (a 470-foot concrete wharf and a 2,600-foot timber wharf). The Federal Government owns 4 of the piers and the 2 marginal wharves. Of the remaining piers, 14 are owned by the State of Hawaii, administered by the State Department of Transportation, and 20' are privately owned. All piers owned by the State and private concerns are open to all on equal terms. However, certain piers are reserved for certain commodities such as oil, pineapples, bulk feed, bulk cement, and bulk fertilizer. There is a bulk-sugar plant of 30,000-ton storage capacity with a conveyor loading sys- tem capable of conveying at a rate of about 1,000 tons per hour. The State has converted a pier to accommodate containerized ships and to handle 25-ton cargo containers. Pipelines for petroleum products, liquid fertilizer, molasses and water are available. In addition to these facilities, the U.S. Army has a slip for the mooring of barges and small vessels in the northerly side of Kapalama Basin adjacent to the storage and terminal facilities in the vicinity of the United States-owned piers 39 and 40. Existing terminal facilities accommodate present commerce, but modernization for more efficient handling and expansion for pro- spective commerce will be necessary. The State of Hawaii com- pleted in 1961 master plans for the development of land in the waterfront area, improvement of existing harbor facilities and development of new maritime facilities for Honolulu Harbor. The State is preparing plans and specifications for a new passenger- freight terminal. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: Construc- tion of the bridge substructure was completed under a continuing contract in July 1961. The bridge superstructure being constructed under a continuing contract is 98 percent complete at the end of the year. The total contract cost of the bridge and appurtenant 1830 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 work was $1,558,743 for the year. Removal of the causeway and related channel work was accomplished by contract at a cost of $121,779 for the year. The cost of engineering and design work completed by contract was $3,992 for the year. The cost of super- vision and administration was $164,630. The total cost of new work for the year was $1,849,144 from regular funds. Maintenance: Maintenance dredging was partially completed by the U.S. hopper dredge Davison. A total of 163,234 cubic yards of material was removed from critical areas, at a total cost of $104,- 471. Final contract cost of $755 was incurred for maintenance dredging completed in fiscal year 1961 in areas adjacent to pier 2, the pertinent administrative cost was $23. The total cost of main- tenance for the year was $105,249 from regular funds. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project is about 99 percent complete. The work authorized prior to 1954 was com- pleted in August 1945. The controlling depths in June 1961 were 37.8 feet in the first entrance channel, 33.4 feet in the harbor basin, 32.5 feet in the con- necting channel, 25.5 feet in Kapalama Basin, and 25.3 feet in the slip easterly of pier 39. The controlling depth in the second en- trance channel as of May 1962 was 35 feet. The costs for the existing project to the end of the fiscal year were as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total Regular .. ........................................ $7,649,492 $821,634 $8,471,126 Publicworks ......................................... 784,800 ................ 784,800 Total........... ............................ 8,434,292 821,634 9,255,026 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... $50,000 $940,000 $1,594,000 $1,217,717 $726,025 $8,490,319 Cost................. 23,753 184,067 1,086,826 1,327,925 1,849,144 8,434,292 Maintenance: Appropriated .................. .......... ....... 42,028 111,654 828,863 Cost................. . ......... 41,204 105,249 821,634 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .............................. $19,976 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................... 19,976 4. KAUNAKAKAI HARBOR, HAWAII Location. This harbor is located centrally on the southern coast of the island of Molokai, about 52 nautical miles southeast of Hono- lulu. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 4121.) Existing project. This provides for dredging a harbor basin about 1,500 feet long, 600 feet wide, and 23 feet deep at mean lower low water. The range of tide between mean lower low water and mean high- er high water is 2 feet and the extreme tidal range for normal con- ditions is about 2.5 feet. The cost of new work under this project, completed in 1934, was RIVERS AND HARBORS - HONOLULU, HAWAII, DISTRICT 1831 $103,200. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $2,760. The existing project was authorized by the Public Works Ad- ministration, September 6, 1933, and adopted by the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1935 (H. Doc. 35, 73d Cong., 1st sess.). The latest published map is in that document. Recommended modification of project. Modification of the ex- isting project has been recommended to provide a deepwater harbor comprising an entrance channel 500 feet wide and 40 feet deep, a harbor basin 35 feet deep over an area of 62 acres, a jetty 1,000 feet long and a west breakwater 3,000 feet long; a harbor basin for light-draft vessels, 15 feet deep over an area of 10 acres; and a south breakwater 2,300 feet long to protect the basin for light-draft vessels and the entrance channel of the deep-water harbor. The estimated cost of the modification is $8,670,000 (May 1961) of which $7,970,000 is Federal cost and $700,000 is non- Federal cost. The estimated Federal cost of annual maintenance is $22,000 (May 1961). Local cooperation. Fully complied with on the existing project. Total costs (expended by the State of Hawaii) for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization amount to $745,737 (June 1961). Terminal facilities. There is one concrete wharf owned and operated by the State of Hawaii and open to shipping on equal terms. The facilities are considered adequate for present com- merce. Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance: Main- tenance dredging was accomplished by the U.S. hopper dredge Davison. A total of 40,607 cubic yards of material was removed at a total cost of $13,799 from regular funds. A credit of $10 was made to cost for reconnaissance survey work performed in fiscal year 1961. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in January 1934. The controlling depth as of June 1962 was 23 feet in the harbor basin. The costs for the existing project to June 30, 1962 were as fol- lows: Funds New work Maintenance Total Regular ................................................... . .$75,662 $75,662 Publicworks............................................ $103,200.103,200 Total......................................... 103,200 75,662 178,862 Cost and financial statement to Total year Fiscal 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.................... ................ .......... $103,200 Cost................. ............ . .......... ... ........ ....... 103,200 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... ................. ............... 318,800 80,663 Cost ................. ...... ..... .. .. . . ........ 13,799 75,662 1832 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 5. KAHULUI HARBOR, HAWAII Location. This harbor is on the north coast of the island of Maui, about 90 nautical miles southeast of Honolulu. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 4105.) Existing project. This provides for rubble-mound breakwaters on the east and west sides of the harbor, approximately 2,850 and 2,396 feet in length, respectively, and an entrance 600 feet wide between the breakwaters and a harbor basin 2,050 feet wide, 2,400 feet long and 35 feet deep. The range of tide between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 2.4 feet and the extreme tidal range under normal conditions is 3.4 feet. The latest (March 1962) approved estimate of cost for new work is $2,446,000 of which $2,426,000 is Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost and $20,000 is non-Federal contribution. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $89,547. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents June 25, 1910 Extending the east breakwater and dredging the basin.... H. Doc. 593, 61st Cong., 2d sess. July 27, 1916 For the west breakwater......................... H. Doc. 1330, 62d Cong., 3d sess. Jan. 21, 1927 Extension of both breakwaters and enlargement of the H. Doc. 235, 69th Cong., 1st sess. dredged basin. July 14, 1960 Enlargement of harbor basin, 600 feet wide, 2,400 feet H. Doe. 109, 86th Cong., 1st sess. long, 35 feet deep. 1 Contains latest published map. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total costs (expended by the State of Hawaii) for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the existing project authorization amount to $2,- 502,970 (June 1961). Terminal facilities. There are two wharves owned and operated by the State of Hawaii which are open to shipping on equal terms. Pipelines for fuel oil, distillate, kerosene, gasoline, molasses, and water are available. There is also a bulk-sugar plant of 30,000-ton storage capacity with a conveyor loading system capable of con- veying at a rate of about 750 tons per hour. The facilities are con- sidered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: Enlarge- ment of the harbor basin was completed by contract in March 1962. A total of 847,958 cubic yards of material was removed from the enlargement area at a cost of $515,500. The cost of supervision and administration on the harbor enlargement project was $34,169. The total cost of new work for the year was $549,669 of which $532,034 was from regular Federal funds and $17,635 was from contributed funds. Maintenance: Maintenance dredging was accomplished by the U.S. hopper dredge Davison. A total of 82,046 cubic yards of mate- rial was removed at a total cost of $42,236. Maintenance dredging was also performed in the harbor basin by contract at a cost of $55,696 and pertinent Government cost for supervision and ad- ministration was $3,900. The total cost of maintenance for the year was $101,832 from regular funds. Rehabilitation. Preconstruction planning for major rehabilita- tion of the breakwaters was initiated in November 1961. Engineer- RIVERS AND HARBORS - HONOLULU, HAWAII, DISTRICT 1833 ing studies including investigation of possible quarry sites and model studies were performed by hired labor at a total cost of $43,481 from regular funds. In addition, maps of a condition survey made in fiscal year 1961 were completed by hired labor at a cost of $176. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in MIarch 1962, except for removal of rocky shoal area in northwest edge of basin which is deferred. Work authorized prior to 1960 was completed in December 1931. Controlling depth in June 1962 was 35 feet in harbor basin. Costs for the existing project to June 30, 1962 were as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Rehabilitation Total Regular ............................. $2,331,665 $2,825,433 $43,481 $5,200,579 Contributed ............................ 17,635 ................................ 17,635 Total............ ... .......... 2,349,300 2,825,433 43,481 5,218,214 Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ............................ .......... $630,000 -$6,000 $2,402,560 Cost...................... ........................ 21,071 532,034 2,331,665 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... -$664 $332,840 $11,209 73,100 40,900 2,835,376 Cost .................. -370 26,879 291,177 28,218 101,832 2,825,433 Rehabilitation: Appropriated......... ............ .......... .. ..... . .. .......... 100,000 10 ,000 Cost.......... .... ........................................ 43,481 43,481 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .............................. $70,895 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................... 70,895 CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated......... . ........ . .......... ......... . $30,200 ......... $30,200 Cost................ ....................................... $17,635 17,635 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 80, 1962 .............................. $12,565 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................... 12,565 6. KAWAIHAE HARBOR, HAWAII Location. This harbor is in Kawaihae Bay, adjacent to the town of Kawaihae, and is on the northwest coast of the island of Hawaii, approximately 85 nautical miles northwesterly from Hilo, island of Hawaii. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 4166.) Existing project. This provides for an entrance channel 400 feet wide, 2,900 feet long and 40 feet deep; a harbor basin 1,250 feet square and 35 feet deep; a rubble-mound breakwater 2,650 feet long and a fill area protected by 3,335 feet of heavy stone revetment. The plane of reference is mean lower low water. The range of tide between mean lower low water and mean higher high water 1834 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 is 2.1 feet, and the extreme range under ordinary conditions is 4.5 feet. The latest approved estimate of cost for new work is $4,686,200 (July 1961). The existing project was authorized by the River -and Harbor Act of May 17, 1950 (H. Doc. 311, 81st Cong., 1st sess.). The latest published map is in that document. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. The total cost for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization amount to $2,713,702 (June 1961). Of the amount $1,123,702 was expended by the State of Hawaii for wharf facili- ties and $1,590,000 was expended by shipping interests for the bulk-sugar plant, molasses tanks and bulk-petroleum facilities. In addition, $525,713 was expended by the State of Hawaii for a small- boat harbor and a barge channel to augment the Federal deepwater harbor. Terminal facilities. Facilities to serve transpacific commerce comprise a wharf, a pier shed, molasses tanks of 10,000-ton stor- age capacity, petroleum tanks of 10,000-ton storage capacity with pipelines, and a bulk-sugar plant of 17,000-ton storage capacity with a conveyor system capable of conveying at a rate of about 600 tons per hour. A barge landing, a pier shed and a cattle corral are available to serve interisland tugs and barges. All facilities are open to all on equal terms and are considered adequate for existing commerce. A LST ramp, constructed with military funds, is also available. Operationsand results during fiscal year. New work: Engineer- ing and design for additional dredging in the entrance channel was completed by hired labor at a cost of $11,549. Dredging to ease the entrance to the basin was started by contract, and the cost to the end of the fiscal year was $354,000. The cost of supervision and administration was $19,260. An adjustment of -$2,853, resulting from the sale of a scale, was made to the project cost. The net total cost of new work for the year was $381,956 from regular funds. A reconnaissance condition survey was completed by hired labor at a cost of $1,356. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project is 98 percent com- plete. Controlling depths as of January 1962 were 40 feet in the entrance channel and 36 feet in the harbor basin. The total cost of new work to June 30, 1962, was $4,568,192 from regular funds. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated......... $2,450,000 $69,000 -$59,500 -$1,263 $500,000 $4,686,237 Cost.................. 2,569,856 911,194 9,328 517 381,956 14,568,193 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ..................... ......... $22,980 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ..................... 22,980 1 Includes $950 expended for rock stockpile but excludes $2,853 credit placed in appropriation reimbursement. RIVERS AND HARBORS - HONOLULU, HAWAII, DISTRICT 1835 7. HILO HARBOR, HAWAII Location. This harbor is on the northeast coast of the island of Hawaii, about 195 nautical miles southeast of Honolulu. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 4103.) Existing project. This provides for an entrance 35 feet deep, a harbor basin 1,400 feet wide, 2,300 feet long and 35 feet deep, an east breakwater 10,570 feet long, a west breakwater 4,000 feet long and a land dike 6,600 feet long. The plane of reference is mean lower low water. The range of tides between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 2.3 feet, and the extreme range under ordinary conditions is 3.2 feet. The latest (1962) approved estimate of cost for new work is $30,908,800, of which $25,208,800 is Federal cost and $5,700,000 is non-Federal cost. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $8,058. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Mar. 2, 1907 For rubble-mound breakwater ................. ........ . Doe. 407, 59th Cong., 2d sess. July 25, 1912 Dredging the entrance of Kuhio Bay without increasing H. Doe. 417, 62d Cong., 2d sess. the original limit of cost. Mar. 3, 1925 Extension of the breakwater and dredging in the bay...... H. Doe. 235, 68th Cong., 1st sess. July 14, 1960 Modification of existing breakwater to total length of H. Doc. 197, 87th Cong., 1st sess. 1 10,570 feet and construction of west breakwater and land dike. 1 Contains latest published map. Local cooperation. Fully complied with on the completed portion of the project. Total costs (expended by the State of Hawaii) for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization prior to 1960 amount to $3,756,189 (June 1961). Under terms of the River and Harbor Act of July 14, 1960, local interests will, without cost to the United States: (a) Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including royalty-free borrow and quarry sites, necessary for construction of the project and for subsequent maintenance of the east barrier; (b) accomplish all changes, alterations, and relocations of sewerage and drainage facilities, buildings, utilities, highways, and other structures made necessary by the construction; (c) bear 30 percent, estimated at $6,050,000 of the total cost allocated to tsunami protection, to con- sist of the parts of items (a) and (b) above allocated to tsunami protection, and a cash contribution presently estimated at $5,700,- 000, to be paid either in a lump prior to initiation of construction, or in installments prior to commencement of pertinent work items, in accordance with construction schedules as required by the Chief of Engineers, the final apportionment of cost to be made after actual costs and values have been determined; (d) hold and save the United States free from damages due to construction of the project and for subsequent maintenance of the east barrier; (e) maintain the land dike and the west barrier after completion in ac- cordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; and (f) prohibit encroachment which may impair the ac- 1836 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 cessibility and primary purposes of the land dike and the west barrier. Assurances of local cooperation were provided by the Governor of Hawaii by letter dated November 14, 1960, and by the County of Hawaii Board of Supervisors by resolution 600, adopted on November 10, 1960. Terminal facilities. There are three piers with cargo sheds that are owned and operated by the State of Hawaii. Bulk-storage facilities and pipelines are available for petroleum products, liquid fertilizer and molasses. There is also a bulk-sugar plant of 40,000- ton storage capacity with a conveyor loading system capable of conveying at a rate of about 1,000 tons per hour. The facilities are open to all on equal terms and are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: Engi- neering and design studies on the modification work authorized by the act of July 14, 1960, were initiated in September 1961. Model studies, hydrographic surveys, investigations of possible quarry sites and preparation of a planning design memorandum are being done by hired labor at a total cost of $81,659 for the year from regular funds. Maintenance: Maintenance dredging was accomplished by the U.S. hopper dredge Davison. A total of 90,551 cubic yards of ma- terial was removed at a total cost of $33,185 from regular funds. Condition at end of fiscal year. The work authorized prior to 1960 was completed in July 1930. Preconstruction planning on the modification project authorized in 1960 is 10 percent com- plete. The controlling depth as of February 1962 was 35 feet in the harbor basin. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.......... ....... .... ..... ........ ........ .. ....... $115,000 $3,603,826 Cost ... ............... ....... .......... ........ 1,65 3,570,485 Maintenance: Appropriated. ......... -$12,026 . ................................ .34,800 1,773,578 Ccst................. 7,105 ......... 33,185 1,771,963 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ........................... $14,966 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 .......... .................... 600,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................. 614,966 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ...................... 21,005,000 1 Includes $80,000 allocated and costed for preauthorization studies in general investigations ap- propriation. 2 Inaddition, $5,700,00 contributed funds are required. 8. NAVIGATION PROJECTS ON WHICH RECONNAISSANCE AND CONDITION SURVEYS ONLY WERE CONDUCTED DURING THE FISCAL YEAR RIVERS AND HARBORS - HONOLULU, HAWAII, DISTRICT 1837 9. OTHER AUTHORIZED NAVIGATION PROJECTS For last Cost to June 30, 1962 full report Estimated Cost Name of project see amount estimate Annual Operation required to (last date Report Construction and complete of revision) for- maintenance 1. Wake Island Harbor, Wake Island.... 1950 '$1,931 2814,493 $4,668,000 $4,670,000 2. Welles Harbor, Midway Island....... 1950 2,488,056 2,111 ............... (') 1 Preauthorization studies costs only. 2 Cost of hydrographic survey completed in August 1948. Cost estimate revised as of July 1960; project placed in "deferred" category. 4 Project completed in 1941; maintenance transferred to the Department of the Navy in 1949. 10. NAVIGATION WORK UNDER SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION Small navigation projects not specifically authorized by Congress. (Public Law 86-645, sec. 107, 86th Cong., July 14, 1960.) Federal cost Date Date of Date Project Location authorized 1 construction completed start Fiscal Total year (estimated) 2 Haleiwa Harbor...... Oahu, Hawaii....... Oct. 26, 1961 ......................... $2,941 $200,000 Maalaea Harbor...... Maui, Hawaii....... Dec. 7, 1961 ......................... 2,968 134,000 Manele Harbor....... Lanai, Hawaii....... Mar. 20, 1961 ........................... 5,670 199,000 Nawiliwili Harbor.... Kauai, Hawaii...... Dec. 22, 1960 .......................... 3,316 199,000 1 For engineering studies only. 2 Corps of Engineers cost. 1838 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 11. HANAPEPE RIVER, HAWAII Location. This river is on the southwest portion of the island of Kauai, Hawaii, and flows through the town of Hanapepe. Existing project. This provides for the construction of a levee, about 2,200 feet long, along the left bank commencing at the new Kauai Belt Highway Bridge about one-third mile above the river mouth and extending to the cliffs at the northeast corner of the town of Hanapepe; and the construction of a levee about 4,600 feet long along the right bank, commencing at the old highway bridge about one-half mile above the river mouth and extending upstream to high ground. The latest (1961) approved estimate for new work is $673,000 of which $9,000 would be non-Federal. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved December 22, 1944, in accordance with the recommen- dations of the Chief of Engineers in a report submitted to Con- gress by the Secretary of War on March 15, 1944 (and as modi- fied by the Chief of Engineers). Local cooperation. Fully complied with for work performed to date. Resolution 71 adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Kauai on April 7, 1960, provided assurances that in connection with construction of improvements on both banks of Hanapepe River, local interests will; (a) Furnish lands. ease- ments, and rights-of-way necessary for the construction of the project; (b) remove and replace existing bridge; (c) remove all buildings within limits of the rights-of-way; (d) alterate as re- quired sewer, water supply, and other utility facilities; (e) bear the expense of all highway alterations; (f) hold and save the United States free from damages resulting from construction of the works; (g) maintain and operate all works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; and (h) provide a cash contribution of 11/2 percent of the total Federal cost of the entire project, an amount now estimated at $9,000. The latest (1961) estimate of non-Federal first costs for all requirements of local cooperation is $169,000. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: Engi- neering and design for work on the right bank were continued by hired labor during the year at a total cost of $5,419 from regular funds. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project is 48 percent com- plete. Flood control works on the left bank was completed in Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 . June 30, 1962 New work: .................. Appropriated $407,000 ........... $216,000 ..... $663,599 Cost................. 28,486 $231,566 22,644 $5,419 323,904 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .............................. $339,695 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................... 339,695 FLOOD CONTROL-HONOLULU, HAWAII, DISTRICT 1839 CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated............... ...................... ........... $10,100 $10,100 Cost........................... .................... .............. Other new work data: Unobligated balance for the year ending June 30, 1962 ........................ $10,100 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................... 10,100 December 1959. Construction on the right bank has not been started. The total cost of new work on the existing project to June 30, 1962 was $323,904 from regular funds. 12. WAILOA STREAM AND TRIBUTARIES, HAWAII Location. Wailoa Stream is formed by the confluence of the Waiakea and Kawili Streams which have their sources on the eastern slope of Mauna Loa. Wailoa Stream flows through the city of Hilo into Hilo Bay on the northeastern side of the island of Hawaii. Existing project. This provides for improvements on Kawili Stream comprising a channel 385 feet long and a dike 325 feet long to divert flows into Waiakea Stream; and improvements on Waiakea Stream comprising clearing the upper reaches of the stream, a dike 195 feet long and earth levees totaling 6,510 feet in length on both banks, and a new excavated channel 4,680 feet long for the lower reaches of the stream. The latest (1962) approved estimate of cost of new work is $1,270,000. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of Septem- ber 3, 1954 (H. Doc. 529, 81st Cong., 2d sess.). The latest pub- lished map is contained in that document. Local cooperation. The Flood Control Act of September 3, 1954, requires local interests to; (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements and rights-of-way necessary for the construction of the project; (b) construct all necessary culverts, bridges, street revisions and utility relocations; (c) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; and (d) maintain and operate all the work after comple- tion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. The chairman of the Board of Supervisors, county of Hawaii, was notified on June 25, 1962, of the requirements of local cooperation and was requested to furnish formal assurances of compliance with the terms. The State of Hawaii is assisting the county of Hawaii to comply with terms of local cooperation by contributing $128,000 to the county. Plans and specifications are being prepared with State funds for the construction and relo- cation work required of local interests. The State is also perform- ing survey work necessary for the acquisition of land required for construction of the project. The estimated cost for all requirements of local cooperation un- der terms of the project authorization amounts to $700,000 (July 1961). 1840 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: Prepara- tion of a design memorandum was completed by hired labor at a total cost of $15,521 for the year, from regular funds. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project has not been started. Preconstruction planning is approximately 71 percent complete. The total costs of the project to June 30, 1962, amounted to $75,000 for preauthorization studies and advance engineering and design. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated......... .......... ........ . $27,000 $22,000 $12,000 $75,000 Cost ............................. 19,566 25,913 15,521 75,000 Other new work data: Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 .................................. $182,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 182,000 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ...................... 1,013,000 13. OTHER AUTHORIZED FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT For last Cost to June 30, 1962 full report Estimated Cost Name of project see amount estimate Annual Operation required to (last date Report Construction and complete of revision) for- maintenance Kawainui Swamp, Hawaii 1............. 1961 2$84,467 $1,085,533 .............. '$1,170,000 1 Planning on project held in abeyance pending local interests' determination of future utiliza- tion of area. s For costs of preauthorization studies and advance engineering and design; includes $119 expended in fiscal year 1962 for minor work. * Last revision made in July 1961. 14. INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FLOOD CONTROL WORKS Pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1936, as amended, local interests are required to operate and maintain flood-control works, completed with Federal funds, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, an inspection of completed flood-control works was made by hired labor at a cost of $588. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... ... $500 $490 $1,000 $1,000 $2,990 Cost................. .......... 143 847 618 588 2,196 FLOOD CONTROL--HONOLULU, HAWAII, DISTRICT 1841 15. FLOOD CONTROL WORK UNDER SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION Small flood control projects, not specifically authorized by Congress. (Public Law 685, 84th Cong., July 11, 1956) Federal cost 1 Date Date of Date Project Location authorized I construction completed! start Fiscal Total year (actual) Kahoma Stream...... Maui, Hawaii....... June 27, 1960 .......... Oct. 12, 1961 $1,490 $5,760 Wailua River ........ Kauai, Hawaii ...... Sept. 24, 1958 ........... June 22, 1961 9230 29,438 Waimea River ...... Kauai, Hawaii ..... Mar. 12, 1958 ........... Mar. 22, 1962 4,141 17,589 1 For engineering studies only. SDate of reports which contained unfavorable recommendation. s For administrative work after submission of report. Emergency flood control activities-repair,flood fighting, and rescue work (Public Law 99, 84th Congress, 1st session and antecedent legislation) During the fiscal year, advance preparation for flood emer- gencies and postflood reports were accomplished at a cost of $5,945 and $6,393, respectively. 1842 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 16. AUTHORIZED SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS For last Cost to June 30, 1962 full report Estimated Cost Name of project see amount estimate Annual Operation required to (last date Report Construction and complete of revison) for- maintenance Hanapepe Bay, Hawaii ................ () 2$6,830 ................ $22,170 4$29,00 Waikiki Beach, Hawaii................ 1960 3245,568 ................ (') Waimea Beach, Hawaii ................ () 22,970 .............. 6,080 '9,000 1 No previous full report; project authorized in 1958. 2 Federal share of costs for preauthorization studies only. 3 Federal cost of participation. 45 Cost estimate revised as of July 1962, Federal cost only. Completed. GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS-HONOLULU, HAWAII, DISTRICT 1843 17. SURVEYS During the year $172,242 was expended for navigation, flood- control, and cooperative beach-erosion studies, $156,866 from Federal funds and $15,376 from contributed funds. The cost for coordination with Soil Conservation Services for the year was $3,681. During the year, $5,910 and $3,869 were expended for flood plain studies and hydrologic studies, respectively. The unexpended balance of Federal funds as of June 30, 1962, in the amount of $58,021 and accounts receivable of $1,549 plus an anticipated allotment of $192,000 for surveys a total of $251,570 will be applied to: Accounts payable ..... ................ ............. $24,022 Continuation of navigation, flood control and beach erosion studies ................................... 227,548 Total ............................................... 251,570 IMPROVEMENT OF RIVERS AND HARBORS IN THE PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT The territorial limits of the Portland, Oreg., District include the southerly portion of the State of Washington which lies within the watershed of Columbia River and tributaries downstream from a point between the Klickitat River and Rock Creek; that portion of the State of Oregon within Columbia River watershed below the John Day Dam site and west of the watershed of John Day River and tributaries, together with south central Oregon west of Malheur River and Steens Mountain, but not including that part which drains into Klamath Lake and River. The coastal drainage area of Oregon is also included. IMPROVEMENTS Page Page Navigation Navigation-Cont'd 1. The Dalles Dam, Columbia only were conducted dur- River, Wash. and Oreg. 1846 ing the fiscal year ...... 1888 2. Columbia River at Bonne- 25. Other authorized naviga- ville, Oreg. .......... 1848 tion projects .......... 1888 3. Restoration of Indian fish- 26. Navigation work under ing grounds, Bonneville, special authorization .. 1889 Oreg................ 1850 Flood Control 4. Columbia River between Vancouver, Wash., and 27. Willamette River Basin The Dalles, Oreg ...... 1851 (Portland, Oreg., Dis- 5. Willamette River above trict) ................ 1890 Portland and Yamhill 28. Detroit Reservoir, Oreg .. 1893 River, Oreg. .......... 1854 29. Green Peter Reservoir, 6. Willamette River at Wil- Oreg ................. 1895 lamette Falls, Oreg. ... 1857 30. Holley Reservoir, Oreg .. 1896 7. Columbia and Lower Wil- 31. Blue River Reservoir, Oreg 1897 lamette Rivers below 32. Cougar Reservoir, Oreg .. 1898 Vancouver, Wash., and 33. Fern Ridge Reservoir, Oreg 1900 Portland, Oreg. ....... 1859 34. Fall Creek Reservoir, Oreg 1901 8. Lewis River, Wash ....... 1863 35. Hills Creek Reservoir, Oreg 1902 9. Cowlitz River, Wash ..... 1864 36. Lookout Point Reservoir, 10. Westport Slough, Oreg .. 1865 Oreg ................. 1904 11. Skipanon Channel, Oreg .. 1866 37. Dorena Reservoir, Oreg .. 1906 12. Columbia River at Baker 38. Cottage Grove Reservoir, Bay, Wash ............ 1868 Oreg ................. 1908 13. Columbia River at the 39. Johnson Creek, Portland mouth, Oreg and Wash . 1869 and vicinity, Oreg .... 1910 14. Tillamook Bay and Bar, 40. Willamette River Basin, Oreg ................. 1871 Oreg. (bank protection) 1911 15. Depoe Bay, Oreg ......... 1873 41. Local flood-protection proj- 16. Yaquina River, Oreg .... 1873 ects, Columbia River 17. Yaquina Bay and Harbor, Basin, Oreg. and Wash 1912 Oreg ................. 1875 42. Lower Columbia River 1877 Basin, Oreg. and Wash 1914 18. Siuslaw River, Oreg. 43. Washougal area, Clark 19. Umpqua River, Oreg ..... 1879 County, Wash., Lower 20. Coos Bay, Oreg .......... 1882 Columbia River Basin 21. Coquille River, Oreg ..... 1884 levees at new locations 1915 22. Rogue River at Gold Beach, 44. Multnomah County drain- Oreg .................. 1885 age district 1, Multomah 23. Chetco River, Oreg ...... 1887 County, Oreg., Lower 24. Navigation projects on Columbia River Basin which reconnaissance levees and improvement and condition surveys to existing projects .... 1916 1845 1846 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Page Page Flood Control--Cont'd Flood Control---Cont'd 45. Sauvie Island Drainage provements to existing District (areas A and projects .............. 1922 B), Multnomah and Co- 51. Woodson drainage district, lumbia Counties, Oreg., Columbia County, Oreg., Lower Columbia River Lower Columbia River Basin levees and im- Basin levees and im- provement to existing provement to existing projects .... .. 1917 projects .............. 1923 46. Rainier drainage district, 52. Wahkiakum County con- Columbia County, Oreg., solidated diking district Lower Columbia River 1, Wash., Lower Colum- Basin levees and im- bia River Basin levees provement to existing and improvement to projects .............. 1918 existing projects ...... 1923 47. Cowlitz County diking im- 53. Lower Columbia River provement district 13, Basin bank-protection Wash., Lower Columbia works, Oreg., and Wash 1924 River Basin levees and 54. West Muddy Creek and improvement to existing Marys River, Oreg., Wil- projects .............. 1919 lamette River Basin 48. Cowlitz County diking im- channel improvement for provement district 2, flood control and major Wash., Lower Columbia drainage ............. 1925 River, improvement to 55. Other authorized flood con- existing projects ...... 1920 trol projects .......... 1926 49. Beaver drainage district, 56. Inspection of completed Columbia County, Oreg., flood control works .... 1928 Lower Columbia River 57. Flood control work under Basin levees and im- special authorization .. 1928 provement to existing projects .............. 1921 General Investigations 50. Midland drainage district, 58. Examinations and surveys 1930 Columbia County, Oreg., 59. Collection and study of Lower Columbia River basic data and research Basin levees and im- and development studies 1930 1. THE DALLES DAM, COLUMBIA RIVER, WASH. AND OREG. Location. This project is located on Columbia River at the head of the pool behind Bonneville Dam, approximately 193 miles above the mouth of the river and 90 miles east of Portland, Oregon. Existing project. This project provides for a dam, powerplant, navigation lock, and appurtenant facilities. The improvement pro- vides for navigation and hydroelectric-power generation. The dam is designed for a normal pool at elevation 160 mean sea level. The normal pool forms a reservoir extending upstream about 25 miles providing slackwater to the John Day Dam site. The total length of The Dalles Dam is 8,700 feet and consists of a rock, gravel, and sand river closure section from the Oregon shore con- necting to a nonoverflow section which in turn joins the power- house, then concrete nonoverflow sections connecting the spillway with the powerhouse and the spillway with the navigation lock located at the right abutment on the Washington shore. Fish- passing facilities including two ladders are provided. The power- house is constructed for 14 units which are to be installed initially and substructure constructed for 8 additional units, an ultimate total of 22 units. Initial installation, including two 13,500 kilowatt fishwater units, will be 1,119,000 kilowatts. The structures are founded on Columbia River basalt. RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1847 The principal data concerning the lock, spillway and power- house are shown in the following table. Navigation lock Type .............. .............................................. ........... Single lift Lift normal .................................................................. feet..87.5 Net clear length ...................................................... do..675 Net clear width ........................................................ do. .86 Normal depth over upper sill ............................. ............. do..20 Minimum depth over lower sill .......................................... do..15 Opened to navigation ....................................................... March 17, 1957 Spillway dam Type ............................. ..... . ..... ................ .. ....... Controlled Elevation of crest ................ ... ..... ..................... ft. msl..121 Top of crest gates .................................................... do..162 Number of gates ........................................ 23 Size of gates ....................... .............. .................. feet..50 X 43 Height (foundation to crest) ...................................... feet. .120 Design flood .. .................................................. c.f.s..2,290,000 Powerplant Powerhouse dimensions ............................................. feet..240 X 2150 Number of main units .......................................... initial..14 Number of main units ........................... ............. ultimate..22 Capacity of main units ........................................... kw..78,000 ea. Fishwater supply units ................. .. ..... ................. 2 Capacity of fishwater supply units ................................ kw..13,500 ea. Station service units .. .................................................. 2 Capacity of station service units ............................... ...... kw..3,000 ea. The estimated cost of new work (1962) is $247,700,000 of which $15,200,000 is for lands and damages including relocations, and $192,500,000 for construction. The average annual maintenance cost for the past 5 years was $1,199,915. The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor and Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950, House Document 531, 81st Cong., 2d session. Local cooperation. None required. Operations and results during fiscal year. Construction of a concrete parapet wall on the rockfill closure dam was completed August 1961. At the end of the fiscal year the construction of recreational facilities at Horsethief Lake, located upstream from The Dalles Dam, was also accomplished. The furnishing and in- stalling of magnesium anodes on the main unit and the fishway turbine unit intake gates was near completion. Tainter gate- operating mechanical service platforms, the furnishing of a 2-ton bridge crane, a 6-ton lift platform, and installation of communicate and signal equipment for the lock and fishway operation was ac- complished under several contracts. The installation of system load frequency and centralized controls for main generator units 1-14, inclusive, was in progress by hired labor at the end of the fiscal year. During the fiscal year a total of 5,002,847,000 kilowatt-hours of electrical power were generated of which 4,985,351,000 kilowatt- hours were delivered to Bonneville Power Administration, the marketing agency. The navigation lock was in operation throughout the fiscal year except during the period 7 a.m., October 16 to midnight October 29, 1961, when maintenance and cleanup operations were accom- plished. 1848 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 A total of 300,800 persons visited the project during the fiscal year. Routine project maintenance and repair were accomplished as required. Relocation of the waterline was completed under con- tract in March 1962. Total costs for the fiscal year were $2,190,846, of which $702,275 was for new work and $1,488,571 for maintenance (operation and care). Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project initiated February 1952 has been completed except for miscella- neous minor improvements. Final completion will be accomplished in fiscal year 1964. At the end of the fiscal year, work was under way on installation of various electrical and mechanical equipment for operating facilities. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $252,521,526, of which $246,418,691 was for new work and $6,102,835 for maintenance (operation and care). Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated.......... $18,129,600 $12,865,000 $6,190,921 $1,460,000 $195,000 $246,841,487 Cost.................. 18,435,080 12,645,584 5,934,130 1,330,427 702,275 246,418,691 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... 827,900 1,041,700 1,226,300 1,430,000 1,482,700 6,113,600 Cost................. 757,498 1,104,059 1,231,120 1,418,329 1,488,571 6,102,835 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .................. ........... $404,488 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 ..... .............................................. 160,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................... 564,488 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ......................... 698,513 1 Includes $299,966 preauthorization study costs. 2. COLUMBIA RIVER AT BONNEVILLE, OREG. Location. This project is located on Columbia River, 42 miles east of Portland, Oreg., about 146 miles above the mouth of the river. For description of Columbia River see page 1869. Existing project. This project provides for a dam, powerplant, and lock, for power and navigation. The spillway dam extends across the main channel from the Washington shore to Bradford Island, which divides the river at this point. The overflow crest at 24 feet above mean sea level is surmounted by 18 vertical-lift steel gates placed between piers which extend to elevation 99 feet where a service roadway permits the operation of two 350-ton gantry cranes for regulating the gates. The powerhouse extend- ing across Bradford Slough to the Oregon shore has an installation of 10 units, consisting of two units of 43,200 kilowatts each and eight units of 54,000 kilowatts each, totaling 518,400 kilowatts. The ordinary and extreme fluctuations of the river at the lower lock gate are about 21 and 47 feet, respectively. The project in- cludes fish ladders and locks to serve both the main channel and the Bradford Slough channel. The navigation lock and power- house are founded on andesite, and the main dam rests upon solidi- fied sedimentary rock of volcanic origin. The pool created by the RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1849 dam provides a navigable channel with a depth of 30 feet and over between Bonneville and The Dalles Dams, a distance of 47 miles. The principal data concerning the navigation lock, spillway dam, and powerplant are shown in the following table: Navigation lock Dimensions: Clear width of chamber ............................. 76 feet. Greatest length available for full width ................ 500 feet. Lift (vertical) : At extreme low water and normal pool level ........ 66 feet. At normal river stage ............................ 59 feet. At extreme high water .......................... About 30 feet. Depth over miter sills at adopted low water ............. 24.2 feet. Character of foundation ................................. Andesite. Opened to navigation .................................... January 1938. Spillway dam Type of construction .................................... Concrete gravity. Completed ........................................ 1938. Capacity .......................... .................... 1,600,000 cubic feet per second. Elevation of gate sills on crest of spillway ................. 23.3 feet. Height above lowest foundation ............................ About 170 feet. Length of dam proper .................................... 1,090 feet. Length of dam overall .................................... 1,230 feet. Width at base ................................. 200 feet. Gate openings ...................................... 18. Crest overflow (above mean sea level) ... . .............. 24 feet. Pool elevation (normal) (above mean sea level) ............ 72 feet. Powerplant Length ....................................... 1,027 feet. W idth ....... ... ....................................... 190 feet. Height (roof to bedrock) .................................. 190 feet. Generator (station unit) .................................. 1 4,000-kw. 0.8 power factor. Generators ........................................ 2 43,200-kw. 0.9 power factor. 8 54,000-kw. 0.9 power factor. Total rated capacity .................................. 518,400-kw. 0.9 power factor. Speed ....................................... 75 revolutions per minute. The cost of the dam, navigation lock, 10-power unit generating installation, fishways, and attendant buildings and grounds is $83,239,395, of which $6,072,480 is for navigation facilities, $39,- 350,824 is for power facilities and $37,816,091 is for joint facili- ties, consisting of dam, fishways, buildings, and grounds, and the headwall section of power units 0 to 6, cost of which ($2,106,000) is allocated to dam and reservoir facilities. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $1,871,155. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents The existing project was originally authorized Sept. 30 1933, by the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works. Senate committee print, 73d Cong., Aug. 30, 1935 Existing project authorized by Congress ................ 2d sess., (report of Chief of Engineers, dated Aug. 21, 1938). Aug. 30, 1937 This act authorized the completion, maintenance, and (Public Law operation of the Bonneville project under the direction 329, 75th of the Secretary of War and the supervision of the Chief Cong.) of Engineers, subject to certain provisions contained therein relating to the powers and duties of the Bon- neville Power Administrator. Operations and results during fiscal year. Routine project maintenance and operation were accomplished as required. Un- der contract awards rebuilding of 70 stoplogs, sanitary system reconstruction, repair to north approach viaduct to the dam, alternation to existing post derricks, the construction of a model building for the hydraulic laboratory, and the procurement of 1850 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 2,300 volt motor controllers and a 25-ton mobile crane were ac- complished. Installation of system load-frequency controls on main generator units 3-10 inclusive was completed by hired labor. At the end of the fiscal year contracts were awarded for electrical installation in the hydraulic laboratory model building and for construction of bank-protection works along the Bonneville Res- ervoir shoreline. The navigation lock was in operation throughout the fiscal year except during the period 7 a.m. October 16 to midnight October 29, 1961, when maintenance and cleanup operations were accom- plished. During the fiscal year a total of 3,478,067,000 kilowatt-hours of electrical power energy was generated, of which 3,460,895,000 kilowatt-hours were delivered to the Bonneville Power Admini- stration, the marketing agency. A total of 678,800 persons visited the project during the fiscal year. Total costs for the fiscal year were $2,243,962 for mainte- nance (operation and care). Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project started October 1933 was completed February 1953. Modifica- tion of powerhouse control equipment started March 1957 was completed September 1958. First two power units were placed in operation during fiscal year 1938. The powerhouse with complete installation of 10 units, was in operation December 1943. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $110,207,146, $83,239,- 395 has been for new work ($39,350,824 for power facilities and $43,888,571 for features other than power) and $26,967,751 for operation and care. The cost of new work includes $32,440,700 Emergency Relief Administration funds. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated ................... -$3,213 .................................. $83,239,395 Cost................. $19,210 2,225 8.................................. 3,239,395 Maintenance: Appropriated.........2,067,800 1,586,700 $1,704,950 $2,075,500 $2,151,000 27,225,239 Cost.................. 1,581,148 1,997,145 1,468,887 2,064,634 2,243,962 226,967,751 1 Includes $32,440,700 Emergency Relief Administration funds. 2Includes $540,000 allotted from deferred maintenance funds, Code 700. 3. RESTORATION OF INDIAN FISHING GROUNDS, BONNEVILLE, OREG. Location. Columbia River between Bonneville and The Dalles, Oreg. and Wash. Existing project. The Secretary of War was authorized, under such terms and conditions as he may deem advisable, to acquire lands and provide facilities in the States of Oregon and Washing- ton to replace Indian fishing grounds submerged or destroyed as a result of the construction of Bonneville Dam: Provided, That RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1851 not to exceed $185,000 may be expended for this purpose from funds heretofore or hereafter appropriated for maintenance and improvement of existing river and harbor works: Provided fur- ther, That such lands and facilities shall be transferred to the Secretary of the Interior for the use and benefit of the Indians, and shall be subject to the same conditions, safeguards, and pro- tections as the treaty fishing grounds submerged or destroyed. The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act approved March 2, 1945, as amended by Public Law 62, 84th Congress, dated June 8, 1955. Operations and results during fiscal year. Construction of fish- ing facilities at Lower Cascade site in Oregon was agreed upon with the Indians. A design memorandum and description of prop- erty purchase required was submitted to higher authority for ap- proval June 1962. Total costs for the fiscal year were $1,341. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project initiated July 1952 is 59 percent complete. Campsites for Indian fishing grounds have been completed at four sites, Big White -Salmon, Little White Salmon, and Wind River, in Washington and at Long Pine site in vicinity of The Dalles, Oreg. These sites have been transferred to the Department of the Interior for the use and benefit of the Indians. Of the two remaining sites, Lower Cascade and North Dalles Terrace, it has only been possi- ble to reach an agreement on Lower Cascade. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $111,514 for new work. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated......... .$185,000 Cost................. $4,778 $46,845 $2,287 $549 $1,341 111,514 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $73,464 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................... 73,464 4. COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN VANCOUVER, WASH. AND THE DALLES, OREG. Location. On Columbia River, between the Interstate Bridge at Vancouver, Wash., 106.5 miles above the mouth and The Dalles, Oreg., mile 191, a distance of 84.5 miles. For description of Columbia River, see page 1869. Existing project. This provides for channel 27 feet deep at low water and 300 feet wide between Vancouver, Wash., and The Dalles, Oreg., 85 miles; a channel 10 feet deep at low water and 300 feet wide at the upstream entrance to Oregon Slough, Oreg., a suitable turning basin adjacent to the site of port develop- ment in the vicinity of Camas and Washougal, Wash., a boat basin at Hood River, Oreg., 500 by 1,300 feet and 10 feet deep at normal Bonneville pool level, with a connecting channel of the same depth to deepwater, and a protecting breakwater on the easterly side; a barge channel to the waterfront at Bingen, Wash., 10 feet deep at normal Bonneville pool level, 200 feet wide 1852 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 and approximately 1 mile long, and for an access channel 7 feet deep at normal Bonneville pool level, 100 feet wide and approxi- mately 1,000 feet long, to a natural mooring basin for small boats near the east end of the channel; and for the construction of The Dalles Harbor, Oreg., to provide a breakwater and shear boom protected basin approximately 400 by 800 feet in size with depth of 8 feet below a pool elevation of 72.5 feet at mean sea level. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water at Vancouver is about 21/2 feet and at Bonneville about 0.2 foot at low stages of the river. Extreme tidal ranges are about 3 feet and 0.4 foot, respectively. Annual freshets average about 21 feet at Vancouver, while the highest known stage reached 33 feet above low water. The estimated Federal cost of new work (1962) is $6,060,500. The average annual maintenance cost for the past 5 years was $863,801. (Includes deferred maintenance, 27-foot channel, Van- couver, to The Dalles, fiscal years 1958-1959.) The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Aug. 26, 1937 Construction of a channel 27 feet deep by 300 feet from House Committee Doc. 94, 74th Cong., Vancouver, Wash., to Bonneville Oreg. 2d sess. Mar. 2, 1945 Construction of Camas-Washougal turning basin.......... H. Doe. 218, 76th Cong., 1st sess. July 24, 1946 Construction of a channel 27 feet deep by 300 feet wide H. Doc. 704, 79th Cong., 2d sess. from Bonneville, Oreg., to The Dalles, Oreg. Do.......... Construction of a channel 10 feet deep and 300 feet wide Do. at the upper entrance to Oregon Slough, Oreg. Do.......... Construction of a boat basin at Hood River, Oreg., 10 feet Do. deep, 500 feet wide, by 1,300 feet long. Do........ Construction of a barge channel at Bingen, Wash., 10 feet Do. deep, 200 feet wide, by 1 mile long, and an access channel 7 feet deep, 100 feet wide, by 1,000 feet long to natural mooring basin. Do......... . Construction of The Dalles Harbor 8 feet deep, 400 feet S. Doc. 89, 79th Cong. wide by 800 feet long. 1Contains latest published maps. Local cooperation. The River and Harbor Act approved March 2, 1945, provides in connection with the Camas-Washougal turn- ing basin that local interests furnish assurances that they will construct a suitable freight terminal, open to all on equal terms, and bear additional cost of disposing of dredged material behind bulkheads provided by them; and provides that no dredging will be performed by the United States within 50 feet of the proposed dock. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local coopera- tion under terms of the project authorization, amount to $220,000 (1962). The act of July 24, 1946, provides that for improvements at Hood River, Oreg., and at Bingen, Wash., local interests furnish free of cost to the United States all necessary rights-of-way, agree to maintain depths in the basins, and to construct, operate, and maintain necessary mooring facilities and public wharf available to all on equal terms. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under the terms of the project authorization, amount to $140,000 for Hood River boat basin and $225,000 for Bingen barge canal (1962). Terminal facilities. At Vancouver, Wash., immediately up- RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1853 stream from the two highway bridges are a privately owned sand and gravel facility, a U. S. Coast Guard dock, a private tow- boat moorage equipped with marine railway and shipbuilding facilities, and facilities for transfer of bulk petroleum from river barges. ( For further details concerning facilities at Vancouver see Port Series No. 33, Corps of Engineers, published in 1953.) In the northern section of Portland, Oreg., on the south bank of Columbia River, about 1.7 miles upstream from the interstate bridges, is a wharf with a 110-ton derrick used for transfer of cargoes between trucks and barges. Approximately 3.5 miles up- stream from the interstate bridges are two liquid-fertilizer stor- age tanks each with a capacity of 229,000 gallons. At this facility is the necessary equipment for the unloading of tanker barges and the loading of trucks. At Camas, Wash., about 13.5 miles upstream from Vancouver, are located a private wharf used for transfer of papermill supplies and paper to and from barges, and also facilities for discharging bulk oils from barges. The port of Camas-Washougal has a wharf 528 feet in length at Washougal, Wash., which will be available for oceangoing vessels when a suitable channel is provided. The wharf is in need of repair and is not in use. At the port of The Dalles (mile 44 above Bonneville) there is a municipal wharf 125 by 1,100 feet for use by both ocean vessels and river boats. There are two 1-story timber and corrugated- iron warehouses, each 94 by 461 feet, on this wharf with rail connections. There is also a municipal oil terminal consisting of a concrete and timber wharf 27 by 193 feet, located about a mile below the main wharf. There are private storage tanks with a total capacity of 2,300,000 gallons located near this ter- minal for handling petroleum products. Storage tanks have rail, truck, and water connections. A private elevator with a capacity of 40,000 bushels and a public elevator of 868,000-bushel capacity for handling bulk grain to river craft are also located at The Dalles. The public elevator has rail, truck, and water connections. There is a privately owned rail connection about three-fourths mile below the municipal wharf where certain types of cargo may be handled between railroad cars and river boats or barges by means of a derrick of up to 22-ton capacity. At numerous locations over the entire waterway are log rollways for transfer of logs to water from trucks. The existing facilities are considered adequate for present commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: Con- struction of a boat basin in Columbia River at Hood River, Oreg., including 176,883 cubic yards of dredging by contract was com- pleted in February 1962. Construction of the Camas-Washougal, Wash., turning basin was also accomplished in February 1962 and included dredging of 87,103 cubic yards by Government plant and 300 cubic yards by contract. In June 1962 a contract was awarded for the remaining authorized project modification, a barge chan- nel near Bingen, Wash. Maintenance: A total of 255,270 cubic yards of material was removed by Government plant from the navigation channel be- tween Vancouver, Wash., and Bonneville, Oreg. 1854 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Repair of existing pile dikes between Vancouver, Wash., and Corbett, Oreg., was underway by contract at the end of the fiscal year. Total costs for the fiscal year were $502,105, of which $378,033 was for new work and $142,072 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project is 97.3 percent complete. Construction of The Dalles Harbor, Oreg., was completed in 1949. Channel dredging at the upper end of Oregon Slough was accomplished in 1957. Project depth of 27 feet be- tween Bonneville and The Dalles, Oreg., was achieved April 1959. The 27-foot channel depth between Vancouver, Wash., and Bon- neville, Oreg., except for the removal of some submerged rock and dredging to be accomplished, was completed May 1960. Im- provement of the lower entrance of Bonneville Dam lock was completed in May 1961. Construction of a boat basin at Hood River, Oreg., and of the Camas-Washougal, Wash., turning basin was accomplished February 1962. At the end of the fiscal year contract award was made for dredging of a barge channel and bank-protection works in Columbia River near Bingen, Wash. Total costs have been $11,124,716, of which $5,902,412 was for new work and $5,222,304 for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 N New work: .......... Appropriated $250,000 $842,393 $1,638,000 -$50,000 $148,200 $6,060,451 Cost.................. 62,737 673,795 322,571 1,335,624 378,033 5,902,412 Maintenance: Appropriated ......... 607,645 1,183,063 1,817,575 571,000 152,500 35,237,299 Cost.... ............. 599,261 1,190,887 1,673,050 713,747 142,072 5,222,304 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................. $46,252 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ..................... 46,252 1 Includes $54,845 preauthorization study costs. 2 Includes funds allotted under Code 721 (small authorized projects.) $30,393-entrance to Oregon Slough; $165,000-Camas-Washougal turning basin, Wash; $231,000 Hood River small- boat basin, Oreg., $127,000; Bingen, Wash., barge channel. Total Code 721 is $553,393. $ Includes $2,033,408 allotted under Code 700, (deferred maintenance). 5. WILLAMETTE RIVER ABOVE PORTLAND AND YAMHILL RIVER, OREG. Location. The Willamette River rises in the Cascade Range in southwestern Oregon, flows northerly, and empties into the Columbia River about 100 miles from the sea. Its length from the source of the Middle Fork is about 294 miles. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 6155 and the U.S. Geological Survey map, State of Oregon.) The Yamhill River rises in the coast range, flows easterly, and empties into the Willamette River about 42 miles above Port- land. Its length from the source of the South Fork is about 52 miles. Previous projects. Adopted by the River and Harbor Acts of March 3, 1871, and July 13, 1892. For further details, see page 1997 of Annual Report for 1915, and page 1754 of Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for improvement of Willamette RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1855 River between Portland (14 miles above the mouth) and Oregon City (mile 26) by a channel 8 feet deep at low water, 200 feet wide below Cedar Island and 150 feet wide thence to Oregon City; for such channel improvement and contraction works as may be necessary to secure with streamflow regulation, controlling depths of 6 feet at low water and of no prescribed width, from Oregon City to the mouth of Santiam River (mile 108.5), 5 feet from that point to Albany (mile 120), 2.5 to 3.5 feet deep from Albany to Corvallis (mile 132), and for necessary snagging be- tween Corvallis and Eugene (mile 185). The project also provides for a channel in Yamhill River 4 feet deep at low water and 60 feet wide from its mouth to McMinnville (18 miles) secured by means of a lock and dam near Lafayette and by the removal of obstructions. The section of Willamette River in the vicinity of Willamette Falls at Oregon City is covered by the project described on page 1857 of this report. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents and reports June 3, 1896 Improvement of Willamette River above Oregon City.... H. Doc. 260, 54th Cong, 1st sess. (Annual Report, 1896, p. 3300). Do.......... Improvement of Yamhill River by lock and dam construc- Annual Report, 1895, p. 3602. tion. Project modified in 1904 by abandoning the 20-mile stretch Annual Report, 1904, p. 3529. of the river between Harrisburg and Eugene as un- worthy of improvement. July 25, 1912 For a 6-foot channel in the Williamette River below Oregon II. Doc. 438, 62d Cong., 2d sess. City. July 3, 1930 For the 8-foot channel between Portland and Oregon City.. H. Doc. 372, 71st Cong., 2d sess. (contains latest published map). June 26, 19341 Operating and care of the lock and dam at Yamhill River and provided for with funds from War Department ap- propriations for rivers and harbors. June 28, 1938 2 Stream flow regulation with controlling depths of 6 feet to H. Doc. 544, 75th Cong., 3d sess. the mouth of Santiam River and 5 feet to Albany with enlargement of locks at Oregon City. 1 Flood Control Act. Permanent Appropriations Repeal Act. Operation of Yamhill lock was discontinued February 7, 1954, due to lack of use by commercial traffic. For the Willamette River below the falls at Oregon City ordi- nary fluctuation of stage of water is 15 feet and the extreme fluctuation due to flood conditions 35 to 50 feet. Above Oregon City the ordinary fluctuation is 12 to 20 feet and the extreme is 20 to 27 feet. For the Yamhill River the ordinary fluctuation is 35 feet and the extreme 48 feet. Tidal changes vary from about 21/2 feet at the mouth of the Willamette to zero, 26 miles above the mouth. The estimate of cost of new work (1962) is $3,120,000. The average annual maintenance cost for the past 5 years was $452,951. Local cooperation. None required. Terminal facilities. Between the Ross Island Bridge at Portland and Willamette Falls at Oregon City the terminal facilities con- sist of privately owned mill docks, sand and gravel wharves, a cement load facility, a small shipyard, and oil-receiving stations. Above the falls there are privately owned landings including a 1856 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 facility at Pulp Siding (3 miles above the falls) with rail and water connections for shipment of clay and receipt of papermill products by barge. At Wilsonville and Newberg there are sand and gravel facilities. At Salem there is a 420,000 gallon fuel tank which is serviced by tanker barges. About 5 miles downstream from Albany there is a petroleum tank farm of 1,367,100 gallon capacity with truck and water connections, which receives pe- troleum by barge from Portland. At numerous locations as far as Corvallis (river mile 132) there are log rollways with water and rail or truck connections, to facilitate the movement of logs to mills in the lower Willamette and Columbia Rivers. The existing facilities are considered adequate for the existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance chan- nel dredging above Oregon City, Oreg., was accomplished during the fiscal year with the removal of 626,140 cubic wards of material by Government plant. This dredging maintained sufficient depth for the requirements of navigation. Excavation, dredging, and disposal of unclassified material, at Judson Bar (mile 101) and Pinetree Bar (mile 117), Willamette River was accomplished in September 1961 under two contracts. In June 1962 a contract was awarded for channel stabilization works at Coon Creek Bar on Willamette River upstream from Albany, Oreg. Clearing, exca- vation, and placement of revetment in toe were initiated. Releases of stored water from Fern Ridge, Cottage Grove, De- troit, Lookout Point, and Dorena Reservoirs aided materially during low-water periods in providing sufficient depths for exist- ing traffic. For detailed information on reservoir release see pages covering those reservoirs under "flood-control projects." Total costs for the fiscal year were $577,276 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project is ap- proximately 37 percent complete. The 8-foot channel between Portland and Oregon City and a 2.5-to 3.5-foot channel between Oregon City and Albany were completed in 1939. The 2.5-to 3.5- foot channel between Albany and Corvallis was completed in 1945. The remaining work required to complete the project con- sists of the construction of such contraction works and channel improvements as may be necessary, with streamflow regulation, to secure controlling depths of 6 feet at low water from Oregon City to the mouth of Santiam River, and 5 feet from that point to Albany. Controlling depths at low water are 8 feet from Portland to Oregon City, and 3.5 feet from Oregon City to Corvallis. Due to lack of use by commercial traffic for which the facilities were provided, operation of Yamhill lock was discontinued Feb- ruary 7, 1954, and the lock and adjacent property reported surplus and subsequently turned over to Yamhill County January 16, "1959. Total costs under the existing project, from Federal funds, have been $11,263,764, of which $688,970 was for new work; and $10,574,794, for maintenance. In addition the sum of $106,433 was expended between September 24, 1900, and June 30, 1935, on operating and care of the improvement under the provisions of the permanent indefinite appropriations for such purposes. The RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1857 additional sums of $7,500 were expended from contributed funds for maintenance and $299,900 from Emergency Relief Adminis- tration funds for new work. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated.............. ..... .......... ........ .............. .......... $936,718 Cost ........................ ........ 936,718 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... $451,800 $428,000 $364,830 $541,500 $612,000 410,718,114 Cost................. 430,042 456,627 360,592 440,218 577,276 10,574,794 Other new work data: Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ..................... $2,431,080 1Includes $247,748 for new work for previous project. 2 Includes $73,800 preauthorization study costs. 8 In addition, $299,900 was expended from Emergency Relief Administration flood control funds for bank protection. 4Includes $51,500 allotted from deferred maintenance funds, Code 700. 6. WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILLAMETTE FALLS, OREG. Location. The locks and dam covered by this project are located at Willamette Falls, a rocky reef in the Willamette River at Oregon City, Oreg., about 26 miles above the mouth of the river. Existing project. This provides for the construction of a new single-lift main lock and a guard lock each with clear dimensions of 56 by 400 feet and a minimum depth over the sills of 91/2 feet, to replace the authorized existing facilities which were pro- vided for by the purchase, rehabilitation, and deepening to 6 feet at low water of the existing canal and locks and the separation of the canal from the waterpower intake by construction of a con- crete division wall. The total length of the existing canal and locks is about 3,500 feet. The following table shows the principal features of the existing canal and locks at Willamette Falls: Usable lock dimensions ........ Series of 4 locks, each 175 by 37 feet.' Lift of each lock .............. Lock 1 (lower), 22.5 feet;' lock 2, 8.7 feet; Depth on miter sills at low lock 3, 10.9 feet; lock 4 (upper), 8.1 feet. water ..................... Lower lock, 8.4 feet; upper lock, 6 feet. Character of foundation ........ Rock. Kind of dam .................. Fixed.8 Type of construction ........... Concrete. Year of completion ............ 1873; purchased by United States Apr. 26, 1915. Cost ......................... Unknown; purchase price, $375,000. 1 A guard lock 210 by 40 feet, which is used only at higher stages of water, is located at the upper end of the canal basin. 2 A concrete division wall, 1,227 feet long, extending from lock 4 to the guard lock, separates the upper basin of the canal from the head race, which formerly led directly from the basin and supplied water for the power plants operated by the Crown Zellerbach Corp., and the Portland Ry., Light & Power Company. 3 The dam is owned by private parties. The ordinary fluctuation of the stage of water above the locks is 12 feet, and the extreme, due to flood conditions, 20 feet. Below the locks the ordinary fluctuation is 15 feet and the ex- treme 50 feet. The estimated Federal cost (1962) $11,700,000. The average annual maintenance cost for the past 5 years is $174,631. 1858 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Terminal facilities. The Crown Zellerbach Corporation has a timber wharf about 850 feet in length, extending to and supported by the concrete division wall built in the lock canal by the United States. This wharf is used for the receipt of mill supplies and the shipment of paper and paper products. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents and reports June 25, 1910 For the purchase and rehabilitation of the system and the H. Doc. 202, 56th Cong., let sess. and construction of the concrete division wall. Annual Report, 1900, p. 4374. Aug. 8, 1917 Deepening of the locks .............. ............. . H. Doc. 1060, 62d Cong., 3d sess.' June 26, 1934 Operation and care of the canal and locks provided for with funds from War Department appropriations for rivers and harbors. Mar. 2, 1945 Construction of the New Willamette Falls lock.......... H. Doc. 544, 75th Cong., 3d sess. 1 Contains latest published maps. 2 Permanent Appropriation Repeal Act. Operations and results during fiscal year. Ordinary mainte- nance of the grounds and facilities was accomplished as required. In June 1962, a contract was awarded for the relining of the walls of lock 4. Total costs for the fiscal year were $160,471 for maintenance, (operation and care). Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing canal and locks originally constructed by private interests in 1873 were pur- chased by the United States in April 1915 for $375,000. The final report on the purchase and rehabilitation of the canal and locks is contained in the Annual Report for 1923, when the proj- ect was reported 98 percent complete. No further work on that phase of the existing project has been necessary. The con- trolling depth is 6 feet at low water on the miter sill of the upper lock. The existing locks and grounds are in fair condition and are in continuous operation except when flooded out by high water or undergoing repair. The facilities are obsolete and inadequate for existing traffic. No construction work has been done on the lock and guard lock, which was authorized to replace the existing facilities, by the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1939, and the River and Harbor Act March 2, 1945. Total costs have been $4,521,206, of which $545,005 was for new work ($377,122 for purchase and rehabilitation of existing lock and canal and $28,883 for new lock from River and Harbor funds and $139,000 for new lock from Flood Control funds), and $3,976,201 for maintenance (operation and care) from river and harbor funds. In addition, $300,000 was expended from contributed funds for new work on existing canal and lock and $452,110 was expended between April 16, 1915, and June 30, 1935, on the operation and care of the improvement under the provisions of the permanent indefinite appropriations for such purposes. RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1859 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 1 2 New work: Appropriated...... ... ................ .............. .. $.... $545,005 Cost ................ ............. ....... ...... . . .................... 545,005 Maintenance: Appropriated..........$158,000 $172,860 $213,970 $169,400 $162,400 3,984,580 Cost ................. 151,584 152,522 198,953 209,627 160,471 3,976,201 Other new work data: Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ..................... $11,154,995 1 In addition $300,000 was expended from contributed funds for new work. Includes $25,000 preauthorization study costs. 7. COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVERS BELOW VANCOUVER, WASH., AND PORTLAND, OREG. Location. The project embraces 1031/2 miles of Columbia River below Vancouver, Wash., and 14 miles of Willamette River below Portland, Oreg. For description of Columbia River see page 1869 and of Willamette River, page 1854. Previous project. Some relief dredging was done between 1866 and 1876. Projects were adopted by the River and Harbor Acts of June 18, 1878; July 13, 1892; June 13, 1902; and March 3, 1905. For further details see pages 1995 and 1998 of Annual Report for 1915, and page 1746 of Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for a channel 35 feet deep and 500 feet wide in the Columbia River from its mouth to the mouth of the Willamette, 101.5 miles, and thence up Willamette River to Broadway Bridge at Portland 12 miles; 30 feet deep and 300 feet wide from Broadway Bridge to Ross Island, 14 miles above the mouth of Willamette River to be maintained by the port of Portland. The existing project also provides for maintenance not to exceed a depth of 35 feet at low water, over such areas in the Portland harbor and Willamette River between its mouth and Broadway Bridge as have been or may be dredged to project depth by the port of Portland; no dredging, however, shall be done by the United States within 50 feet of the pierhead line. In addition, the existing project also provides for the following: A channel 30 feet deep and 300 feet wide in the Columbia River from the mouth of the Willamette River to the interstate highway bridge at Vancouver, Wash., about 5 miles, with two turning basins of the same depth at Vancouver, 800 feet wide and approximately 2,000 and 3,000 feet long for the upper and lower basins, re- spectively, auxiliary channels 10 feet deep and 300 feet wide in the vicinity of Cathlamet, Wash., 30 feet deep and 300 feet wide in St. Helens (Oreg.) Channel, and 30 feet deep and 500 feet wide connecting the upper end of the St. Helens Channel with the main ship channel of the Columbia; 24 feet deep and 200 feet wide along the frontage of the town of Rainer, Oreg., extended at its upper and lower ends to deep water in the Columbia River, 8 feet deep and 150 feet wide from this depth in Columbia River through the old mouth of Cowlitz River to a point approximately 3,000 feet upstream from the present terminus of the harbor line; a channel from the Longview Port dock downstream along the pierhead line 1860 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 and past the Weverhaeuser Timber Co., plant at Longview, to a connection with the main ship channel below Mount Coffin the downstream 2,400 feet of this channel to be 30 feet deep and 300 feet wide and the remainder to be 28 feet deep and 250 feet wide; construction of a small-boat mooring basin at Astoria, Oreg., to in- clude a sheet-pile, sand-filled breakwater about 2,400 feet long with a 30-foot roadway along its full length, and steel-pile shore wings totaling about 1,460 feet in length and for the construction of stone-and-pile dikes and revetments. The plane of reference in the estuary from the mouth to Har- rington Point is mean lower low water; thence to Portland and Vancouver, low water. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water at the mouth of the Columbia is about 8 feet, and at Portland and Vancouver about 21/2 feet at low stages of the rivers. Extreme tidal ranges are about 13 feet and 3 feet, respectively. Annual freshets have but little effect on depths at the mouth of the Columbia; at Portland and Vancouver they average about 20 feet, while the highest known reached a stage of 33 feet above low water at Portland. The actual cost for new work is $5,384,677. The average an- nual maintenance cost for the past 5 years was $2,285,764. The existing project was authorized .by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Feb. 27, 1911 2 pipeline dredges and accessories ................ July 25, 1912 Increasing the main channel depth to 30 feet.............. H. Doc. 1278, 61st Cong., 3d sess.' July 27, 1916 Consolidating the improvement below Portland, Oreg., and No prior report. between Vancouver, Wash., and the mouth of the Willa- mette. Aug. 8, 1917 For the Cathlamet Channel................ . . . ...... H. Doec. 120, 63d Cong., 1st sess. 1 Sept. 22, 1922 Construction of an additional dredge (dredge was not built) H. Doc. 1009, 66th Cong., 3d sess. and accessories for better maintenance, and the construc- tion of contraction works. Mar. 4, 1923 2 Channel from deep water in Willamette Slough to deep H. Doc. 156, 67th Cong., 2d sess. water in the Columbia River. Mar. 3, 1925 Depth of 25 feet and width of 300 feet from mouth of the H. Doc. 126, 68th Cong., 1st sess. Willamette River to Vancouver, Wash. Mar. 3, 1927 Closing of the east channel at Swan Island in the Willamette Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. River on condition that the main channel to be opened to 1l, 69th Cong., 2d sess. project dimensions on the west side of the island by the port of Portland July 3, 1930 For a 35-foot channel 500 feet wide from Portland to the sea. H. Doec. 195, 70th Cong., 1st seas. and Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. 8, 71st Cong., 1st sess.' Sept. A channel 28 feet deep and 300 feet wide from the mouth 6, 1933' H. Doc. 249, 72d Cong., 2d sess. of the Willamette River to Vancouver, with 2 turning basins, each generally 28 feet deep by 800 feet wide by 2, 000 feet long. Aug. 30, 1935 A channel in the Columbia River from mouth of the Willa- Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. 1, mette to the interstate highway bridge at Vancouver, 74th Cong., 1st sess. Wash., 30 feet deep and 300 feet wide, with 2 turning basins at Vancouver. Do ....... Maintenance of not to exceed 35-foot depth at low water in Rivers and Harbors Committee Doec. 6, Portland Harbor and Willamette River between its mouth 73d Cong., 1st sess. I and Broadway Bridge at Portland. Do ....... Auxiliary channels, 30 feet deep, 300 and 500 feet at St. H. Doc. 235, 72d Cong. 1st sess.' Helens. Aug. 26, 1937 Extension of the lower turning basin at Vancouver, Wash., Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. 1,000 feet downstream. 81, 74th Cong., 2d sess.' Do. .......An auxiliary channel 24 feet deep and 200 feet wide along H. Doc. 203, 75th Cong., 1st seas.' the water front at Rainier, Oreg. Mar. 2, 1945 Improvement of the old mouth of the Cowlitz River...... H. Doc. 341, 77th Cong. 1st sess. Do........ An auxiliary channel in the vicinity of Longview, Wash.... H. Doc. 630, 77th Cong., 2d sess.' July 24, 1946 A small-boat mooring basin at Astoria, Oreg............... H. Doc. 692, 79th Cong., 2d sess. ' 1 Contains latest published maps. SPublic Resolution 105, 67th Cong. 8 Public Works Administration. Terminal facilities. At Portland, Oreg., there are under public ownership and open to all on equal terms, three terminals for RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1861 handling general cargo, bulk grain, coal, phosphate, lumber, oils, and similar commodities. Under private ownership and opera- tion there are 3 general cargo, 5 flour and grain, 3 lumber, 1 cement, 1 bulk cement, 1 bulk creosote, 1 salt, 1 paper and paper products terminal, 1 ore and chemical, and 10 fuel oil and gasoline wharves and piers, besides outfitting and repair, sand and gravel, and construction equipment wharves. Three of the private general- cargo terminals subscribe to Commission of Public Docks Terminal Tariff 2A and four of the five flour and grain facilities publish terminal tariffs and may therefore be considered to be open to the public on equal terms. Modern ship-repair and outfitting fa- cilities complete with three drydocks, 1 of 2,000-ton, 1 of 12,500-ton and 1 on lease from the U.S. Navy of 14,000-ton capacity are avail- able at Swan Island. Also available at this facility to the public on equal terms are 5 rail-mounted gantry cranes each of 45-ton ca- pacity, and 1 truck-mounted crane, as well as machine shops, rail lines, staging, compressed air, steam, electricity, and water. Seven berths are available at the outfitting dock, which are open to all on equal terms. Also located within the harbor are one drydock of 85- ton capacity, three privately owned marine railways for handling small vessels and barges, as well as several skid-type haulouts on which launches and other small craft can be accommodated. Heavy- lift equipment at the general cargo wharves include 10 locomotive cranes and auto cranes with up to 35-ton capacity, one 150-ton swinging boom derrick, one 100-ton swinging boom derrick, one 100-ton shear-leg derrick crane, two 35-ton traveling gantry cranes and two 75-ton floating cranes. Other port facilities include transit warehouse, cold storage plants, a rail-car tripper, grain-barge un- loaders, a new bulk loader, and the largest grain elevator on tide- water west of the Mississippi River with a capacity for storing 8 million bushels of grain. Within the boundary of the Portland harbor there are facilities for storing 12,680,000 bushels of grain for transhipment by water. At Astoria, Oreg., there is a large municipal terminal with a 1 million bushel capacity grain elevator and facilities for receiving petroleum products by tanker, and bunkering of all types of vessels and modern facilities for the handling of all types of general cargo. There are also private wharves used exclusively for receiving fresh fish, the servicing of fishing vessels, and handling sand and gravel. At Vancouver, Wash., below the interstate bridges, there are two municipal terminal wharves. There is also a privately owned large paper mill, a fuel and gasoline terminal, a newly constructed petroleum tank farm, a cement-unloading facility and 2 grain elevators with a capacity of 4,500,000 and 3 million bushels of grain, respectively. The port of Longview has a public terminal on the Columbia River at Longview, Wash. The International Paper Co. and Weyerhaeuser Co. also have wharves in the same vicinity for the shipment of lumber. Located downstream from the Weyerhaeuser wharf is a facility for the receipt of salt. A privately operated grain elevator with a capacity of 5,365,000 bushels is located at the port terminal. A fuel oil and gasoline terminal is also located 1862 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 at the port dock for the receipt of petroleum products by tankers, Located at the port dock there is a 150-ton capacity heavy-lift crane, a 50-ton capacity gantry crane, and three 25-ton locomo- tive cranes for public use. Located to the rear of the public ter- minal is a bulk-storage warehouse. At other locations on the Columbia River between Portland and Columbia River entrance, there are sufficient private facili- ties to accommodate the river vessels and fishing craft. Near Kalama, Wash., there is a newly construted grain elevator and at Columbia City, Oreg., a new saw mill and lumber loading dock. These facilities, with planned extensions, are considered ade- quate for existing commerce. (For further details see Port Series 33 and 34, Corps of Engineers, published in 1953 and 1954, respectively.) Operations and results during fiscal year. A total of 10,306,227 cubic yards of material were removed from bars and shoals in the main and side channels, 7,893,394 cubic yards by Government plant and 2,412,833 cubic yards by contract. During the fiscal year the following work was accomplished: Repair of existing pile dikes in Columbia River from Vancouver, Wash., to Bradwood, Oreg., and at Slaughters Bar, Oreg.; extension of existing and construction of new pile dikes in Columbia River at Morgan and Willow Bars and Eureka Bar, installation of dredging ranges and dolphins in the vicinity of jetty "A" to Tongue Point, Oreg., and the installation in Columbia River of survey beacons and a dredging plant tieup. In June 1962, work was initiated under two contracts on extension of existing and construction of new pile dikes at Upper Martin Island Bar and for repair of pile dikes in Columbia River to Rainier, Oreg. A contract was awarded for construction of dredging range and survey beacon structures be- tween Columbia River mile 29.5 and 98.4. Total costs for the fiscal year were $2,867,784 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted September 1950. The main channel was completed in 1933, except that a revision at Harrington Point was made in 1935. The dikes were completed in 1935 and the extension of the Vancouver turning basin in 1939. The auxiliary channel in the vicinity of Longview was completed in 1949, and the improvement basin at Astoria were completed in 1950. The controlling depth at low water in Columbia River from its mouth to the mouth of Willamette River is 35 feet. Above the mouth of Willamette River the Vancouver channel has a con- trolling depth of 30 feet and in Willamette River from its mouth to Broadway Bridge the controlling depth is 33 feet. Project depths are maintained throughout the year except during short shoaling periods following freshets which generally occur in May, June and July. In Columbia and Willamette Rivers between the mouth and Broadway Bridge at Portland a draft of 33 feet at low tide and 35 feet at high tide is practicable throughout the year. In Co- lumbia River between the mouth of Willamette River and Van- couver, Wash., drafts of 28 and 30 feet at low and high tide, respectively, are practical throughout the year. RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1863 Total costs under the existing project to June 30, 1962 have been as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total United States: Regular. .......................... ..... ... $4,799,932 $41,181,108 $45,981,040 Public works ....................... ............... 446,296 446,236 Emergency Relief Administration ...................... 138,449 98,668 237,117 Total U.S....................... ..... ............ 5,384,677 41,279,776 46,664,453 Contributed ............... ......................... . 223,026 24,320 247,346 Total all funds ... .............................. 5,607,703 41,304,096 46,911,799 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 1 1 New work: Appropriated ........... .. . ... ......................... ......... $6,914,090 Cost.. .................... ............ .......... .......... ......... 6,914,00 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... $1,586,854 $2,425,400 $1,962,820 $2,702,826 $2,948,000 342,703,903 Cost.................. 1,498,664 2,348,633 2,043,454 2,670,287 2,867,784 42,494,641 1 Includes $1,529,413 for new work and $1,214,865 for maintenance for previous project. 2 In addition, $223,026 for new work and $24,320 for maintenance was expended from con- tributed funds. * Includes $150,995 allotted from deferred maintenance funds, Code 700. 8. LEWIS RIVER, WASH. Location. This river rises in the Cascade Range in Washington, flows westerly and southwesterly 110 miles, and empties into the Columbia River about 88 miles from its mouth. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey charts Nos. 6153 and 6154). Previous projects. The original project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of March 3, 1899, and modified by the River and Harbor Act of June 13, 1902. For further details see page 2001, Annual Report for 1915, and page 1762, Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for a low-water channel 6 feet deep and 50 feet wide to the mouth of the East Fork (33/4 miles); 4 feet deep and 50 feet wide on the East Fork from its mouth to La Center (3 miles); 4 feet deep and 50 feet wide on Lewis River (North Fork) and from East Fork to Woodland (21/2 miles), to be secured by dredging and by the construction of regulating works and for clearing the channel to Ariel (16 miles from Woodland). The maximum variation of water level, due to tide, ranges from about 3 feet at the mouth to 11/2 feet at La Center and zero at Woodland. During ordinary freshets a stage of 14 feet and, at extreme floods, a stage of 24 feet is reached in the main river at Woodland, Wash. The actual cost of new work is $35,880. The average annual maintenance cost for the past 5 years is $7,041. The existing project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of March 4, 1913, (H. Doc. 28, 62d Cong.; 1st sess.). For latest published map see page 3557 of Annual Report for 1904. Recommended modifications of project. The Chief of Engineers has recommended that the project be modified by eliminating all 1864 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 work on the East Fork and on the North Fork above Woodland (H. Doc. 467, 69th Cong., 1st sess.). Terminal facilities. At Woodland on the Lewis River there are several privately owned facilities for the mooring of fishing and pleasure craft. These facilities are considered adequate for exist- ing commerce. Operationsand results during fiscal year. A total of 60,570 cubic yards of material was removed by contract between mouth of Lewis River and mouth of East Fork. Total costs for the fiscal year were $35,201 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in 1927. Maintenance dredging accomplished this fiscal year is the first since the project was completed. Snagging was ac- complished in 1950. Controlling depth, entrance to Railroad Bridge (mile 1.8) condi- tion survey of April 1962, was 5.3 feet. Total costs have been $154,109, of which $35,880 was for new work and $118,229 for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated......... Cost ................ .. ........ .......... .......... ............ .......... ............ .. ......... ....... ........... $5.....8,132 58,132 Maintenance: Appropriated ......... .......... .......... .......... ........... 35,500 118,528 Cost........................... ...................... .......... 35,201 118,229 1 Includes $22,252 for new work and $8,098 for maintenance for previous project. 9. COWLITZ RIVER, WASH. Location. This river rises in the Cascade Range in Washington, flows westerly and southerly about 120 miles, and empties in the Columbia River about 69 miles from the mouth. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 6153.) Previous projects. Adopted by the River and Harbor Act of June 14, 1880. For further details see page 2000 of Annual Report for 1915 and page 1763 of Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for a channel 4 feet deep at low water and 50 feet wide from the mouth to Ostrander (9 miles), thence 21/2 feet deep and 50 feet wide to Castle Rock (10 miles), and thence 21/2 feet deep at low water and not less than 40 feet wide to Toledo (18 miles), to be secured by snagging, dredging, and regulating works. The waterlevel, due to tides, varies from 4 feet at the mouth to zero at Ostrander. During ordinary freshets a stage of 20 feet, and at extreme floods a stage of 25 feet, is reached in the river at Kelso, Wash. The actual cost for new work is $32,908. The average annual maintenance cost for the past 5 years was $24,588. The existing project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of June 25, 1910 (H. Doc. 1167, 60th Cong., 2d sess., from the mouth to Castle Rock, and H. Doc. 404, 61st Cong., 2d sess., from RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1865 Castle Rock to Toledo). For the latest published map see House Document 1167, 60th Congress, 2d session. Recommended modification of project. The Chief of Engineers has recommended that the project be modified by the elimination of all work above Castle Rock (H. Doc. 467, 69th Cong., 1st sess.). Terminal facilities. Terminal facilities consist of privately owned and operated landings, a sand and gravel dock, log rollways, and storage booms. These facilities are considered adequate for the existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. Construction of three new pile dikes initiated by contract April 1961 was completed November 1961. A total of 35,550 cubic yards of materials was removed in dredg- ing accomplished by Government plant. Total costs for the fiscal year were $46,593 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in 1913. The channel is maintained to the project depth of 4 feet between the mouth and Kelso, Wash. Above Kelso the chan- nel is in poor condition with a controlling depth at low water of less than 1 foot, condition survey of April 1961. Controlling depth from the mouth to Kelso was 4 feet, survey of October 1961. Total costs under the existing project have been $528,972, of which $32,908 was for new work and $496,064 for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962, New work: Appropriated.......... ......... .......... ..... ...... ........... ............ $37,907 Cost.............................. ...................... .. 37,907 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... $5,000 $34,000 $18,203 $45,000 $23,000 546,509 Cost................. . 2,925 35,083 19,195 19,146 46,593 544,248 1 Includes $4,999 for new work and $48,184 for maintenance for previous project. 10. WESTPORT SLOUGH, OREG. Location. Westport Slough is a side channel of the Columbia River located about 70 miles below Portland, Oreg. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 6152.) Existing project. This provides for a channel approximately 3,500 feet in length, 32 feet deep at low water, 300 feet wide in the entrance and to about midpoint of its length, and generally 250 feet wide in the upper 1,800 feet. Low water is the plane of reference. The average tidal range during low water conditions in Columbia River is about 5 feet. The actual Federal cost of new work was $16,276. The project modification (32-foot channel) authorized in 1950 has been classified as deferred for restudy and is excluded from the foregoing cost estimate. The cost of the modification (1957) is $234,000. 1866 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Aug. 26, 1937 Channel 28 ft. deep and 200 ft. wide........... ........ H. Doc. 79, 75th Cong., 1st seas. May 17, 1950 Channel 32 ft. deep and 300 ft. wide. .................. . H. Doc. 134, 81st Cong., 1st sees. 1 2 1 Contains latest published map. 2 Classified: "deferred for restudy." Local cooperation. The River and Harbor Act of May 17, 1950, provides that local interests give assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and spoil-disposal areas, including necessary bulkheads, for the con- struction and subsequent maintenance of the project, when and as required; (b) hold and save the United States free from dam- ages due to the construction works and subsequent maintenance; and (c) provide and maintain at their own expense, a channel 32 feet deep and 200 feet wide from the upstream terminus of the existing project to the upper end of the mill dock, an addi- tional distance of approximately 1,300 feet. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization amount to $45,000 (1957). Terminal facilities. The only terminal is the privately owned wharf of the Westport Lumber Co. This facility is considered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. Dredging of the chan- nel was accomplished by Government dredge with a total of 74,700 cubic yards of material removed which restored a controlling depth of 28 feet. Total costs for the fiscal year were $24,246 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The channel 28 feet deep and 200 feet wide, as originally authorized, was completed in 1939. No work has been accomplished on the 32-foot channel authorized as a project modification. Controlling depth was 25 feet, survey of June 1962. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $139,634, of which $16,276 was for new work and $123,358 for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated......... ......... .................................... ......... $16,276 Cost............... ............. ...... ... 16,27 Maintenance: Appropriated ......... $31,001 . ................................ $25,000 124,112 Cost.. ...... 31001.................................24,246 123,358 Other new work data: Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ....................... $234,000 11. SKIPANON CHANNEL, OREG. Location. This channel is a tidal waterway extending south 2.7 miles from deep water in Columbia River. The channel enters the Columbia about 10 miles above its mouth and 4 miles below RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1867 Astoria, Oreg. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 6151.) Existing project. This provides for a channel 30 feet deep and generally 200 feet wide extending from deep water in Columbia River to the railroad bridge at Warrenton, Oreg., a distance of 1.8 miles, for a turning basin of the same depth, a mooring basin 12 feet deep at mean lower low water at Warrenton, Oreg.; and for a channel 6 feet deep and generally 40 feet wide, with increased widths at log dumps and terminals, for a distance of 4,500 feet, via cutoff channel; above the railroad bridge. Mean lower low water is the plane of reference. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is about 8 feet; the extreme tidal range is about 13 feet. The Federal cost of new work is $280,854. The average annual maintenance cost for the past 5 years was $1,143. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents ' July 3, 1930 Channel from deep water in Columbia River to the railroad H. Doc. 278, 70th Cong., 1st sess. bridge. Aug. 26, 1937 For the channel extending upstream from the railroad H. Doc. 201, 75th Cong., 1st sess. bridge a distance of 4,500 feet. June 30, 1948 For a mooring basin 12 feet deep at Warrenton S. Doe. 95, 81st Cong., 1st sess. 1 Contains latest published maps. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Terminal facilities. The city of Warrenton owns a wharf with a 300-foot frontage open to the public on equal terms. One privately owned cannery wharf with a 300-foot frontage is used for unload- ing fish and for the handling of fish nets. One privately owned boatyard has floats and moorage facilities for the use of a maximum of 80 small boats. In the channel above the railroad bridge the facilities consist of log rollways used for the sorting of logs. A small-boat basin has facilities for numerous fishing and recrea- tional craft. These facilities, except during the fishing seasons, are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operationsand results during fiscal year. Channel survey was accomplished by hired labor in May 1962. Total costs for the fiscal year were $1,010 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. Dredging of the river'channel and turning basin was completed in 1939. Construction of the small-boat mooring basin at Warrenton, Oreg., was completed October 1957 and fill stabilization work was accomplished in August 1958 completing the project. Removal of snags and sunken logs in June 1961 by hired labor resulted in a controlling depth of 151/2 feet in midchannel, survey of May 1962. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $567,097, of which $280,854 has been for new work and $286,243 for maintenance. 1868 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... -28,000 -$6,265 .......... ............... .... 280,854 $... Cost................. 118,804 6,757 ......................... 280,854 Maintenance: $6,000 Appropriated.......... ........... .... ................... ............ 286,529 Cost................ .................... 4,704 $1,010 286,243 12. COLUMBIA RIVER AT BAKER BAY, WASH. Location. Baker Bay is a shallow body of water about 15 square miles in extent, lying on the north side of Columbia River near its mouth. The bay is separated from the river by Sand Island, a low-lying sand bar only a few feet above high tide level. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 6151.) Existing project. This provides for a main channel, 10 feet deep and 200 feet wide extending through the easterly passage at Sand Island to the port of Ilwaco, a distance of about 5 miles; for a mooring basin 10 and 12 feet deep, about 20 acres in extent, located east of the port of Ilwaco dock, with protecting break- waters; and for a west channel 10 feet deep connecting the basin with deep water in Columbia River, with a width of 150 feet, increased to 200 feet for a distance of 2,000 feet at the southerly end. Mean lower water is the plane of reference. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is about 8 feet, and the extreme about 13 feet. The Federal cost for new work is $941,251. The average annual maintenance for the 5 years was $54,476. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Dec. 11, 1938 Main channel ........................................ Public Works Administration. Aug. 30, 1935 .... do ................................. H. Doc. 44, 73d Cong., 1st sess. Mar. 2, 1945 West channel 8 feet deep... .... ......... .... H. Doc. 443, 76th Cong., 1st sess. May 17, 1950 West channel 10 feet deep and mooring basin with pro- S. Doc. 95, 81st Cong., 1st sess. tecting breakwaters. Local cooperation. Complied with. Terminal facilities. The facilities consist of wharves, floats, ramps, and berths, for fishing craft, barges, and towboats. The small-boat basin and protecting breakwater provides moorings for numerous fishing and recreational craft at all times of the year. The present facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operationsand results during fiscal year. Repair of the pile and timber dike B-O at the downstream entrance of Baker Bay, Wash., initiated by contract in June and was completed in August 1961. Total costs for the fiscal year were $82,299 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The channel extending through the easterly passage of Sand Island was completed in 1934. Dredg- ing of the west channel to a depth of 8 feet was accomplished in RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1869 Septemtber 1948. Deepening of the west channel to a depth of 10 feet, and boat basin and breakwater construction at Ilwaco, Wash., was finished December 1957, completing the project. Controlling depth is 61/2 feet in the entrance of the west channel, condition survey in March 1962. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $1,518,310, of which $941,251 was for new work and $577,059 for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to year Fiscal 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: .......... $452,520 .......... ........ . ............ ....... Appropriated $941,251 502,505 Cost....................... $14 ........... .................. 941,251 Maintenance: Appropriated................... 88,000 $45,695 $140,000 578,373 Cost.................. ......... 87,610 44,454 51,018 $89,299 577,059 13. COLUMBIA RIVER AT THE MOUTH, OREG. AND WASH. Location. This river rises in British Columbia, through which it flows for 425 miles. It enters the United States in northeastern Washington, flows southerly to the mouth of Snake River, thence westerly between Oregon and Washington, and empties into the Pacific Ocean 645 miles north of San Francisco Bay and 160 miles south of the Straits of Juan de Fuca. The total length of the river is 1,210 miles. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey charts Nos. 5902, 6151, 6152, 6153, 6154, 6155, and 6156; also Geological Survey map of Washington.) Previous project. Adopted by the River and Harbor Act of July 5, 1884. For further details see page 1999 of Annual Report for 1915 and page 1740 of Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for a channel across the bar of suitable alinement with depth of 48 feet at mean lower low water for a width of one-half mile, to be secured by dredging and the construction of a spur jetty on the north shore. The tidal range on the bar between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is about 8 feet, and the extreme tidal range is about 13 feet. The estimated cost for new work (1962) is $22,600,000 ex- clusive of $9,300,000 for jetty rehabilitation. The average annual maintenance cost for the past 5 years was $1,327,680. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Mar. 3, 1905 Extension of south jetty and construction of north jetty H. Doc. 94, 56thCong.,1stsess. and dredging. Sept. 3, 1954 Bar channel of 48-foot depth and spur jetty on north shore.. H. Doc. 249, 83d Cong., 2d sess. 1 Contains latest published maps. Local cooperation. None required. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: An off- shore scour and shoal study for the periods 1877-1926 and 1926- 1870 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 1958 was completed. Construction of the model shelter and the fixed-bed model of the comprehensive hydraulic study of the lower Columbia River estuary was completed at the Waterways Experi- ment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Verification of the fixed-bed model was initiated. Under a contract awarded June 1962 for rehabilitation of the south jetty quarry operations were initiated. Maintenance: Dredging of the entrance channel was accom- plished by Government hopper dredge with a total of 2,291,856 cubic yards of material removed. Repair of the south jetty between station 38 to 93 initiated July 1960 by contract was completed October 1961 with a total of 213,460 tons of stone placed. Under a second contract placing of rock was started August 1961 for the repair of jetty A. Completion was January 1962 with a total of 159,098.25 tons of jetty stone placed. Total costs for the fiscal year were $2,322,339, of which $284,754 was for new work, $23,259 for rehabilitation of the south jetty, and $2,014,326 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project is 64 per- cent complete. The project as originally authorized, consisting of the extension of the south jetty constructed under the previous project, construction of the north jetty, and the 40-foot channel depth over the entrance bar, was completed in 1918. Dredging of the 48-foot bar channel was completed September 1957. Rehabilita- tion of the south jetty is underway with new work funds. Survey of May 1962, shows a controlling depth in the entrance channel of 48 feet left outside, 47 feet left and right inside, and 41 feet right outside, at mean lower water. At Clatsop Spit the con- trolling depth for the left quarter is 44 feet, center of the channel 46 feet and right quarter 43 feet. Total costs to June 30, 1962, from Federal funds have been $32,987,862, of which $14,468,557 was for new work, $41,946 for jetty restoration, and $18,477,359 for maintenance. In addition, $475,000 and $25,000 were contributed by the ports of Portland and Astoria, Oreg., respectively, and expended for new work. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 2 New work: Appropriated .......... $990,000 -$300,000 -$1,500 ............ $300,000 $16,486,078 Cost................. 487,819 123,418 65,551 $35,163 284,754 816,454,810 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... 509,100 745,500 883,300 1,704,000 1,806,000 18,494,340 Rehabilitatione* Cost............... Appropriated......... 277,595 ......... ... 874,180 ............... 444,537 2,027,762 50,000 2,014,326 692,000 +18,477,359 742,000 Cost................ ................... 18,687 23,259 41,946 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $30,951 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 .................................. 130,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................... 160,951 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ........................ 7,970,175 1 Includes $1,986,253 for new work for previous project. In addition, $500,000 for new work was expended from contributed funds. SIncludes $27,825 preauthorization study costs. 4 Includes $1,188,625 allotted under deferred maintenance, Code 700. RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1871 Cost and financial statement-Cont'd 6 Rehabilitation of jetty activities. Other new work (rehabilitation) data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .. .................... $34,054 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963................................ 1,400,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................... 1,434,054 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ........................ 7,158,000 14. TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OREG. Location. This bay is located on the Oregon coast about 50 miles south of the mouth of Columbia River. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey charts Nos. 5902 and 6112.) Previous project. Adopted by River and Harbor Acts of August 11, 1888, and July 13, 1892. For further details, see pages 1989 of Annual Report for 1915, and page 1474 of Annual Report for 1936. Existing project. This provides for a jetty about 5,700 feet long on the north side of the entrance; for a channel through the bar 18 feet deep and of such width as can be practically and economically obtained; for a channel 200 feet wide and 18 feet deep from deep water in the bay to Miami Cove; and for initial dredging to a depth of 12 feet of a small-boat basin and an ap- proach thereto at Garibaldi, Oreg. The project also provides for the improvement of Bayocean Peninsula, Oreg.; for navigation, by construction of a sand and rockfill dike 1.4 miles in length, on alinement extending between Pitcher Point and the town of Bayocean. Mean lower low water is the plane of reference. The mean of the higher high waters above the plane of reference and the ex- treme tidal range at the entrance are 7.5 feet and about 13.5 feet, respectively. The actual Federal cost of new work is $1,730,350, exclusive of $2,140,000 for jetty rehabilitation. The average annual maintenance cost for the past 5 years was $13,025. The Hobsonville Channel portion of the project is classified as in- active and is excluded from the foregoing cost estimate. The cost of this portion revised in 1955 is estimated to be $99,000. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents July 26, 19121 Construction of north jetty, 5,700 feet long and dredging H. Doc. 349, 62d Cong., 2d sess. Mar. 4, 1913J channel 16 feet deep, 200 feet wider to Bay City. Mar. 2, 1919 Abandonment of that portion of project above Bay City... H. Doc. 730, 65th Cong., 2d sess. Mar. 3, 1925 Abandonment of Bay City Channel and for present pro- H. Doc. 562, 68th Cong., 2d sess.1 ject dimensions of the channels and turning basins with regulating works as needed. June 30, 1948 Dredging small-boat basin and approach at Garibaldi, H. Doc. 650, 80th Cong., 1st sess. Oreg., to a depth of 12 feet. Sept. 3, 1954 Closure of breach in Bayocean Peninsula ................ S. Doc. 128, 83d Cong., 2d sess. 2 1 Includes the following work, classified inactive. A channel to Hobsonville 200 feet wide and 16 feet deep, with a turning basin 500 feet wide at Hobsonville, and regulating works as needed. Contains latest published map. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Terminal facilities. At Garibaldi there is a privately owned fa- cility for the shipment of lumber and the receipt of logs. There is 1872 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 a public landing suitable for the mooring of fishing vessels, tow- boats, and other craft. The small-boat basin has adequate facilities for mooring of fishing and recreational craft. At Bay City there is a privately owned wharf used exclusively for the receipt of fresh fish and shellfish. In the vicinity of the city of Tillamook there are several log rollways. These facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. Advance engineering was underway for the proposed rehabilitation of the north jetty. Field work completed and design and cost estimates were being prepared. Maintenance: Dredging of the entrance bar and the inner chan- nel was accomplished by Government plant October 1961 with a total of 40,923 cubic yards of material removed. Repair of the Bayocean Peninsula breach closure and the fence- off of planted dunes area of the closure was performed by hired labor. Total costs for the fiscal year were $59,058, of which $13,307 was for new work rehabilitation of the north jetty and $45,751 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted August 1958 with the exception of construction of the Hobsonville Channel portion which has been classified "inactive" and rehabilitation of the north jetty. Controlling depths survey, May 1962, shows 13 feet on the bar, 10 feet in the channel to Garabaldi and 31/2 feet in the turning basin at mean lower low water. Total costs have been $2,822,993, of which $1,730,350 was for new work, $13,307 for jetty restoration, and $1,079,336 for main- tenance. In addition, $592,622 has been expended for new work and $6,450 for maintenance from contributed funds. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 1 New work: Appropriated .......... -$98,500 -$56,597 .................................... 3$1,807,559 Cost .................. 56,334 28,527 ........ ......... .......... 1,807,559 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... ............ 8,400 $9,400 $3,000 $48,000 1,154,508 Cost ........... .. .......... 6,780 7,039 5,556 45,751 1,150,834 Rehabilitation: Appropriated .......... ......... .......... ........ ............ 40,000 40,000 Cost ................. ......... .... . ......... .......... .... 13,307 13,307 Other new work (rehabilitation) data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $26,693 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 .................................... 500,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 526,693 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ...................... 1,600,000 1Includes $77,209 for new work and $71,498 for maintenance, previous project. 2 In addition, $592,622 for new work and $6,450 for maintenance expended from contributed funds. * Includes $57,767 allotted under Code 710 (small authorized projects.) Garabaldi Boat Basin. SRehabilitation of jetty activities. RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1873 15. DEPOE BAY, OREG. Location. This harbor is located on the Oregon Coast, 100 miles south of the mouth of Columbia River. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 5902.) Existing project. This provides for a breakwater north of the entrance for an entrance channel 8 feet deep and 30 feet wide, and for an inner basin 750 feet long by an average of 390 feet wide, 8 feet deep, with a retaining wall along the easterly side. Mean lower low water is the plane of reference. The mean of the higher high water and the extreme rise at the entrance above the plane of reference are 7.8 feet and about 11.5 feet, respectively. The actual cost of new work was $367,364. The average annual maintenance cost for the past 5 years was $11,044. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Aug. 26, 1937 Construction of inner basin 375 feet long, 125 feet wide and H. Doc. 202, 75th Cong., 1st sess. 5 feet deep, with entrance channel of same depth and 30 feetwide. Mar. 2, 1945 Construction of inner basin 750 feet long, 390 feet wide and H. Doc. 350, 77th Cong., 1st sess. 8 feet deep, with entrance channel of same depth and 30 feet wide. 1 Contains latest published map. Local cooperation. Complied with. Terminal facilities. Terminal facilities, all in the inner basin, consist of landings and floats to accommodate operators of ex- cursion and commercial fishing boats. The present facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operationsand results during fiscal year. A final adjustment of the costs of dredging completed in June 1961. A basin survey was made in March 1962. Total costs for the fiscal year were $2,402. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project as originally author- ized was completed in 1939 and the project modification accom- plished in June 1952. Controlling depth of the entrance was 8 feet in survey of April 1959 and 7 feet in the basin survey of March 1962. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $536,385, of which $367,364 was for new work and $169,021 for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated...................... ........................ ... ........ $367,364 Cost...................... ............................ 367,364 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... $22,000 -$2,933 $4,250 $34,500 ............ 171,619 Cost.................. 19,067 3,279 30,471 $2,402 169,021 16. YAQUINA RIVER, OREG. Location. This river rises in the Coast Range, flows about 50 miles in a westerly direction, and empties into Yaquina Bay, on the Oregon Coast. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey charts Nos. 5802 and 6058.) 1874 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Existing project. This provides for two controlling half-tide dikes of piling, brush, and stone, each about 1,100 feet long (con- structed by local interests), and for a channel 10 feet deep and generally 150 feet wide on Yaquina River and 200 feet wide in Depoe Creek, extending from the town of Yaquina to Toledo, about 9 miles. Mean lower low water is the plane of reference. The mean of the higher high waters above the plane of reference and the extreme tidal ranges under ordinary conditions at the mouth of the river are 8.1 feet and about 12 feet, and the same at Toledo. Freshet heights are about 12 feet at the mouth of Depoe Creek. The Federal cost of new work is $28,800. In addition, local interests contributed $43,200. The average annual maintenance cost for the past 5 years was $15,082. The existing project was authoried by the River and Harbor Act of March 4, 1913, House Document 519, 62d Congress, 2d session. The latest published map is in this document. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Terminal facilities. Near the town of Yaquina located at the mouth of the river, which is also the head of Yaquina Bay, there is a moorage for small vessels and a small-craft shipyard. The port of Toledo and the city of Toledo both have public-terminal facilities for the accommodation of local craft. There are also privately owned facilities for loading of lumber barges, receipt of bunker fuel oil, and log rollways for the receipt of logs. These facilities are considered adequate for the existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. Dredging by contract in Yaquina River and Depot Creek, Oreg., to provide project depth at mean lower low water in channels 200 and 100 feet in width, respectively, was initiated in August 1961 and completed October 1961. A total of 61,140 cubic yards of materials was excavated and disposed. Total costs for the fiscal year were $58,624 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project was completed in 1914. Controlling depth of the channel was 91/2 feet in survey of October 1961. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $275,957, of which $28,800 was for new work and $247,157 for maintenance. In addition, $46,200 was expended from contributed funds, $43,200 for new work and $3,000 for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated.......... ......... .......... .. ... ... ............. .......... $28,800 Cost ........ ...................... ........... .......... 28,800 Maintenance: Appropriated......... .......... ........... $82,500 -$4,000 250,247 Cost... .............. .................... 16,786 58,624 247,157 1 In addition, $48,200 was expended from contributed funds for new work and $8,000 for maintenance. RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1875 17. YAQUINA BAY AND HARBOR, OREG. Location. This bay is located on the Oregon coast, 113 miles south of the mouth of the Columbia River. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey charts Nos. 5802 and 6058.) Previous projects. The River and Harbor Act of June 14, 1880, provided for the improvement of the entrance. Subsequent proj- ects were adopted by River and Harbor Acts of June 3, 1896, June 6, 1900, and March 3, 1905. For further details, see the Annual Report for 1893, part 4, page 3314, House Document 68, 54th Congress, 1st session, and the Annual Report for 1938, page 1736. Existing project. This provides for two high-tide rubble- mound jetties at the entrance, the north jetty to be 6,500 feet, and the south jetty to be 7,600 feet in length; for a spur jetty on the channel side of the south jetty 4,700 feet from its sea end, 800 feet in length; for five groins channelward from the south jetty; for channel 40 feet deep for a general width of 400 feet across the bar and at the outer end of the entrance channel; for a channel 30 feet deep and 300 feet wide to a turning basin of the same depth, 900 to 1,200 feet wide and 1,400 feet long, and for a channel 18 feet deep and 200 feet wide from the 30-foot channel at about mile 1, along the city docks at Newport, thence upstream to the abandoned railroad terminus at Yaquina, a distance of about 41/2 miles. The project also provides for a small-boat mooring basin at Newport, Oreg. Mean lower low water is the plane of reference. The mean of the higher high water above the plane of reference and the extreme tidal range are 8.1 and 11.5 feet, respectively. The estimated Federal cost of new work (1962) is $27,600,000. The average annual maintenance cost for the past 5 years was $95,612. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Mar. 2, 1919 Restoration and extension of the jetties constructed under H. Doc. 109, 65th Cong., 1st sess. previous projects, rock removal at the entrance; and dredging in the bay up to the railroad terminus at Yaquina. Aug. 26, 1937 Extension of the north jetty seaward 1,000 feet........... Senate committee print, 75th Cc~s., 1st sess.' Mar. 2, 1945 26-foot channel of suitable width across entrance bar, so S. Doc. 119, 77th Cong., 1st sess.' far as rock bottom will allow, a 20-foot channel 300 feet wide along south side of bay to and including a turning basin 22 feet deep, 1,000 feet wide and 1,200 feet long. July 24, 1946 Construction of a small-boat mooring basin at Newport, S. Doc. 246, 79th Cong., 2d sess. Oreg. July 3, 1958 40-foot bar channel and 30-foot river channel and extension S. Doc. 8, 85th Cong., 1st sess. 1 of jetties at 3 ntrance. 1 .I 1SC v 5I. UU1iCL5 115. Sontains latest publlsled maps. Local cooperation. Requirements contained in River and Har- bor Acts through July 24, 1946, have been fully complied with. The River and Harbor Act approved July 3, 1958 provides that local interests agree to: (a) Furnish free of cost to the United States all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and suitable spoil-dis- posal areas necessary for the construction of the work and its subsequent maintenance, when and as required; (b) hold and save 1876 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 the United States free from damages due to construction and maintenance of the work; and (c) provide adequate terminal facili- ties open to all on equal terms; and Provided further that the south jetty shall not be extended until experience demonstrates, in the judgment of the Chief of Engineers, that this work is advisable. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization amount to $41,000 (1962) . Terminal facilities. At McLean Point, on the north side of the bay, about 2 miles from the entrance, the Yaquina Bay Dock & Dredge Co., Inc., has two berths capable of serving oceangoing vessels. One of these berths is 420 feet long; the second, a new berth, is 450 feet in length. At the time the new berth was dredged, a new retaining wall and fill of 6 acres was constructed adjacent to deep water. The company now has a total of 17 acres of filled land adjacent to deep water, and of this total, 7 acres was con- structed in 1956-57. This facility has the necessary carriers and lift trucks for the handling of lumber cargoes, and is open to all on equal terms. On the south side of the bay immediately above the 101 Highway Bridge, about a mile and a quarter above the en- trance, the Georgia-Pacific Corp., maintains private dolphins with a frontage of 700 feet for loading oceangoing vessels from barges. The port of Newport has a public wharf with 400 feet of frontage for the servicing of fishing boats. In addition, the port of Newport maintains about 500 feet of protected float landings for use of sea- going fishing vessels. There are several seafood companies located on the bay which have their own facilities for the handling of fresh fish and crab. Supplies and petroleum products are readily avail- able for small vessels. These facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operationsand results during fiscal year. New work: Exploring of subaqueous materials in the entrance channel and harbor at Yaquina Bay with core borings, penetration tests, and jet probings, was completed by contract December 1961, except for seven core drill holes on project centerline. This work suspended by winter storm conditions was resumed in June 1962. The advance engineer- ing and design work, including a wave study analysis for the proposed deepening of the bar and the inner channel and for a jetty extension was continued during the year. A total of 12,449 cubic yards of material was removed. Maintenance: Installation of dredging ranges was accomplished by contract August 1961. Dredging of the entrance bar and inner channel was accomplished by Government plant with a total of 53,641 cubic yards of material removed. Total costs for the fiscal year were $520,555, of which $455,987 was for new work and $64,568 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project as authorized through the act of July 24, 1946, was completed May 1952. Ad- vance engineering and design for the project modification author- ized by the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1958, has been started. Restoration of the jetties was completed in 1934 and extension of the north jetty in 1940. Rehabilitation of the north jetty was again accomplished in 1956. RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1877 The main channel from the outer ends of the jetties to McLean Point, 20 feet deep and 300 feet wide, with turning basins at the upstream end was completed in May 1952, and the channel 18 feet deep and 200 feet wide from the 20-foot channel at mile 1 along the city dock at Newport, thence upstream to the abandoned railroad terminus at Yaquina and the small boat-mooring basin at Newport were completed in fiscal year 1949. The controlling depth on the bar is 21 feet, the entrance to high- way bridge 19 feet, from the bridge to the turning basin 20 feet, survey of April 1962. Total costs under the existing project from Federal funds have been $5,885,741, of which $2,783,440 was for new work and $3,102,301 for maintenance. In addition, $729,168 has been expended for new work from contributed funds. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 Jsne 30, 1962 1 2 New work: Appropriated ....................... ......... $93,000 $309, 03C $225,000 $3,533,559 Cost ................. ........ .......... 7,382 120,825 455,987 s3,490,753 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... $132,500 $70,400 92,250 126,500 54,000 3,110,447 Cost................. 132,411 71,081 92,645 117,357 64,568 3,108,327 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .......................... $28,379 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963................... ........... 100,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963.............. 128,379 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project .................... 24,673,754 x Includes $707,313 for new work and $6,026 for maintenance for previous project. 2 In addition, $729,168 for new work was expended from contributed funds. * Includes $17,500 preauthorization study costs. 18. SIUSLAW RIVER, OREG. Location. This river rises in the coast range, flows about 110 miles in a westerly direction, and empties into the Pacific Ocean at a point about 160 miles south of the entrance of Columbia River and 485 miles north of San Francisco Bay, Calif. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey charts Nos. 6023 and 5802.) Previous project. Adopted by River and Harbor Act of Sep- tember 19, 1890, and modified in 1891. For further details of previous project see page 1988 of Annual Report for 1915. Existing project. This provides for a 600-foot extension of the north jetty; and entrance channel 18 feet deep and 300 feet wide from deep water in the ocean to a point 1,500 feet inside the outer end of the existing north jetty; thence a channel 16 feet deep, 200 feet wide with additional widening at bends, and about 5 miles long, to a turning basin, 16 feet deep, 400 feet wide and 600 feet long, opposite the Siuslaw dock at Florence. Mean lower low water is the plane of reference. Mean of the higher high water above the plane of reference and the extreme tidal ranges at the mouth of the river are 6.6 feet and about 11 feet, respectively. During low stages of the river tidal effect extends to Mapleton, 201/2 miles above the mouth. The estimated Federal cost of new work (1962) is $2,470,000, exclusive of $1,350,000 for jetty rehabilitation. 1878 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 The average annual maintenance cost for the past 5 years was $156,433. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents June 25, 1910 Extension of jetties ................................... H. Doc. 648, 61st Cong., 2d sess. Mar. 3, 1925 12-foot deep channel .................................. Senate Committee print, serial 1 68th Cong., 1st sess. July 3, 1958 18-foot bar channel and 16-foot river channel ............ H. Doe. 204, 85th Cong., 1st sess.' 1 Contains latest published maps. Local cooperation. Fully complied with for all completed work. The River and Harbor Act approved July 3, 1958, provides that local interests agree to: (a) Furnish free of cost to the United States all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and spoil-disposal areas necessary for construction of the project and for subsequent main- tenance, when and as required; (b) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and maintenance of the project; and (c) provide a public landing with suitable ter- minal facilities, open to all on equal terms; and provided further, that construction of the north jetty extension be deferred until experience demonstrates, in the judgment of the Chief of Engi- neers, that this work is advisable. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project au- thorization amount to $142,000 (1962). Terminal facilities. Located at Florence is the port dock which is the principal terminal facility on the river. This dock 150 feet wide and 350 feet long, is located about 5.3 miles above the river entrance and accommodates a fish-receiving station at east end of wharf which maintains a winch of 2-ton capacity and supplies gasoline, oil, and ice to fishermen. Other facilities at Florence consist of various floatways which provide docking facilities for fishing vessels and other small craft and a new floating dock with accommodations for 68 commercial fishing vessels. Across the river and below the highway bridge at Glenada are floatways used by small craft. At Cushman, the LaDuke Lumber Co. maintains a dock for loading oceangoing barges with packaged lumber. There are also a number of private landings and log booms between Cush- man and Mapleton, to accommodate river traffic. These facilities are considered adequate for existing traffic. Operations and results during fiscal year. Under a contract awarded January 1962 for rehabilitation of the south jetty a quarry was developed and placement of 5,015 tons of class A, B and C stone made in June 1962. Maintenance dredging of the entrance channel was accomplished by Government hopper dredge with a total of 56,036 cubic yards of material removed. Total costs for the fiscal year were $75,108, of which $42,985 was for new work rehabilitation of the south jetty and $32,123 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. Extension of the jetties con- structed under the previous project was completed in 1917. The 12-foot channel was completed in 1930. In March 1958 rehabilita- RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1879 tion of the north jetty was accomplished. No work has yet been done under the authorization dated July 3, 1958. Rehabilitation of the south jetty is underway with new work funds. Controlling depths are 10 feet on the bar, survey of May 1962, 10 feet for 2 miles to Florence and 10 feet for 2 miles above Florence, survey of September 1960. Total costs to June 30, 1962, from Federal funds have been $1,407,893, of which $389,888 was for new work, $62,219 for jetty restoration, and $955,786 for maintenance. In addition, $322,532 has been expended for new work from contributed funds. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 1 New work: Appropriated.. ..... .. ... .... ....... . ......... . .... .............. $541,589 Cost................. ................................... 541,589 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... $348,000 $82,433 $99,370 $40,000 $31,000 966,904 Cost................. 518,867 92,210 69,618 69,347 32,123 '966,397 Rehabilitation: 5 Appropriated......... ............... .... . .......... 30,000 500,000 530,000 Cost ............... ....................... ............ 19,234 42,985 62,219 Other new work (rehabilitation) data: Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ................. $2,080,112 Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................. 26,815 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963............................... 490,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963................. 516,815 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ....................... 330,000 1 Includes $151,701 for new work and $10,611 for maintenance for previous project. 2 2 In addition, $322,532 for new work was expended from contributed funds. Includes $15,000 preauthorization study costs. 'Includes $188,000 allotted under Code 700, deferred maintenance. r Rehabilitation of jetty activities. 19. UMPQUA RIVER, OREG. Location. This river rises in the Cascade Range, flows westerly about 120 miles, and empties into the Pacific Ocean 180 miles south of the mouth of the Columbia River and 465 miles north of San Francisco Bay. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey charts Nos. 5802 and 6004.) Previous projects. Adopted by River and Harbor Act of March 3, 1871, and modified in 1886. For further details, see page 2967 of Annual Report for 1898, and page 1732 of Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for a jetty on the north side of the entrance approximately 8,000 feet in length, westerly from the highwater line to the sea; for a south jetty 4,200 feet long extending to a point 1,800 feet south of the outer end of the north jetty; for dredging to provide a usable entrance channel 26 feet deep, and a river channel 22 feet deep and 200 feet wide, from the mouth to Reedsport, a distance of about 11 miles, with a turning basin at Reedsport 1,000 feet long, 600 feet wide, and 22 feet deep; for a channel 12 feet deep and 100 feet wide from deep water in the river to the vicinity of the docks in Winchester Bay with a mooring and turning basin 12 feet deep, 175 feet wide and 300 feet long at the inner end; and for a channel 22 feet deep and 1880 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 200 feet wide from the main river channel near mile 8 to Gardiner, Oreg., and a turning basin of the same depth, 500 feet wide and 800 feet long, opposite Gardiner. The project was modified in 1954 to provide for a channel in Scholfield River, 12 feet deep at mean lower low water generally 100 feet wide from its confluence with Umpqua River to a point 0.5 mile below the first railroad bridge, a distance of two miles, the entrance to be widened to 300 feet in a distance of 500 feet. Mean lower low water is the plane of reference. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water at the river mouth is 6.9 feet, and the extreme range is about 11 feet. The Federal cost of new work is $2,664,635, exclusive of $2,690,- 000 for jetty rehabilitation. The Scholfield River channel portion of the project is classified as inactive and has been excluded from the foregoing cost esti- mate. The cost of this portion (1957) is estimated to be $54,000. The average annual maintenance cost for the past 5 years amounts to $70,201. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Sept. 22, 1922 North jetty 7,500 feet long . H. Doc. 913, 65th Cong., 2d sess. Jan. 21, 1927 Present project dimensions of north jetty and for dredging H. Doc. 320, 69th Cong., 1st sess. the ocean bar. July 3, 1930 For a short south jetty ................................. H. Doc. 317, 70th Cong., 1st sess.' Aug. 30, 1935 For a full length south jetty and maintenance dredging Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. to a 26-foot depth. 9, 72d Cong., 1st sess.' June 20, 1938 Channel 22 feet deep and 200 feet wide from mouth to S. Doc. 158, 75th Cong., 3d sess.' Reedsport. Mar. 2, 1945 Channel 22 feet deep and 200 feet wide from river channel S. Doc. 86, 78th Cong., 1st sess. to Gardiner and turning basin 22 feet deep, 500 feet wide and 800 feet long. Do........ Channel 10 feet deep and 100 feet wide from river channe1 S. Doc. 191, 77th Cong., 2d sess. ' to dock in Winchester Bay with mooring and turning basin 10 feet deep, 175 feet wide and 300 feet long at inner end. June 30, 1948 Channel 12 feet deep and 100 feet wide from river channel S. Doc. 154, 80th Cong., 2d sess. to dock in Winchester Bay with mooring and turning basin 12 feet deep, 175 feet wide and 300 feet long at inner end. Sept. 3, 1954 Channel 12 feet deep, Scholfield River............. ... S. Doc. 133, 81st Cong., 2d sess.' 1 Contains latest published maps. Local cooperation. Requirements of local cooperation for all work except the Scholfield River channel modification have been complied with. The River and Harbor Act of September 3, 1954, provides in connection with construction of Scholfield River channel, that local interests contribute in cash $10,000 toward the cost of the new work; agree to furnish, free of cost to the United States, suitable spoil-disposal areas for initial work and subsequent main- tenance, when and as required; and hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and maintenance of the project. A non-Federal contribution of $10,000 is required under the terms of the project authorization. Submission of as- surances of local cooperation was requested of Port of Umpqua, July 3, 1956. On April 8, 1957, local interests reported inability to furnish required cooperation. Terminal facilities. At Gardiner there is approximately 650 feet of wharf frontage, of which 60 feet is publicly owned. At RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1881 Reedsport there is a privately owned mill dock for the shipment of lumber, and a dock for the receipt and shipment of river-run sand and gravel. The port of Umpqua owns one wharf with 456 feet of water frontage, of which 228 feet is usable for vessels and another with about 75 feet of water frontage which has not been used generally for commercial shipping. On Bolon Island across the river from Reedsport a wharf has been constructed which has about 5 acres of open storage for lumber and is available to all on equal terms. At Winchester Bay, 2 miles from river entrance, there is a public-landing float with a wooden pile and timber shore approach, and a privately owned wharf used by excursion and commercial fishing vessels. The present facilities are considered adequate for the existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. Under a contract awarded in April 1962 for rehabilitation of the south jetty, de- velopment of a quarry was in progress. Maintenance dredging of the entrance channel was accomplished by Government dredge with a total of 295,191 cubic yards of ma- terial removed. Total costs for the fiscal year were $116,723, of which $18,328 was for new work rehabilitation of the south jetty and $98,395 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project is com- plete. The north jetty was completed in 1940. The extension to the original south jetty was completed in 1938 and construction on a new training jetty on the south side of the entrance to re- place the original south jetty which was partially destroyed by storms was completed in 1951. Dredging of a 22-foot channel from the mouth of the river to Reedsport was completed in 1941. The Gardiner Channel and turning basin was completed in 1949 and the Winchester Bay channel and mooring basin in 1956. Remaining under authorization is construction of the 12-foot channel in Schol- field River, currently classified as inactive and rehabilitation of the south jetty. The controlling depths are 20 feet on the bar, 22 feet from the entrance to mile 3, and 21 feet mile 3 to mile 8, survey of April 1962, 13 feet mile 8 to mile 12 and 22 feet in the turning basin, survey of June 1962. Total costs from Federal funds have been $7,266,671, of which $2,664,635 was for new work, $34,679 for jetty restoration, and $4,567,357 for maintenance. In addition, $276,500 was expended for new work from con- tributed funds. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 1t New work: Appropriated............ ........ . ..... .......... .. .......... $2,703877 Cost ................. .... ... ...... ............ ........................ 2,703,877 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... $130,600 $19,200 $33,700 $69,000 $168,000 4,637,916 Cost................. 127,613 22,056 31,232 71,709 98,395 4,567,357 Rehabilitation : Appropriated ............ ............................. 30,000 500,000 530,000 Cost.............................................. 16,351 18,328 34,679 1882 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Cost and financial statement-Cont'd Other new work (rehabilitation) data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .......................... $98,021 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963.............................. 1,800,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................... 1,898,021 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project. ................... .. 360,000 1 Includes $39,242 for new work for previous project. 2 In addition, $276,500 for new work was expended from contributed funds. 3 Includes $58,824 allotted under Code 721 (small authorized projects) Winchester Bay and Scholfield River, Oreg. ' Rehabilitation of jetty activities. 20. COOS BAY, OREG. Location. On the Oregon coast 200 miles south of the mouth of Columbia River and 445 miles north of San Francisco Bay. It is about 13 miles long and 1 mile wide, with an area at high tide of about 15 square miles. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey charts Nos. 5802 and 5984.) Previous projects. Adopted by River and Harbor Acts of March 3, 1879, September 19, 1890, and August 18, 1894. For further details, see page 1987 of Annual Report for 1915, and page 1728 of Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for two rubble-mound, high- tide jetties at the entrance; a channel across the outer bar 40 feet deep at mean lower low water, and of suitable width with dimen- sions reduced gradually to Guano Rock; a channel 30 feet deep at mean lower low water and generally 300 feet wide thence to the mouth of Isthmus Slough; turning basins of the same depth and 1,000 feet long and 600 feet wide opposite Coalbank Slough and at the city of North Bend; anchorage basins 600 feet wide by 2,000 feet long at mile 3.5 and near mile 7; a channel 22 feet deep and 150 feet wide from Smith's Mill (mouth of Isthmus Slough) to Millington, a mooring basin, about 500 by 900 feet, for small boats at Charleston, with a connecting channel, 10 feet deep and 150 feet wide, to deep water in Coos Bay, and the con- struction of a protecting breakwater and a bulkhead. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents June 25, 1910 Dredging the ocean bar channel .................... H. Doc. 958, 60th Cong., 1st sess. Mar. 2, 1919 A channel 22 feet deep to Smith's mill ................... H. Doc. 325, 65th Cong., 1stsess. Sept. 22, 1922 Restoration of the north jetty 9,600 feet long, construction H. Doc. 150, 67th Cong., 2d sess. of a south jetty about 3,900 feet long, extension of the 22-foot bay channel from Smith's mill to Millington. Jan. 21, 1927 Extension of the jetties to such lengths as may be practi- cable within the estimate of total cost of the jetties, $3,250,000, as given in the former document (H. Doc. 150, 67th Cong.). July 3, 1930 A channel 24 feet deep and 300 feet wide through Pigeon H. Doc. 110, 70th Cong., 1stsess.' Point Reef, following a location along the westerly side of the bay. Aug. 30, 1935 For the 24-foot channel from Pigeon Point Reef to Smith's Senate committee print, 73d Cong. mill and a turning basin above Marshfield. 2d sess.' July 24, 1946 For increased dimensions of channel across the bar and to S. Doc. 253 79th Cong., 2d sess. Isthmus Slough and turning basin opposite Coalbank Slough and at city of North Bend; anchorage basins at mile 3.5 and near mile 7. June 30, 1948 For a mooring basin and connecting channel at Charleston. H. Doc. 646, 80th Cong., 2d sess. 1Contains latest published maps. The plane of reference is mean lower low water. The mean of the higher high water above the plane of reference and the ex- RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1883 treme tidal range at the entrance are 7 feet and about 11 feet, respectively, and at Coos Bay 7.3 and 11 feet, respectively. The Federal cost for new work is $8,077,000, exclusive of $2,150,000 for jetty rehabilitation. The average annual maintenance cost for the past 5 years amounts to $803,628 (Includes north jetty repair; fiscal years 1958 and 1959.) Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Terminal facilities. At North Bend there is a municipal dock 649 feet long fronting on the channel, about 1,780 feet of privately owned mill docks, and three oil-receiving terminals in the vicinity. At Coos Bay there is a privately owned dock with a frontage of 1,345 feet, open to the public on equal terms; several small land- ings for fishing and harbor craft; and three lumber docks with 1,300, 576, and 500-foot frontages, respectively. At Eastside, on Isthmus Slough, there is a 200-foot dock to accommodate coastal lumber schooners. At Empire there is a privately owned lumber dock with frontage of 510 feet, and an oil terminal, also privately owned, for the receipt of petroleum products by barge. About 11/2 miles below Empire there is a privately owned pulp mill dock with a frontage of 480 feet. At Charleston there are two wharves, one public and one pri- vate, with usable areas of 1,200 and 2,400 square feet, respectively, for receipt of fresh fish and shellfish and a large seafood receiving and processing plant. There is also a municipally owned small-boat basin, open to all on equal terms, capable of mooring 250 fishing and recreation craft. Servicing facilities for small craft are avail- able at all the facilities, and public launching ramps have been constructed in the Charleston area by private interests. A privately owned floating moorage located on Joe Ney Slough has facilities for mooring approximately 50 fishing vessels. These facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. Under a contract awarded May 1962 for rehabilitation of the south jetty, develop- ment of a quarry and selection of a stone pile site were underway. Maintenance: Channel dredging between river mile 14.2 and 14.7, initiated by contract in May, was completed July 1961 with a total of 187,880 cubic yards of material removed. In June 1962 a contract was awarded for dredging of the channel between ap- proximate mile 13 and mile 15. Dredging of the entrance channel by Government hopper dredge was accomplished with a total of 1,170,183 cubic yards of material removed. In November 1961, con- struction of side range structures, dike, 6.4 repair, and driving of steel H-beams, were completed. Total costs for the fiscal year were $434,777, of which $12,535 was for new work rehabilitation of the south jetty and $422,242 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The south jetty was completed in 1928, the north jetty in 1929 and the 24-foot channel in 1937. Excavation of the channel to a depth of 30 feet and generally 300 feet wide from the entrance to Isthmus Slough was completed in 1951. Dredging of the outer bar channel to a depth of 40 feet, 1884 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 decreasing to 30 feet at Guano Rock was completed in 1952. The existing project was completed September 1956 with construction of the small boat basin at Charleston, Oreg., with exception of rehabilitation of the south jetty. The controlling depth on the bar is 30 feet, survey of April 1962, and from the entrance to Coos Bay 27 feet, survey of February 1962. Total costs to June 30, 1962, from Federal funds under the exist- ing project have been $21,071,814, of which $8,077,000 was for new work, $29,476 for jetty restoration, and $12,965,338 for main- tenance. In addition, $43,513 has been expended for new work and $8,387 for maintenance from contributed funds. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 t s New work: Appropriated.................................... ............................. $8,879,096 Cost..... .......... ... ............ ....... .......... 8,879,096 Maintenance: Appropriated.........$. $1,356,400 $947,000 $266,090 $754,000 $533,000 313,341,305 Cost............... 1,621,243 1,037,053 265,104 672,501 422,242 13,144,139 Rehabilitation 4: Appropriated .......... ......... .... ..... ........... 50,000 480,000 530,000 Cost .......... ................................... 16,941 12,535 29,476 Other new work (rehabilitation) data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .......................... $20,524 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 .................................. 1,300,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963................ 1,320,524 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ................... .. 820,000 1Includes $802,096 for new work and $178,801 for maintenance for previous project. 2In addition $43,513 for new work and $8,387 for maintenance was expended from con- tributed funds. SIncludes $1,444,640 allotted under Code 700 deferred maintenance. 4 Rehabilitation of jetty activities. 21. COQUILLE RIVER, OREG. Location. This river rises in the Coast Range, flows in a general westerly direction for about 100 miles, and empties into the Pacific Ocean at Bandon, Oreg., 225 miles south of the mouth of the Columbia River and 420 miles north of San Francisco Bay. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey charts Nos. 5802 and 5971.) Previous projects. Adopted by River and Harbor Acts of June 14, 1880, and July 13, 1892. For further details, see page 1986 of the Annual Report for 1915, and page 1727 of the Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for two rubble-mound high-tide jetties at the river mouth, the south jetty 2,700 feet long and the north 3,450 feet; and for a channel 13 feet deep at mean lower low water and of suitable width from the sea to a point 1 mile above the old Coquille River Lighthouse, and for snagging to the State Highway Bridge at the city of Coquille. Mean lower low water is the plane of reference. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water at the mouth is 6.8 feet and the extreme range about 10 feet. The actual cost for new work is $316,640. RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1885 The average maintenance costs for the past 5 years was $33,862 (Includes major jetty rehabilitation work; fiscal year 1955 and 1957.) The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents June 25, 1910 Dredging shoals between the mouth and Riverton, and H. Doe. 673, 61st Cong., 2d sess. removing obstructions between the mouth of the North Fork and Bandon. Mar. 2, 1919 For a 13-foot channel from the ocean to Bandon........... H. Doc. 207, 65th Cong., 1st sess. July 3, 1930 Deepening the channel to 16 feet between the sea and the H. Doc. 186, 70th Cong., 1st sess. ' eastern and of the north jetty. Aug. 30, 1935 Present project depth between the sea and the eastern end Senate committee print, 74th Cong., of the north jetty. 1st seas. Mar. 2, 1945 For 13-foot depth from sea to a point 1 mile above Coquille H. Doec. 672, 76th Cong., 2d seas. River Lighthouse and snagging to State highway bridge. 1 Contains latest published maps. Local cooperation. None required. Terminal facilities. At Bandon there is one privately owned mill dock used exclusively for the shipment of lumber on coast- wise vessels. There is a publicly owned wharf and a small basin open to all on equal terms. Above Bandon, on the navigable water- way, there is a privately owned lumber shipping facility and numerous log booms and rollways. These facilities are considered adequate for the present commerce. Operationsand results during fiscal year. Maintenance dredging of the entrance channel was accomplished by Government hopper dredge with a total of 79,395 cubic yards of material removed. Total costs for the fiscal year were $41,240 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The jetties were completed in 1908 and the entrance channel in 1933. The north jetty was recon- structed in 1942 and a 750-foot extension to the easterly end was constructed in 1951. Repair of the south jetty was accomplished in 1954 and the north jetty was repaired in 1956. The controlling depth on the bar is 12 feet and in the inner chan- nel to mile 1.3 is 111/2 feet, survey of April 1962. Total costs to June 30, 1962, from Federal funds have been $1,840,824, of which $316,640 was for new work and $1,524,184 for maintenance. In addition, $72,891 has been expended for new work from con- tributed funds. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated ......... ..................................... $657,366 Cost................... ....... .. ... ............................ 657,366 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... $41,600 $16,000 $51,600 $20,000 $40,000 31,567,116 Cost.................. 42,048 15,884 50,455 19,672 41,240 1,565,651 1 Includes $340,726 for new work and $41,467 for maintenance for previous project. 2 In addition, $72,891 for new work was expended from contributed funds. SIncludes $78,500 allotted under Code 700, deferred maintenance. 22. ROGUE RIVER AT GOLD BEACH, OREG. Location. This river rises in the Cascade Range in south western Oregon, flows westerly through the Coast Range, and 1886 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 empties into the Pacific Ocean 264 miles south of the mouth of Columbia River and 381 miles north of San Francisco Bay. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 5951.) Existing project. This provides for two jetties at the en- trance, and a channel 13 feet deep and 300 feet wide from the ocean to a point immediately below the State Highway Bridge, approximately one mile, including a widening of the channel at a point about 0.25 mile below the bridge to form a turning basin 13 feet deep, 500 feet wide, and 650 feet long. Mean lower low water is the plane of reference. The range of tide between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 5.5 feet, and the extreme range of tide from lower low to higher high water is estimated to be 14 feet. Estimated Federal cost of new work (1962) is $3,498,000. The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of September 3, 1954 (S. Doc. 83, 83d Cong., 2d sess.). The latest published map is in this document. Local cooperation. The authorizing act provides that local interests agree to: (a) Furnish, without cost to the United States, all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and suitable spoil-disposal areas necessary for new work and for subsequent maintenance when and as required; (b) provide adequate public terminal and transfer facilities open to all on equal terms; (c) dredge and main- tain project depths in the berthing space adjacent to and within 50 feet of the terminal and transfer facilities; and (d) hold and save the United States free from damages due to construction and maintenance of the improvement. Total estimated cost for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization amount to $195,000 (1962). Terminal facilities. Below the highway bridge at Wedderburn there is facility for the loading of lumber barges. Above the high- way bridge there is a privately owned float to accommodate excur- sion passengers and small freight items destined for the various landings between Wedderburn and Agness, Oreg. There are several small landings between the mouth of the river and Wedderburn for the use of fishing and recreational craft. Located near Gold Beach there is a publicly owned small-boat basin. These facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operationsand results during fiscal year. New work: Dredging of the river channel and a turning basin initiated in June by con- tract was completed October 1961. A total of 387,503 cubic yards of material was removed. Dredging of the entrance bar by Govern- ment plant in July and August 1961 was terminated after removal of 135,862 cubic yards of material. Maintenance: Under this operation a total of 87,213 cubic yards of material was removed from the entrance by Government plant. Total costs for the fiscal year were $358,796, of which $318,105 was for new work and $40,691 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. Jetty construction initiated June 1959 was completed September 1960, with a total of 678,836 tons of stone placed in the two jetties at the entrance. Dredging of the RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1887 river channel by contract and dredging of the entrance bar by Government plant was accomplished in fiscal year 1962. Controlling depths are 13 feet on the bar, 8 feet from the en- trance to the basin and 111/ feet in the basin, condition survey of April 1962. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $3,332,815, of which $3,292,124 was for new work and $40,691 for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated .......... $21,000 $705,000 $1,687,500 $820,000 $44,087 $3,292,124 Cost ................. 10,804 261,354 2,075,235 612,089 318,105 3,292,124 M aintenance: Appropriated ......... ............ .42,000 42,000 Cost ................ .. .40,691 40,691 'Includes $14,537 preauthorization study costs. 23. CHETCO RIVER, OREG. Location. Chetco River rises in the Siskiyou Mountains of the Coast Range at an elevation of 4,000 feet, flows for a distance of about 51 miles in a circuitous route, and empties into the Pacific Ocean at Brookings, Oreg., 300 miles south of the entrance to Columbia River and 345 miles north of San Francisco Bay. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Charts Nos. 5702 and 5896.) Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for stabil- ization of the channel through the bar at the mouth of the river by the construction of two jetties, and dredging. Mean lower low water is the plane of reference. The tidal range in the cove between lower low water and mean higher high water is 6.9 feet and the extreme range is from 2.6 feet below to 9.7 feet above mean lower low water. The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act approved March 2, 1945, House Document 817, 77th Congress, 2d session. The total cost of new work is $489,548. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total costs of all re- quirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authori- zation amount to $40,000. (1962). Terminal facilities. At the Sporthaven dock there is a private facility open to all on equal terms for the loading of lumber barges. This lumber facility is barely adequate for the existing commerce. A small-boat basin is located downstream from the town of Harbor, Oreg. Operations and results during fiscal year. Plans and specifica- tions were prepared and a contract awarded in June 1962 for repair of the south jetty at entrance to Chetco River, Oreg. Total costs for the fiscal year were $12,821 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the jetties was initiated in June and completed December 1957. Removal of rock pinnacles and an abandoned bridge structure was accomplished in June 1959, completing the project. Controlling depths at the entrance, condition survey of August 1888 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 1961, was left quarter 31/2 feet, midchannel 2 feet, and right quar- ter 6 feet. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $503,743, of which $489,548 was for new work and $14,195 for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... $250,000 $12,745 $10,000 - $8,197 ............ $489,548 Cost................. 407,671 18,208 7,776 1,520 .......... 489,548 Maintenance: Appropriated ................... ........... .... 2,200 $89,000 91,200 Cost................. .... ......... .. 1,374 12,821 14,195 24. NAVIGATION PROJECTS ON WHICH RECONNAISSANCE AND CONDITION SURVEYS ONLY WERE CONDUCTED DURING THE FISCAL YEAR Cost during Date reconnaissance Name of project fiscal year or condition survey was conducted Columbia Slough, Oreg.................................. .......... 377 April-May 1962. Coos and Millicoma Rivers, Oreg ...................................... 1,515 March-April 1962. Nehalem, Bay, Oreg................ ................. .................. 1,992 May-June 1962. Oregon Slough, Oreg ........... ................ .................. 858 April 1962. Smith River, Oreg...................................... ...... ..... 796 May-June 1962. Clatskanie River, Wash..... ........................ ................... 4,365 April-May 1962. Columbia River between Chinook, Wash. and head of Sand Island............. 2,985 February-March 1962. Deep River, Wash.. ................................................... 2,240 June 1962. Elokomin Slough, W ash ................................................ 233 Do. Grays River, Wash........................... ........ ...... 259 Do. Lake River, Wash. ................. ......................... 1,815 March-April 1962. Skamonaka Creek, Wash. ........................................... 712 March 1962. Youngs Bay and F iver, Wash.. ............... .......... ..... 1,667 Do. Total costs for the fiscal year.......... ............ ............ 19,814 25. OTHER AUTHORIZED NAVIGATION PROJECTS For last Cost to June 30, 1962 full report Estimated Cost Name of project see amount estimate Annual Operation required to (last date Report Construction and complete of revision) for- maintenance 1. Bayocean Peninsula, Oreg. 1......... 1945 ........................... $280,000 1954 2. Bridges across the Columbia at Cas- 1944 $1,081,806 .............. Completed cade locks and Hood River, Oreg. 3. Clatskanie River, Oreg. 2........... 1949 3,703 $79,833 Do. 4. Columbia River between Chinook, 1959 3220, 283 107,802 Do. Wash., and head of Sand Island. 5. Columbia Slough, Oreg.............. 1953 410,000 .............. 1,330,000 1962 6. Coos and Millicoma Rivers, Oreg.... 1957 '15,000 99,676 568,000 1962 7. Deep River, Wash. ................ 1950 15,384 12,436 Completed 8. Elokomin Slough, Wash. ........... 1943 18,641 437 Do. 9. Grays River, Wash. 2.............. 1941 2,500 6,002 Do. 10. Lake River, Wash. ............... 1960 2,700 15,757 Do. 11. Multnomah Channel, Oreg......... 1949 18, 112 61 Do. 12. Nahalem Bay, Oreg. .............. 1955 8302,006 12,656 Do. 13. Oregon Slough (North Portland Har- bor) Oreg.- 1936 716,881 712,576 Do. 14. Salmon River, Ore. 2............. 1949 2,145 .......... Do. 15. Skamokawa Creek 2................ 1957 2,400 44,518 Do. 16. Skamokawa (Steamboat Slough), 1932 ............... ............. 40,000 1954 Wash. 1 17. Smith River, Oreg. 2.............. 1957 143,120 ............. Completed 18. The Cascades Canal Columbia R., 1939 3,903,780 559,858 Do. Oreg. s 19. The Dalles-Ce ilo Canal, Oreg. and 1957 4,716,205 2,833,888 Do. Wash. 9 20. Youngs Bay and Youngs River, 1949 9,348 259 Do. Oreg.' Footnotes on following page. RIVERS AND HARBORS - PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1889 OTHER AUTHORIZED NAVIGATION PROJECTS-Cont'd 1Classified inactive. Latest cost estimate-1954. 2 Channel adequate for present commerce. 3 Contract award June 1962 in amount of $82,200 for minor rehabilitation of breakwater. Engineering costs to June 30, 1962, have been $1,812. 4 Preauthorization study cost. 5 Preauthorization study cost of $7,000 included. 8 In addition, $304,826 was expended from contributed funds for new work. In addition, $24,556 was expended from contributed funds, $17,556 for new work and $7,000 for maintenance. 8 Project abandoned due to flooding by Bonneville Dam pool. 9 Project abandoned due to flooding by The Dalles Dam pool. 26. NAVIGATION WORK UNDER SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION Small navigation projects not specifically authorized by Congress (Public Law 645, 86th Congress, July 14, 1960) Date Date of Federal Project Location authorized construc- Date completed cost tion start Elokomin Slough, moorage basin. Cathlamet, Wash.... Apr. 1961 .......... Reconnaissance report *$2,500 'July 1962. Columbia River, alternate barge Portland, Oreg...... .. .do ............. Detailed project report '5,000 channel. Columbia River, small-boat basin. Cascade locks, Oreg.. June 1961 .......... June 20, 1962. Reconnaissance report 'August 1962. 32,500 Rogue River estuary, small- Gold Beach, Oreg... .... do .............. Reconnaissance report 32,500 boat basin. June 1, 1962. Youngs Bay to mouth of Lewis Lewis and Clark Nov. 1961 .......... Reconnaissance report '2,200 and Clark River-removal of River, Oreg. June 12, 1962. shoals. Depoe Bay, widening of en- Depoe Bay, Oreg....... do ............... Reconnaissance report '2,500 trance. 'January 1963. Nehalem River Project, extend Wheeler, Oreg....... Dec. 1961 () '1, 800 pile dike at head of Lazarus Island. Columbia River to Northern Pacific Railroad Bridge chan- Lewis River, Wash... June 1962 .......... Reconnaissance report 'March 1963. 82,500 nel improvement. Cowlitz River channel improve- Longview, Wash..... .. .do....... .......... Reconnaissance report '2,500 ment. 'May 1963. 1 Improvement determined not justified. 2 Scheduled submission date. 3 Cost of report. 1890 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 27. WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN, (PORTLAND, OREG. DISTRICT) Location. The Willamette River is formed by the Coast and Middle Forks which join a few miles above Eugene, Oreg., flows north 189 miles, and enters the Columbia River, 101.5 miles above its mouth. The basin has an area of 11,200 square miles and lies between the Cascade range on the east and the coast range on the west. The major tributaries of the Williamette River rise in the Cascade Mountains and consist of the Coast and Middle Forks and the McKenzie, Calapooya, Santiam, Molalla, and Clackamas Rivers. The important tributaries that head in the coast range are the Luckiamute, Yamhill, and Tualatin Rivers. Minor tribu- taries, all of which enter the main stream from the west, are Marys River, Rickreall Creek, and Long Tom River. Existing project. The Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938, ap- proved the general comprehensive plan for flood control, naviga- tion, and other purposes in the Willamette River Basin, as set forth in House Document 544, 75th Congress, 3d session, and authorized $11,300,000 for the initiation and partial accomplish- ment of the plan recommended for initial development, the reser- voirs and related works to be selected by the Chief of Engineers. Subsequent Flood Control Acts, 1941 through 1960 authorized additional flood control and other works and increased the mone- tary authority to $723,300,000 for the Columbia River Basin, including the Willamette River Basin. The reservoirs and other improvements included in the Willa- mette River Basin comprehensive plan are as follows: Estimated Project Authorized act Federal cost- 1962 Cottage Grove Reservoir, Coast Fork. 1... . . . . .... June 28, 1938, H. Doc. 544, 75th Cong., 3d sess... $2,548,294 Dorena Reservoir, Row River 1............... ... do....................................... 13,751,473 Fern Ridge Reservoir, Long Tom River. ....... . do ............................... . 4,793,780 Lookout Point Reservoir, including Dexter rereg- June 28, 1938, H. Doc. 544, 75th Cong., 3d sess. and 88,100,783 ulating dam, Middle Fork. 1 May 17, 1950, H. Doc. 531, 81st Cong., 2d sess. Hills Creek Reservoir, Middle Fork'1............... May 17, 1950, H. Doc. 531, 81st Cong., 2d sess.... 45,800,000 Fall Creek Reservoir, Middle Fork . .............. do.. ............................... 27,800,000 Cougar Reservoir, South Fork McKenzie. . ...... May 17, 1950, H. Doc. 531, 81st Cong., 2d sess. 54,700,000 and Sept. 3, 1954, S. Doc. 131, 83d Cong., 2d sess. Blue River Reservoir, McKenzie Basin. 3......... May 17, 1950, H. Doc. 531, 81st Cong., 2d sess.... 22,500,000 Gate Creek Reservoir, McKenzie Basin. 3 4........ Recommended project .......................... 19,400,000 Cascadia Reservoir, South Santiam River' ' .......... do ........ ...................... 34,500,000 Green Peter Reservoir, including Foster regulating May 17, 1950, H. Doc. 531, 81st Cong., 2d sess. 75,200,000 dam, Middle Santiam. 1 and Sept. 3, 1954 S. Doc. 131, 83d Cong., 2d sess. July 14, 1960 S. Doc. 104, 86th Cong. Detroit Reservoir, including Big Cliff reregulating June 28, 1938, H. Doc. 544, 75th Cong., 3d sess. 262,729,698 dam, North Santiam River.' and June 30, 1948, Public Law 858. Holley Reservoir, Calapooya River.1 ........... May 17, 1950, H. Doc. 531, 81st Cong., 2d sess.... 13,300,000 Waldo Lake tunnel and reregulating works, North ... do.............. ................. . (9) Fork, Middle Fork, Willamette River. Channel improvements for flood control and major .... do ...................................... 82,165,000 drainage on 16 streams Tributary to Willamette River.' Johnson Creek, vicinity of Portland Oreg........... .. .do .................................... 702,000 Flood walls levees, Portland, Oreg. 7...............do............. ................... 18,900,000 Channel clearing and snagging on Willamette River .... do. 3,020,000 and major tributaries. Willamette Falls fish ladder 7................... . . . do............ .................. 214,000 I Willamette River bank protection . ............. June 22, 1936, Special Report, Division Engr.,lJune 28, 1938, H Doc'. 544, 75th Cong., 3d sess., May 12,600,000 17, 1950, H. Doc. 531, 81st Cong., 2d sess. 1 See individual reports for details of the project. 2 Actual cost. FLOOD CONTROL-PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1891 8 For construction in lieu of originally authorized Quartz Creek Reservoir. Not yet selected for construction. See H. Doc. 531, 81st Cong., 2d sess. For construction in lieu of originally authorized Sweet Home Reservoir. Project deferred for restudy. Project determined inactive. 8 Does not include $13,365,000 reclassified locations. Authorization rescinded August 28, 1958. Public Law 85--820, Aug. 28, 1958, H.R. 8652.) Local cooperation. Section 2 of the Flood Control Act approved June 28, 1938, applies to reservoir projects. Local cooperation for other projects is contained in individual reports for those projects. Operations and results during fiscal year. The progress of preliminary work and status of operations on projects selected for construction are given in individual reports for those projects. No costs were incurred other than those shown under the indi- vidual reports. Condition at end of fiscal year. The following projects have been completed as authorized and are in continuous operation: Fern Ridge Reservoir, completed August 1951; Cottage Grove Reser- voir, March 1952; Dorena Reservoir, October 1952; Detroit Reser- voir, December 1960; and Lookout Point Reservoir, June 1961. Under the authorization for installation of recreation facilities on completed projects work will be accomplished at Fern Ridge, Cottage Grove, Dorena, and Lookout Point Reservoirs. Construc- tion of Hills Creek, Cougar, Green Peter, and Fall Creek Reser- voir projects is in progress. Advance planning for construction of Blue River Reservoir project was in progress during the fiscal year. Advance engineering and design for proposed construction of the Holley Reservoir project has been placed in "deferred" status pending completion of a study to determine extent of in- creased capacity required in Calapooya River for flood control operation of the reservoir. Details of operation, construction, and the financial status of the projects are given in the individual reports. During the low-water season, July-September, supplemental water releases are made from the Willamette River basin reser- voirs for conservation purposes. Interests which benefit from the increased downstream flows include irrigation, navigation, power, pollution abatement and recreation. Although optimum regulation cannot be provided for every conservation interest, water released from the reservoirs during the low-water season for a particular purpose will usually provide benefits to other conservation uses as well. The basic policy is to provide the most beneficial overall regulation, consistent with established water-use priorities. The following table summarizes the status of projects author- ized and recommended under "Willamette River Basin, U.S. Army Engineer District, Portland, Oreg." Approved Total new Cost to June 30, 1962 Project 1962 esti- work allot- Percent Remarks mated cost ments to completed June 30, 1962 New work Maintenance Blue River Reservoir ..... $22,500,000 $665, 700 $641,783 ............ 28 Planning started fis- cal year 1958. Costs include $122,000 for preauthoriza- tion study costs. See footnotes at end of table. 1892 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Approved Total new Cost to June 30, 1962 Project 1962 esti- work allot- Percent Remarks mated cost ments to completed June 30, 1962 New work Maintenance --------- I 1 1 1 , F----I Cascadia Reservoir ....... $34,500,000 2$112,000 2$112,000 Recommended proj- ect. Channel clearing and snag- 3,020,000 15,000 15,000 Costs reflect preau- ging on Willamette thorization study River and major tribu- costs. Project taries. placed in "inac- tive" status Mar. 1961. Channel improvement for 2,165,000 49,879 47,858 1........ . Estimated cost in- flood control and major cludes $25,000, pre- drainage on 16 tribu- authorization study taries to Willamette costs. Cost of 14 River. locations "reclassi- fied" and not con- tained in the esti- mate is $13,365,000. Cottage Grove Reservoir.. 2,548,294 2,388,294 2,377,176 $566,070 100 Construction started August 1940. Dam in operation Sept. 1942. Project com- plete Mar. 1952. Cost includes ad- ditional recreation facilities. Cougar Reservoir......... 54,700,000139,582,000138,032,507 69.5 Construction started June 1956. Costs include $100,000 for preauthoriza- tion studies. Detroit Reservoir and Big 62,729,698 62,729,698 62,729,698 3,573,086 100 Construction started Cliff reregulating dam. May 1947. Dam and reservoir in operation in 1953. Project complete Dec. 1960. Dorena Reservoir......... 13,751,473 13,569,075 13,564,735 476,052 100 Construction started June 1941. Dam and reservoir in operation Nov. 1949. Project com- plete Oct. 1952. Costs include con- struction of addi- tional recreation facilities. Fall Creek Reservoir...... 27,800,000 1,550,000 1,294,197 4.6 Construction started May 1962. Costs include $98,000 for preauthorization studies. Fern Ridge Reservoir ..... 4,793,780 4,559,380 4,551,110 913,355 100 Started Apr. 1940. Dam and reservoir in operation in 1942. Project com- plete Aug. 1951. Costs include con- struction of addi- tional recreation facilities. Floodwall and levees at 18,900,000 Project placed in "in- Portland. active" status Mar. 1961. Gate Creek reservoir ...... 19,400,000 $95,000 395,000 Recommended proj- ect. Green Peter reservoir and 75,200,000 48,774,271'8,660,792 11.8 Construction started Foster reregulating dam. June 1961. Costs include $162,900 for preauthoriza- tion studies. Hills Creek Reservoir ..... 45,800,000 1 45,099,500 1 44,763,929 31,019 97.7 Construction started May 1956. Costs include $100,000 for preauthoriza- tion studies. Holley Reservoir ........ 13,300,000 342,204 340,876 .......... 2.6 Planning started fis- cal year 1957, placed in "deferred status" Mar. 1961, pending completion of a study on down- stream require- ments of Calapooya River, Oreg. See footnotes at end of table. FLOOD CONTROL---PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1893 Approved Total New Cost to June 30, 1962 Project 1962 esti- work allot- Percent Remarks mated cost ments to completed June 30, 1962 New work Maintenance Johnson Creek at Port- $702,000 $157,000 $81,908 ............ 11.6 Planning started fis- land, Oreg. cal year 1956. Costs include $15,000 for preauthorisation study. Advertise- ment for construc- tion pending receipt of right-of-way. Lookout Point reservoir 88,100, 783 87,830, 783 87, 817,237 $3,180,217 100 Construction started and Dexter reregulating May 1947. In oper- dam. ation Dec. 1954. Project complete June 1961. Costs include construc- tion of additional recreation facilities. Willamette Falls fish lad- 214,000 .......... .. .. .... ........ Project classified in- der. active. Willamette River Basin 12,600,000 8,940,424 8,898,976 1,445,214 70.6 Construction initiated bank protection. in 1938. Costs in- clude $100,000 for preauthorization studies. 502,725,028 276,460,208 274,024,782 10,185,013 54.6 ' Includes $96,000 pro rata cost of site selection studies. 2 $112,000 pro rata cost of site selection studies. 3 $95,000 pro rata cost of site selection studies. 4Includes $113,000 pro rata cost of site selection studies. 28. DETROIT RESERVOIR, OREG. Location. On North Santiam River, with damsite 50 miles from the mouth and 45 miles southeast of Salem, Oreg. North Santiam River flows north and west for 85 miles, and unites with South Santiam River to form Santiam River, which 10 miles downstream enters the Willamette River 108 miles above its mouth. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for the construction of one main dam and a reregulating dam, both with power-generating facilities. Detroit Dam is a concrete gravity structure approximately 1,522 feet in length and 454 feet in height from foundation to roadway deck. The spillway is a gate-controlled overflow section, and the outlet works are gate-controlled conduits through the dam. The powerhouse with two units having a capacity to 50,000 kilowatts each is located in the right abutment immediately below the dam. The reservoir has a storage capacity at full pool of 454,900 acre- feet. It is being operated as a unit in the coordinated reservoir system to protect the Willamette Valley from floods, to increase low waterflows in the interest of navigation and irrigation, to generate power, and for other purposes. The reregulating dam located 3 miles downstream at the Big Cliff site is of the concrete gravity type, approximately 172 feet in height from foundation to roadway deck. The power installation consists of one unit with a capacity of 18,000 kilowatts. The reservoir created by the dam has a storage capacity of 5,930 acre-feet at full pool. The project is a unit of comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the Willamette Basin. The existing project was selected for construction under the general authorization for the Willamette River Basin contained in Flood Control Act 1894 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 approved June 28, 1938. The Flood Control Acts of December 22, 1944, and July 24, 1946, modified the project to provide for recrea- tional facilities, and the Flood Control Act of June 30, 1948, modified the existing project to provide for the installation of hydrolectric power-generating facilities including the construction of a reregulating dam. The cost of the project is $62,729,698, of which $8,248,000 has been for lands and damages, including relocations, and $54,481,698 for construction. The average annual maintenance and operation cost for the past 5 years was $489,366. Local cooperation. None required. Operations and results during fiscal year. The project was in operation throughout the fiscal year with ordinary maintenance and care accomplished as required. In addition, by contract, in- stallation of security lighting and fencing was accomplished at Detroit Dam and at Big Cliff reregulating dam and a waterline installed at Detroit Dam. At the end of the fiscal year a contract was awarded for reroofing the Detroit Dam control house and the Big Cliff powerhouse. During the fiscal year, a total of 438,710,000 kilowatt-hours of electrical energy was generated at the project, of which 435,182,- 000 kilowatt-hours was delivered to Bonneville Power Administra- tion, the marketing agency. A total of 454,100 persons visited the reservoir area during the fiscal year for recreational purposes. Two floods and one freshet were regulated by Detroit Reservoir during fiscal year 1962. Flooding on the North Santiam was pre- vented by the regulation of Detroit project but the main stem of Santiam River flooded several times during the fiscal year. The flood of December 20, 1961, had a peak inflow to Detroit Reservoir of 16,000 cubic feet per second. Regulation of the flood required 110,115 acre-feet of storage space. The flood of November 22, 1961, and the freshet of March 27, 1962, were well controlled by regulation of the releases. However, the South Santiam and main stem of Santiam Rivers flooded several times during the flood periods due to heavy inflows from the uncontrolled areas. Conservation filling of the Detroit Reservoir fell behind sched- ule throughout the early part of the filling season due to subnormal spring runoff caused by below-normal precipitation and tempera- ture. Increased inflows starting the latter part of April 1962 per- mitted the reservoir to be filled approximately on schedule. The pool was held about one foot below maximum conservation pool to avoid refloating debris along the shores of the reservoir. Total costs for the fiscal year were $521,077 for maintenance (operation and care). Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project initiated in May 1947 was completed December 1960. The two powerhouse generating units were placed in commercial operation June and October 1953, respectively. At Big Cliff powerhouse the single generating unit was placed on the line June 1954. Use of Big Cliff Dam for reregulating the FLOOD CONTROL-PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1895 fluctuating flow from the Detroit units was effected in October 1953. Total costs have been $66,302,784, of which $62,729,698 was for new work and $3,573,086 for maintenance (operation and care). Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated......... ......... -$13,000 $13,000 -$302 ............ $62,729,698 Cost................. $69,268 5,297 10,114 11,457 .. 62,729,698 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... 513,300 429,100 446,210 566,000 $453,900 3,601,978 Cost................. 487,126 489,622 453,257 495,747 521,077 3,573,086 29. GREEN PETER RESERVOIR, OREG. Location. At approximate mile 5.5 on Middle Santiam River which joins South Santiam River about 56.8 miles above its con- fluence with Willamette River. The location of the dam is about 30 miles southeast of Albany in Linn County, Oreg. The drainage area above the damsite is 277 square miles. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for the construction of a concrete gravity dam having a gate-controlled spillway. The outlet works will consist of two conduits through the spillway, discharging into a stilling basin. A powerplant with an installed capacity of 80,000 kilowatts will be located on the right bank adjacent to the spillway stilling basin. The dam will form a reservoir having a storage capacity at full pool of 430,000 acre- feet, extending 6.5 miles up Quartzville Creek and some 7.5 miles up the Middle Santiam above the creek junction, forming a Y- shaped pool. Under the Flood Control Act of July 14, 1960, the construction of a multiple-purpose dam at Foster, Oreg., about 7 miles down- stream from Green Peter Dam site was authorized to replace the White Bridge reregulating dam which was authorized under the Flood Control Act of September 3, 1954. The Foster Dam on South Santiam River about 38.5 miles above its confluence with Santiam River will consist of an earth-gravel rockfill 3,500 feet in length with a gate-controlled spillway and stilling basin. The power installation will be three units with a capacity of 30,000 kilowatts. The improvement will function as a unit in the coordinated sys- tem of reservoirs for multiple-purpose development of the water resources in Willamette River Basin. The Green Peter Reservoir project was originally authorized by the Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950 to be constructed in lieu of Sweet Home Reservoir authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938. The Flood Control Act of September 3, 1954 authorized installation of power facilities at Green Peter Dam. The estimated project cost (1962) is $79,900,000, of which $17,960,000 is for lands and damages including relocations, and $61,940,000 for construction. Local cooperation. None required. Operations and results during fiscal year. Excavation of _the 1896 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 damsite and widening of 1.5 miles of County Road 912 were ac- complished. Under two contracts construction of relocated right bank road downstream end to Thistle Creek was 60.3 percent ac- complished and construction of Whitcomb Creek Bridge initiated. Clearing of reservoir area was also underway. Design memorandum covering construction of the Green Peter "concrete gravity dam" was approved November 1961 and plan- ning for construction progressed to 58 percent accomplishment. Preparation of memoranda and planning covering the power- house and equipment continued. Preparation of design memoranda was also underway in con- nection with construction of Foster Dam to be located about 7 miles downstream from Green Peter Dam site. The "Site Selec- tion" memorandum was submitted for approval May 1962. Total costs for the fiscal year were $6,153,182. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project initiated June 1961 is 11.8 percent complete. Right bank road relocation work is underway and clearing of reservoir area initiated. Planning for construction of the Green Peter Dam, the powerhouse, and procurement of equipment, is in progress. Advance engineering is underway in connection with the authorized construction of the multiple-purpose dam at Foster, Oreg., about 7 miles downstream from Green Peter Dam site. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $8,660,792, which in- cludes $113,000 pro rata share of site selection studies for alternrate sites in lieu of Sweet Home Reservoir, originally authorized. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 2 New work: Appropriated..........$254,000 $256,000 $5,000 $1,456,000 $6,200,000 $8,774,271 Cost .................. 264,420 184,653 81,587 1,393,773 6,153,182 8,660,792 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $26,273 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963............ ............ 4,900,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 4,926,273 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ...................... 66,225,729 1 Includes $113,000 pro rata share of site-selection costs in lieu of Sweet Home Reservoir. IIncludes $162,900 preauthorization study costs. 30. HOLLEY RESERVOIR, OREG. Location. On Calapooya River, a tributary of Willamette River, 49.7 miles above the confluence of the two streams. The damsite is located about 25 miles southeast of Albany, Oreg. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for the construction of an earth-and-gravel-fill embankment 4,700 feet long with maximum height of 150 feet above streambed. Flood- control outlet works and an uncontrolled-chute spillway will be located in the left abutment. The reservoir formed by the dam will have a usable storage capacity of 90,000 acre-feet and will be operated as a unit in the coordinated system of reservoirs for mul- tiple-purpose development of the water resources in Willamette River Basin. FLOOD CONTROL-PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1897 The Holley Reservoir project was authorized by the Flood- Control Act approved May 17, 1950, House Document 531, 81st Congress, 2d session. The estimated cost (1961) is $13,300,000 of which $4,735,000 is for lands and damages including relocations, and $8,565,000 for construction. Local cooperation. None required. Operations and results during fiscal year. Miscellaneous report data was prepared and funds were transferred to the U.S. Geologi- cal Survey for stream-gaging purposes. Total costs for the fiscal year were $4,947. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project was placed in "De- ferred status" March 16, 1961, pending completion of a study to determine extent of increased capacity required in Calapooya River for flood-control operation of Holley Reservoir. A separately authorized channel improvement project for flood control and major drainage which would have provided more than enough capacity for flood-control operation cannot be constructed because of lack of required local cooperation. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $340,875 for advance engineering. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: .......... Appropriated $125,000 $100,305 -$58,100 ............ ............ $342,204 Cost.................. 118,329 59,965 1,054 $1,155 $4,947 340,875 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962................... ....... $1,329 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................. 1,329 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project..................... 12,957,796 1 Includes $100,000 preauthorization study costs. 31. BLUE RIVER RESERVOIR, OREG. Location. On Blue River, a major tributary of McKenzie River, 1.1 mile above the confluence of the two streams and about 38 miles easterly of Eugene, Oreg. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for an earth-and-gravel-fill embankment, about 1,175 feet long at the crest and 305 feet high above the foundation. The spillway will be a free overflow-chute type, 125 feet in length and located on the right bank through a narrow ridge separating Simmonds Creek from Blue River. The outlet works will be located in the left abut- ment. On the left shore of the reservoir a low saddle between Blue River and McKenzie River will be closed with an earth-and- gravel-fill dike approximately 1,400 feet long and having a maxi- mum height of 50 feet. The reservoir will provide 85,000 acre-feet of usable flood-control storage and will be operated as a unit of the coordinated reservoir system to protect the Willamette River Valley and to increase low waterflows for navigation and for other purposes. The project is one of two reservoirs authorized by the Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, to be constructed in lieu of Quartz 1898 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Creek Reservoir, authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938. The estimated project cost (1962) is $30,500,000 of which $4,- 980,000 is for lands and damages including relocations, and $25,- 520,000 for construction. Local cooperation. None required. Operations and results during fiscal year. A site selection de- sign memorandum submitted November 1961 was returned to divi- sion engineer by higher authority in April 1962 with a request that additional studies be made on the three recommended sites. Preparation of design memoranda was in progress covering hydrology and meterology, general, real estate, relocations, geol- ogy, and preliminary master plan. Total costs for the fiscal year were $41,575 for advance plan- ning. Condition at end of fiscal year. No construction has been done. Advance engineering, planning, and field work for preparation of design memoranda are in progress. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $641,783 for advance engineering. This sum includes $96,000 for pro rata share of site selection studies for alternate sites in lieu of Quartz Creek Reser- voir originally authorized. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 s New work: Appropriated. ......... $100,000 $119,000 $102,000 $170,000 -$43,300 $665,700 Cost.................. 63,860 146,887 82,983 88,478 41,575 641,788 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962.......................... $23,907 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963........... .... .............. 500,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963. ................. 23,907 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project. .................. .. 29,334,300 1 Includes $96,000 pro rata share of site-selection costs in lieu of Quartz Creek Reservoir. 2 Includes $122,000 preauthorization study costs. 32. COUGAR RESERVOIR, WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN, OREG. Location. At mile 4.4 on south fork McKenzie River which joins McKenzie River about 56.5 miles above its confluence with Wil- lamette River. The location of the dam is approximately 42 miles east of Eugene, Oreg. The drainage area above the dam site is 210 square miles. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for the construction of a rockfill dam with an impervious earth core, about 1,400 feet long at the crest and 515 feet high above the foun- dation. The dam will form a reservoir 6 miles long with a usable capacity at full pool of 165,000 acre-feet. The spillway will be located on the right abutment and the outlet and power tunnels in the left abutment. The outlet tunnel will be provided with a chute and stilling basin. The powerplant will consist of two 12,500 kilowatt units with minimum provision for installing a third unit of 35,000 kilowatts for future peaking capac- ity. The improvement will function as a unit in the coordinated FLOOD CONTROL---PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1899 system of reservoirs for multiple-purpose development of the water resources in Willamette River Basin. The project is one of two reservoirs authorized by the Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, to be constructed in lieu of Quartz Creek Reservoir authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938. The Flood Control Act of September 3, 1954 authorized in- stallation of power facilities. The estimated project cost (1962) is $54,700,000, of which $9,900,000 is for lands and damages including relocations, and $44,800,000 for construction. Local cooperation. None required. Operations and results during fiscal year. Construction of Cougar Dam, outlet works, power intake works and appurtenances was 65.2 percent complete. At the end of the fiscal year, placing of the rockfill portion of the dam and concreting of the regulating outlet and the intake structure were in progress. Under a separate contract for construction of the powerhouse and installation of Government-furnished equipment work progressed to 27.1 percent completion. Construction of east side road relocation, East Fork to Walker Creek section was completed September 1961. Under a separate contract, construction of east side road from Walker Creek to the upper end was 87 percent complete in November 1961 when work was halted for the winter months. In May 1962 contractor was placed in default. Completion of the relocation will be ac- complished under a separate contract to be awarded June 1962. The construction cost will be paid by the bonding company. The installation of additional ponds and modification of intake works at Leaburg Hatchery located at Leaburg Dam on McKenzie River, Oreg., are in progress with 40 percent of the cost charged to Cougar project. Contracts were in effect during the year for the furnishing of required powerhouse equipment. Total costs for the fiscal year were $9,953,815. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project initiated June 1956 is 69.5 percent complete. Reservoir clearing, west side road, and east side road relocation, except the portion Walker Creek to the upper end, are accomplished. Construction of the Cougar dam is scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 1964. Total costs to June 30, 1962 have been $38,032,507. This sum includes $96,000 pro rata share of site-selection cbsts for alternate sites in lieu of Quartz Creek Reservoir originally authorized. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 2 New work: Appropriated.......... $4,015,000 $5,170,000 $6,279,500$11,462,000 $9,900,000 $39,582,000 Cost..................4,081,985 4,666,819 5,714,512 11,235,175 9,953,815 38,032,507 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .............................. $136,350 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963............................. 8,500,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963................. 8,636,350 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ................... ..... 6,618,000 1Includes $96,000 pro rata share of site selection in lieu of Quartz Creek Reservoir 2Includes $100,000 preauthorization study costs. 1900 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 33. FERN RIDGE RESERVOIR, OREG. Location. On the Long Tom River, 23.6 miles from the mouth. The Long Tom River rises in Lane County, Oreg., on the eastern slope of the Coast Range, flows north for 50 miles, and enters the Willamette River 147 miles above its mouth. The drainage area tributary to this reservoir is 252 square miles. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for con- struction of an earthfill dam, 6,360 feet long at the crest, and two auxilliary dikes, 850 and 3,680 feet long, along the northeasterly boundary of the reservoir. The main dam has a maximum height of 44 feet above the streambed. The spillway, located near the left abutment, consists of a gravity section concrete overflow structure controlled by six automatic radial gates. Outlet works are located in the spillway structure. The project includes rectifi- cation of the channel of Long Tom River downstream from the dam. The reservoir, having a storage capacity of 101,200 acre-feet, at full pool, protects the Long Tom River Valley and is being operated as a unit of the coordinated reservoir system to protect the Willamette River Valley generally and to increase low water- flows for navigation. The existing project was selected for construction under the general authorization for the Willamette River Basin contained in the Flood Control Act approved June 28, 1938. The Flood Con- trol Acts of December 22, 1944, July 24, 1946, and September 3, 1954, modified the project for recreational facilities. Construction of the project, as authorized, cost $4,495,780, of which $826,734 is for lands and damages, $3,560,046 for con- struction, and $109,000 for recreation facilities. The construc- tion of additional recreation facilities for the completed project is estimated to cost $298,000 raising the total project cost to $4,793,- 780 (1962.) The average annual maintenance and operation cost for the past 5 years was $68,184. Local cooperation. None required. Operations and results during fiscal year. Under the authoriza- tion for construction of recreation facilities on a completed project, initial work was completed September 1961, by contract. A second contract for installation of facilities at Zumwalt Park location was awarded June 1962. A total of 437,500 persons visited the reservoir area this fiscal year for recreational purposes. Maintenance: The dam and reservoir were in operation through- out the fiscal year with ordinary maintenance accomplished as re- quired. In June 1962 a contract was awarded for repair and construc- tion of bank-protection works at various locations along both banks of the Long Tom River downstream from the Fern Ridge Reservoir. With the exception of delaying the conservation drawdown, regulation of Fern Ridge Reservoir during the fiscal year 1962 was normal. Three small floods that occurred during the year were completely controlled at the dam. The highest flood of the year occurred on March 27, 1962. Peak FLOOD CONTROL-PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1901 inflow to Fern Ridge Reservoir was estimated to be 7,200 cubic feet per second and required 19,400 acre-feet of storage to control it. The flood of December 21, 1961, had a peak inflow of 7,000 cubic feet per second and the flood of November 23, 1961, had a peak inflow of 6,000 cubic feet per second. In the interest of recreation, which is more developed at Fern Ridge than at the other Willamette reservoirs, scheduled draw- down of Fern Ridge was delayed until October 2, 1961. Stored water in Cottage Grove, Dorena, and Lookout Point Reservoirs was used to supplement low waterflows in Willamette River. Be- ginning of drawdown of Fern Ridge Reservoir for flood control was delayed from September 1, to October 2, 1961, by special permission. Minimum conservation pool was reached November 15, 1961. Conservation filling at Fern Ridge Reservoir began February 1, 1962. Maximum conservation pool, elevation 373.5, was reached May 11, 1962, 11 days later than scheduled. Total costs for the fiscal year were $145,646, of which $47,423 was for new work installation of additional recreation facilities, and $98,223 for maintenance (operation and care). Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project initiated April 1940 was completed August 1951, except for the construction of additional recreation facilities authorized in 1954. The dam and reservoir have been in continuous operation since December 1941. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $5,464,465 of which $4,551,110 was for new work and $913,355 for maintenance (op- eration and care). Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ......... .................... .......... $33,000 $30,600 1$4,559,380 Cost ..................... ...... .......... ......... 7,907 47,423 4,551,110 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... $50,600 $57,700 $73,510 59,000 120,300 2936,396 Cost.................. 49,036 61,842 71,792 60,030 98,223 913,355 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ........................... $270 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963................ ................. 50,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 50,270 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ...................... 184,400 1 Includes $63,600 allotted under Code 710, recreation facilities on completed project. 2 Includes $9,750 allotted under Code 700, deferred maintenance. 34. FALL CREEK RESERVOIR, OREG. Location. On Fall Creek, a tributary of the Middle Fork Wil- lamette River, about 7 miles above the confluence of the streams and about 19 miles southeasterly of Eugene, Oreg. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for an earth-and-gravel-fill embankment, about 5,630 feet long at the crest and 200 feet high above the foundation. The spillway will be a free overflow-chute type, 305 feet in length and located in the left abutment. The outlet will be in the right abutment. The reservoir will provide 115,000 acre-feet of usable flood-control 1902 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 storage and will be operated as a unit of the coordinated reservoir system to protect the Willamette River Valley and to increase low waterflows for navigation, and for other purposes. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, House Document 531, 81st Congress, 2d session. The estimated cost of the project (1962) is $27,800,000, of which $7,630,000 is for lands and damages including relocations, and $20,170,000 for construction. Local cooperation. None required. Operations and results during fiscal year. Design memoranda were approved covering general design, real estate, relocations, clearing, and preliminary master plan. A memorandum on outlet works and spillway including fish facility considerations was sub- mitted to higher authority in May 1962. Construction of the project was initiated May 1962 with work on right bank road downstream end to Fall Creek in progress. Also at the end of the fiscal year construction of the lower crossing bridge and core drilling and sampling of the proposed quarry site were underway under two contracts. Total costs for the fiscal year were $699,537. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project initiated May 1962 is 14.6 percent completed. Right-bank road relocation work is in progress. Planning is in progress for ad- ditional required road relocation, for reservoir clearing, and for construction of the project dam. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $1,294,197. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962' New work: Appropriated.......... $150,000 $150,000 $197,000 $5,000 $950,000 $1,550,000 Cost................. 116,545 133,034 178,017 69,064 699,537 1,294,197 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .......................... $94,440 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963................... ............ 1,900,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963............... 1,994,440 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project..................... 24,350,000 'Includes $98,000 preauthorization study costs. 35. HILLS CREEK RESERVOIR, OREG. Location. On the Middle Fork, Willamette River, 47.8 miles from the mouth and 26.5 miles upstream from the Lookout Point Dam. The Middle Fork, Willamette River rises on the west slope of the Cascade Range and flows northwesterly to its junction with the Coast Fork, Willamette River 4 miles southeast of Eugene, Oreg., to form the main Willamette River. The location of the dam is about 45 miles southeast from Eugene, Oreg. The drain- age area above the damsite is 389 square miles. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for con- struction of an earth-and-gravel-fill dam about 2,150 feet long at the crest and 304 feet high above the foundation. A gated spill- way of the straight-chute type with a flip bucket will be located in the right abutment. The dam will form a reservoir about 8.5 FLOOD CONTROL-PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1903 miles long, with a usable-storage capacity of 249,000 acre-feet at full pool. A diversion tunnel, an outlet tunnel, and a power tunnel will be located in the right abutment. The powerhouse with two 15,000-kilowatt units will be located between the spillway and the earth dam. The Hills Creek Reservoir project is an integral unit of the comprehensive plan for development of the water resources of the Willamette River Basin. The Hills Creek and Lookout Point Reservoirs will be operated as a unit for control of floods and generation of power on the Middle Fork Willamette River. These reservoirs, in conjunction with the Dexter reregulating dam and the Fall Creek flood-control reservoir, will effectively control floods on the Middle Fork and provide maximum efficient generation of hydroelectric power. The Hills Creek Reservoir project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950. The estimated cost of the project (1962) is $45,800,000, of which $10,289,300 is for lands and damages including relocations, and $35,510,700 for construction. Local cooperation. None required. Operations and results during fiscal year. The project was placed in service for flood control at the end of November 1961 and the first water released through the regulating outlet Decem- ber 1961. The Hills Creek Dam, outlet and power-intake works were accepted as complete the end of February 1962. Construction of the powerhouse and installation of equipment have been essentially completed. On May 2, 1962, the two power generators were placed in commercial operation. Construction of the powerhouse access road has been essentially completed under a separate contract. Relocation of east side road under two contracts, Hills Creek to Modoc Creek, and from Modoc Creek to upper end was com- pleted August 1961 and the erection of guardrail and sight posts accomplished April 1962 under a separate contract. At the end of the fiscal year the removal of debris from the reservoir had been initiated. The installation of additional ponds and modification of intake works at Leaburg Hatchery located at Leaburg Dam on McKenzie River, Oreg., are in progress with 60 percent of the cost charged to Hills Creek project. During the fiscal year, a total of 11,409,000 kilowatt-hours of electrical power were generated of which 11,338,000 kilowatt- hours were delivered to Bonneville Power Administration, the marketing agency. On April 10, 1962, the operation and maintenance status was assigned on the rockfill dam, spillway, intake tower, and flood- control outlets. Due to below-normal precipitation and tempera- ture, filling of the reservoir was behind schedule during the first half of the filling season. However, above normal precipitation during the latter part of April 1962 permitted an accelerated filling and the reservoir reached maximum conservation pool eleva- tion 1,541, May 23, 1962, approximately on schedule. Total costs for the fiscal year were $2,575,106, of which 1904 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 $2,544,087 was for new work and $31,019 for maintenance (opera- tion and care). Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project initiated May 1956 is 97.7 percent complete. Final project comple- tion will be in fiscal year 1964. Relocation of west and east side roads has been accomplished. Construction of Hills Creek Dam is complete and the power- house and installation of equipment essentially completed. The two power generators were placed in operation May 2, 1962. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $44,794,948, of which $44,763,929 was for new work and $31,019 for maintenance (operation and care). Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated .......... $7,751,000 $13,620,000 $9,333,000 $9,870,000 $1,100,000 $45,099,500 Cost.................. 7,699,542 13,449,248 9,518,717 8,254,419 2,544,087 44,763,929 Maintenance: Appropriated......... .......... ....................... ............ 38,800 38,800 Cost..................... .......... .......... 31,019 31,019 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962........................... $102,460 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963.................................. 280,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963.................. 382,460 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ................... . 420,500 SIncludes $100,000 preauthorization study costs. 36. LOOKOUT POINT RESERVOIR OREG. Location. On the Middle Fork, Willamette River at Meridian site, 21.3 miles from the mouth. The Middle Fork, Willamette River, rises in Lane County on the western slope of the Cascade Range and flows northwesterly to its junction with the Coast Fork, which is the head of the main stem Willamette River. The damsite is approximately 22 miles southeast from Eugene, Oreg. The drainage area tributary to the reservoir is 991 square miles. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for the construction of a main dam at Meridian site and a reregulating dam 3 miles downstream at Dexter site. Both dams are earth- and-gravel-fills with concrete gravity spillways and have power- generating facilities. The main dam has a height of 258 feet from foundation to deck and is 3,381 feet long at the crest forming a reservoir 14.2 miles long providing storage of 456,000 acre-feet at full-pool level. The spillway, 274 feet long, is a gate-controlled overflow type, forming the right abutment. Outlet works consist- ing of slide-gate-controlled conduits pass through the spillway section. The powerhouse has three main generating units with a capacity of 120,000 kilowatts. The reregulating dam has a maximum height of 107 feet above the foundation and is 2,765 feet long at the crest, forming a full pool of 27,500 acre-feet ex- tending upstream to the main dam and providing pondage to regulate Lookout Point powerhouse water releases to a uniform discharge. The spillway consists of a gate-controlled overflow section 509 feet long forming the right abutment. Flow regulation FLOOD CONTROL-PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1905 will be accomplished by use of the spillway gates and releases through the powerhouse, which contains one 15,000-kilowatt unit. Lookout Point and Dexter Dams are operated as a single unit of a coordinated system of dams to protect Willamette River Valley against floods, to provide needed hydroelectric power, and to in- crease low waterflows for navigation, irrigation, and other pur- poses. The existing project, authorized as a unit of the comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the Willamette River Basin, was authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938, House Document 544, 75th Congress, 3d session. The Flood Con- trol Acts of December 22, 1944, July 24, 1946, and September 3, 1954, modified the project for recreational facilities. The Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, House Document 531, 81st Congress, 2d session, modified the project to provide for power-generating facilities. Construction of the project as authorized cost $87,780,783, of which $38,243,000 is for lands and damages including relocations, $49,506,783 for construction, and $31,000 for recreation facilities. The construction of additional recreation facilities for the com- pleted project is estimated to cost $320,000, raising the total proj- ect cost to $88,100,783 (1962). The average annual maintenance and operation cost for the past 5 years has been $473,559. Local cooperation. None required. Operations and results during fiscal year. Under the authoriza- tion for construction of recreation facilities on a completed project initial work was completed September 1961, by contract. A second contract for installation of facilities at the reregulating dam 3 miles downstream from Lookout Point Dam at Dexter site was awarded June 1962. Maintenance: Ordinary maintenance (operation and care) was continued throughout the fiscal year. Repair of the upstream slope of the dam was completed February 1962 with the placing of 15,- 579.5 cubic yards of stone. Construction of bank-protection works including placing of riprap at Dexter Dam was accomplished in May 1962. A total of 101,100 persons visited the reservoir area during the fiscal year for recreational purposes. During fiscal year 1962, a total of 282,477,000 kilowatt-hours of electrical power energy was generated at the project, of which 281,020,000 kilowatt-hours were delivered to Bonneville Power Administration, the marketing agency. During fiscal year 1962, three floods were regulated by Lookout Point Reservoir and as the result only minor flooding occurred in the Middle Fork Willamette Basin. The largest flood occurred on November 22, 1961. Peak inflow to Lookout Point was 36,000 cubic feet per second. The reservoir release during the flood was held to 100 cubic feet per second. In- flows from uncontrolled areas did cause minor flooding in the Middle Fork Willamette River but no significant damage was re- ported. The floods of December 21, 1961, and March 27, 1962, 1906 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 with inflows of 22,500 and 15,000 cubic feet per second, respec- tively, were well controlled at the project. Conservation filling of Lookout Point Reservoir fell far behind schedule during the first 3 months of the filling season due to subnormal spring runoff caused by below-normal precipitation and temperature. Maximum conservation pool, elevation 926, was reached on May 11, 1962, approximately on schedule. Extra storage releases from Lookout Point Reservoir from the middle of July through October 1961, augmented releases from other projects in the Willamette River Basin to substantially in- crease the low flow of the Middle Fork and Willamette Rivers in the interest of irrigation, navigation, and other water uses. Total costs for the fiscal year were $590,360, of which $31,869 was for new work installation of additional recreation facilities, and $558,491 for maintenance (operation and care). Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project initiated May 1947 was completed June 1961, except for the construction of additional recreation facilities authorized in 1954. At Lookout Point powerhouse, generating units 1 and 2 were placed in commercial operation December 16, 1954, and February 16, 1955, respectively. Unit 3 was placed on the line April 24, 1955. At Dexter powerhouse the single unit was placed on the line May 16, 1955. Use of Dexter Dam for reregulating the fluctuating flows from the Lookout Point units was effected in December 1954. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $90,997,454, of which $87,817,237 was for new work and $3,180,217 for maintenance (operation and care). Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated. .......... $200,000 $440,000 $500,000 $231 $29,800 1$87,830,583 Cost.................. 614,611 338,371 523,825 137,135 31,869 87,817,237 M aintenance: Appropriated .......... 433,000 450,000 424,700 495,400 585,000 3,226,600 Cost................. 423,831 459,693 442,056 482,727 558,491 3,180,217 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ........................... $347 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 ................... ........... 20,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................. 20,347 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ..................... 250,200 1 Includes $49,800 allotted under Code 710, Recreation facilities on completed project. 37. DORENA RESERVOIR, OREG. Location. Dorena Reservoir is located on Row River, Oreg., 7 miles from the mouth. Row River rises in Lane County on the western slope of the Cascade Range, flows northwest for 19 miles, and enters the Coast Fork of Willamette River 191/2 miles above the mouth. The drainage area, tributary to this reservoir, is 265 square miles. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for con- struction of an earthfill dam, 3,388 feet long at the crest rising 145 feet above the streambed, with a reservoir providing usable storage capacity at normal pool level of 70,500 acre-feet. The FLOOD CONTROL-PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1907 spillway, 200 feet long, is a concrete gravity, overflow-type, form- ing the right abutment. Outlet works consisting of five slide-gate- controlled conduits pass through the spillway section. The reservoir, controlling practically the entire drainage area of Row River, will be operated as a unit of the coordinated reservoir sys- tem to protect the Willamette River Valley and to increase low waterflows for navigation, and for other purposes. The existing project was selected for construction under the general authorization for the Willamette River Basin contained in the Flood Control Act approved June 28, 1938. The Flood Control Acts of December 22, 1944, July 24, 1946, and September 3, 1954, modified the project for recreational facili- ties. Construction of the project as authorized cost $13,529,473 which sum included $27,000 for recreation facilities. The construction of additional recreation facilities for the completed project is estimated to cost $222,000, raising the total project cost to $13,- 751,473 (1962). The average annual maintenance and operation cost for the past 5 years has been $42,780. Local cooperation. None required. Operations and results during fiscal year. Under the authoriza- tion for construction of recreation facilities on a completed project initial work was completed September 1961, by contract. A second contract for installation of facilities at Baker Bay location was awarded June 1962. A total of 39,900 persons visited the reservoir area this fiscal year for recreational purposes. Maintenance: The dam and reservoir were in operation through- out the fiscal year with ordinary maintenance accomplished as required. During fiscal year 1962, Dorena Reservoir functioned normally with one major flood and two minor floods regulated. The flood of November 23, 1961, had a peak inflow to Dorena Reservoir of 20,000 cubic feet per second. The release during the flood was held to 140 cubic feet per second, and 44,450 acre-feet of storage space was used to hold back the floodwaters. Minor flooding occurred on the Coast Fork Willamette River during the November flood but no significant damage was reported. Minor floods, which had peak inflows of 9,000 and 7,700 cubic feet per second, were completely controlled at the dam. With the exception of minor-flood regulation, conservation filling of Dorena Reservoir was carried out on schedule. Maximum con- servation pool, elevation 832, was reached on May 19, 1962. For the purpose of clearing debris from the reservoir, the pool was raised about 2 feet above the maximum conservation pool in June 1962. Releases from Dorena Reservoir during August and September 1961 were coordinated with releases from other projects in the Willamette River Basin to substantially increase the low flows of the Coast Fork and Willamette Rivers in the interest of naviga- tion and other conservation purposes. 1908 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Total costs for the fiscal year were $72,538, of which $28,738 was for new work installation of additional recreation facilities and $43,800 for maintenance (operation and care). Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project initiated June 1941 was completed October 1952 except for the construction of additional recreation facilities authorized in 1954. The dam and reservoir have been in continuous operation since November 1949. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $14,040,787, of which $13,564,735 was for new work and $476,052 for maintenance (operation and care). Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... $15,300 ............ -$2,928 $20,000 $19,600 '$13,569,073 Cost ................. 10,967 $1,405 .......... 6,524 28,738 13,564,735 Maintenance: ......... Appropriated. 35,100 38,400 57,730 39,500 45,500 478,915 Cost.................. 34,964 38,890 54,695 41,552 43,800 476,052 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ........................... $338 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963............................. 20,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ..................... 20,338 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ....................... 162,400 1 Includes $39,600 allotted under Code 710, Recreation facilities on completed project. 38. COTTAGE GROVE RESERVOIR, OREG. Location. On the Coast Fork of Willamette River, 29 miles from the mouth. The Coast Fork rises in Douglas County, Oreg., on the western slope of the Cascade Range and the northern slope of the Calapooya Range, flows north for 49 miles, and unites with the Middle Fork to form the main Willamette River. The drainage area tributary to this reservoir is 104 square miles. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for con- struction of an earthfill dam, 1,750 feet long at the crest, rising 95 feet above the streambed, with a reservoir providing for storage of 32,900 acre-feet. The spillway, 264 feet long, is a concrete, gravity, overflow type forming the right abutment. Outlet works, consist- ing of three gate-controlled conduits, pass through the spillway section. The reservoir is operated as a unit of the coordinated reservoir system to protect the Willamette River Valley and to increase low waterflow for navigation. The existing project was selected for construction under the general authorization for the Willamette River Basin, contained in the Flood Control Act approved June 28, 1938. The Flood Con- trol Acts of December 22, 1944, July 24, 1946, and September 3, 1954, modified the project for recreational facilities. Construction of the project as authorized cost $2,373,294 of which $612,386 has been for lands and damages, $1,663,908 for construction and $97,000 for recreation facilities. Construction of additional recreation facilities for the completed project is esti- mated to cost $175,000, raising the total project cost to $2,548,294 (1962). FLOOD CONTROL---PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1909 The average annual maintenance and operation cost for the past 5 years was $28,570. Local cooperation. None required. Operationsand results during fiscal year. Under the authoriza- tion for installation of recreation facilities on a completed project, a contract was awarded in June 1962 for construction of the facilities. A total of 61,700 persons visited the reservoir area this fiscal year for recreational purposes. Maintenance: The dam and reservoir were in operation through- out the fiscal year with ordinary maintenance accomplished as required. Operation of Cottage Grove Reservoir was normal during fiscal year 1962 with one major flood and two minor freshets regulated during the period. Even with upstream storage regulation minor flooding occurred on the Coast Fork Willamette River but no significant damage was reported. The flood of November 23, 1961, had a peak inflow to Cottage Grove Reservoir of 9,500 cubic feet per second. At the same time the release from the reservoir was held to 140 cubic feet per sec- ond. This regulation required 20,400 acre-feet of storage. Two minor freshets, both with peak inflows of 3,000 cubic feet per second, were completely controlled. Conservation filling of Cottage Grove Reservoir began February 1, 1962, and was completed on schedule. Reservoir releases during August and September 1961 were coordinated with releases from other reservoirs in the Willamette River Basin and substantially increased the low natural flows of the Coast Fork and Willamette Rivers in the interest of irrigation, navigation, pollution abatement and fish life. Total costs for the fiscal year were $52,703, of which $3,882 was for new work installation of additional recreation facilities and $48,821 for maintenance (operation and care). Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project ini- tiated August 1940 was completed April 1952 except for the con- struction of additional recreation facilities. The dam and reservoir have been in continuous operation since September 1942. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $2,943,246 of which $2,- 377,176 was for new work and $566,070 for maintenance (opera- tion and care). Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.......... .. ..... .................... ....... $.... 15,000 1$2,388,294 Cost.................. .. ...... .. ........ ................... 3,882 2,377,176 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... $36,500 $38,500 $26,310 $41,100 51,500 569,415 Cost .. 34,490 41,523 22,553 44,283 48,821 566,070 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962........................... $1,654 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963................... 1,654 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ....................... 160,000 1 Includes $15,000 allotted under Code 710, Recreation facilities on completed project. 1910 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 39. JOHNSON CREEK, PORTLAND AND VICINITY, OREG. Location. Johnson Creek, a minor tributary of Willamette River, rises in the low foothills of the Cascade Range and flows in a westerly direction through the towns of Gresham and Lents, along the southeast boundary of the city of Portland to its con- fluence with Willamette River at the town of Milwaukie. Existing project. This provides for channel improvements and bank protection at various locations between mile 15.26 and the mouth. Through the town of Gresham, the project provides for about 1 mile of channel clearing and improvement; between mile 10.3 and mile 9.27 for channel clearing; and between mile 7.79 and the mouth, for channel improvement, clearing, and revetment work including excavation of a bypass channel to pass floodwaters through the constricted industrial and residential reach between mile 7.79 and 5.19. This will provide protection through the town of Gresham against floods of a frequency of once in 7 years, and between mile 10.3 and the mouth against floods of a freequency of once in 25 years. The existing project was adopted by the Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950. House Document 531, 81st Congress, 2d session. The estimated Federal cost (1962) is $702,000. Local cooperation. Local interests are required to furnish as- surances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way; make all necessary highway, highway bridge, and utility alterations; hold and save the United States free from all damages due to the construction works; and maintain and oper- ate the works after completion in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization amount to $728,000 (1962). Local interests have formed a subdistrict, the Southeast Johnson Creek Water Control District and have furnished approved as- surances of cooperation. Required rights-of-way have not been secured. Operationand results during fiscal year. Surveys for the layout of right-of-way requirements were underway. The Southeast John- son Creek Water Control District, the sponsoring interest, experi- enced difficulty in securing easements. Total costs for the fiscal year were $12,624. Condition at end of fiscal year. No construction has been done. Design memorandum covering construction of that portion of the project between the mouth of Johnson Creek and mile 10.3 has been approved. Preparation of plans and specifications for the reach below mile 5.19 is essentially complete. Advertisement is pending receipt of rights-of-way from local interests. On Sep- tember 23, 1958, the sponsoring agency, Southeast Johnson Creek Water Control District, was given notice of 5-year limitation to furnish required assurances. Total costs to June 30, 1962, were $81,908 for advance engi- neering and design. FLOOD CONTROL-PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1911 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ......... -$25,000 -$10,000 ... ...... .. . $157,000 Cost .................. 4,080 3,280 $5,961i$9,320 $12,624 81,908 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962........................ $75,092 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 75,092 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project........................ 545,000 1Includes $15,000 preauthorization study costs. 40. WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN, OREG. (BANK PROTECTION) Location. On Willamette River and tributaries, between the Cas- cade range and the coast range, from a point south of Eugene to Portland, Oreg. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for clearing, sloping, and revetting of riverbanks; construction of pile-and- timber bulkheads and drift barriers; minor channel improvements; and maintenance of existing works for control of floods and prevention of erosion at various locations along Willamette River and its tributaries. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936, and June 28, 1938. The Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, authorized similar work at 77 additional locations. The estimated Federal cost of the project (1962) is $12,600,000. The average annual maintenance cost for the past 5 years was $64,389. Local cooperation. Local interests are required by the Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, to provide all local cooperation specified by section 3 of the act of June 22, 1936, as amended. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization amount to $263,000 (1962). Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: A total of 14,031 linear feet of bank-protection work was completed during the fiscal year at the following locations: Quantity Location Nature of work (linear feet) McKenzie River, Lower Barnet, left bank, mile 19.9............... Stone revetment ............. 3,484 McKenzie River, Chase, left bank, mile 13 .. ................. Stone revetment............. 1,473 Santiam River, Lower Wintermantle, right bank, mile 3.5.......... Stone revetment and drift 1,567 embankment. South Santiam River, Kowitz, right bank, mile 26.1............... Stone revetment and treated 2,958 drift barrier. South Santiam River, Swink, right bank, mile 25.3 ................ Stone revetment ............. 1,468 South Santiam River, Coldspring, right bank, m iit 24.............. Stone revetment and treated 3,081 drift barrier. Also accomplished was restoration and improvement of bank- protection works constructed at six locations in the fall of 1960. On the South Santiam River, left bank, Wilkinson location was provided with additional rock apron. At Bryant the armored gravel spoil bank was extended downstream 367.6 feet making a total length of the revetment 2,972 linear feet. At Burnum and Harlow locations on left bank of McKenzie River additional pro- 1912 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 tection and repair of damage was accomplished. On the right bank at Green location, demolished bank revetment was recon- structed and the bank extended 156.4 feet making total length of the project 1,838 linear feet. In addition, a drift barrier was added. Minor revetment slope repair was also accomplished at Kelso location on Willamette River. In June 1962 contracts were awarded for construction at three locations. Contract plans and specifications for construction of bank protection works in 1962 at seven additional locations have been essentially completed. Maintenance. Revetment repair of bank protection works at 31 locations on Willamette River and tributaries was completed dur- ing the fiscal year by contract and hired labor. Under emergency flood control activities, Public Law 99, repair was accomplished at four locations. Clearing of brush and debris and spraying of woody growth was also accomplished at various locations under a separate contract. In June 1962 a contract was awarded for spraying of woody growth on existing bank protection works at 68 locations on Willamette River and eight streams. Total costs for the fiscal year were $697,265, of which $591,284 was for new work and $105,981 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project initiated in 1938 is 71 percent complete. A total of 358,268 feet of bank-protection works at 156 locations, consisting of the revet- ment of river banks, pile-and-timber bulkheads, drift barriers, and channel improvements has been completed on Willamette River and tributaries. The Annual Reports prepared for the prior construction years itemize 343,713 linear feet of the total by streams and individual locations. Total costs to June 30, 1962, from Federal funds have been $10,- 344,190, of which $8,898,976 was for new work and $1,445,214 for maintenance. In addition, $77,469 has been expended from contributed funds. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 12 New work: Appropriated .......... $450,000 $480,000 $488,000 $570,000 $550,000 $8,940,424 Cost................. 345,833 633,618 448,447 531,743 591,284 8,898,976 Maintenance: Appropriated ........... 47,800 55,900 39,250 69,300 109,600 1,465,350 Cost................. 42,791 79,219 28,367 65,586 105,981 1,445,214 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ......................... $11,328 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963............ ............. 600,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................. 611,328 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ....................... 3,059,576 1 Includes $100,000 preauthorization study costs. SIn addition $77,469 for new work was expended from contributed funds. 41. LOCAL FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECTS, COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN, OREG. AND WASH. Location. The improvements included in this project are located along Columbia River and its tributaries within the confines of the Portland, Oreg. District. The major tributaries of that portion of FLOOD CONTROL-PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1913 Columbia River within the Portland district are the Deschutes, Williamette, Lewis, and Cowlitz Rivers. Existing project. The Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950, approved a general comprehensive plan for the Columbia River Basin for flood control and other purposes as set forth in House Document 531, 81st Congress, 2d session, and authorized to be appropriated the sum of $75 million for the partial accom- plishment of the projects. Of this authorization an amount not to exceed $15 million was authorized for construction of local flood protection works in Columbia River Basin, the individual projec'ts to be selected by the Chief of Engineers with the approval of the Secretary of the Army, subject to the condition that all work un- dertaken pursuant to this authority shall be economically justified prior to construction. The following locations have been considered for protection in the Portland District: Lower Cowlitz River, Wash., actual Federal cost of construction is $183,652. Non-Federal cost $8,000. Cowlitz River at Randle, Wash., estimated Federal cost (1960) $151,000. Non-Federal cost $700. Crooked River at Prineville, Oreg., (1958) $49,000. Non- Federal cost $8,000. Local cooperation. Section 3 of the Flood Control Act approved June 22, 1936, as amended, applies. Operationsand results during fiscal year. Construction of bank- protection works at Fulton location on the left bank of Cowlitz River, approximately 3 miles southwest of Toledo, Wash., was initiated by contract in July 1961 and was accomplished October 1961, completing authorized protection of Lower Cowlitz River. Total costs for the fiscal year were $58,686. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of authorized pro- tection work at three locations on Lower Cowlitz River, Wash., Holder, Kirkendall, and Fulton, was accomplished by contract October 1961. Cowlitz River at Randle, Wash. The project was "Deferred for restudy" category June 1960. Crooked River at Prineville, Oreg. Work deferred until the effect of reservoir regulation by the Bureau of Reclamation, Prine- ville Reservoir, can be observed and the need for any further local improvement determined. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $208,065, of which $11,095 is for Cowlitz River at Randle, Wash., $13,318 for Crooked River at Prineville, Oreg., and $183,652 for the Lower Cowlitz River, Wash., project. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 1 2 New work: .......... Appropriated $10,000 $2,000 $118,100 $70,000 -$18,448 $183,652 Cost.................. 7,960 2,665 11,446 100,895 58,686 183,652 1 Includes $2,000 for preauthorization study costs. 2 Includes $169,552 allotted under Code 721 (small authorized projects). 1914 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 42. LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN, OREG. AND WASH. Location. On Columbia River and minor tributaries, channels, and sloughs, between Sandy River, Oreg., approximately 15 miles east of Vancouver, Wash., and the mouth of Columbia River. Existing project. The plan of improvement for bank-protec- tion work, construction of flood control works, and improvements to existing projects, in the Lower Columbia River Basin, was au- thorized by the Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950. House Document 531, 81st Congress, 2d session. The plan, as follows, provides for new construction and for supplementing and extending projects constructed in the Colum- bia, Lewis, and Cowlitz River Basins, under authority of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936: a. Lower Columbia River Basin levees at new locations, Oregon and Washington. This provides for construction of flood control works at the following locations: Washougal area, Clark County, Wash., approximately 5.5 miles of levee and appurtenant works at an estimated cost (1962) of $1,718,000. Non-Federal costs are $106,000. Kalama River (south area), Cowlitz County, Wash., approxi- mately 3 miles of levee and appurtenant works at an estimated cost (1962) of $933,000. Non-Federal costs are $126,000. Vancouver Lake area in vicinity of Vancouver, Wash., approxi- mately 11 miles of levee and appurtenant works at an estimated cost (1962) of $4,290,000. Non-Federal costs are $1,380,000. The total estimated Federal cost (1962) is $6,941,000. The estimated non-Federal cost (1962) is $1,612,000. The following locations have been reclassified and are excluded from the foregoing estimate: Clatskanie River area, Columbia County, Oreg., "deferred." Federal estimate $185,000 (1959). Non-Federal $11,000. Hayden Island, Multnomah County, Oreg., "inactive." Federal estimate $617,000 (1960). Non-Federal $64,000. b. Lower Columbia River Basin bank protection works, Oregon and Washington. This improvement provides for bank protection works at 61 locations on Columbia River and tributaries between Sandy River and the mouth of Columbia River, totaling approxi- mately 133,680 linear feet. The estimated total Federal cost (1962) is $8,870,000. Non-Federal costs have not been evaluated. c. Lower Columbia River Basin levees and improvement to existing projects. This provides for improvements to existing works at the following locations: Estimated cost of Location work approved (1962) Beaver drainage district, Oreg. ............................... $825,000 Clatskanie drainage district, Oreg. .......................... 183,000 Cowlitz County diking improvement district 2, Wash. ............ 318,000 Cowlitz County diking improvement district 13, Wash. .......... 88,000 Cowlitz County diking improvement district 15, Wash. ........ . 247,000 Cowlitz County consolidated diking improvement district 2, Wash.. 1,470,000 Midland drainage district, Oreg. ........................... 133,000 Multnomah County drainage district 1, Oreg. ................. 1,510,738 Peninsula drainage district 1, Oreg. .......................... 1,350,000 Rainier drainage district, Oreg. ............................. 612,000 Sandy drainage district, Oreg............ ................... '.15,000 Sauvie drainage district, Oreg................................ 750,000 Scappoose drainage district, Oreg............................ 940,000 FLOOD CONTROL-PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1915 Estimated cost of Location work approved (1962) Wahkiakum County consolidated diking district 1, Wash. ........ $1,440,000 Wahkiakum County diking district 4, Wash. ................... 437,000 Woodson drainage district, Oreg. ............................. 89,000 Total estimated cost, Federal funds .................... 10,407,738 Estimated non-Federal cost ........................... 1,172,000 1 Cost is for engineering only. Project was constructed by local interests. The following locations have been reclassified as "inactive" or "deferred" and are excluded from the foregoing cost estimate: Bachelor Island, Wash ..... ...... $865,000 (1955) Clatsop County drainage district 1, Oreg ............... 25,000 (1960) Clatsop County diking district 4, Oreg ................ 35,000 (1955) Clatsop County diking district 6, Oreg ................ 61,000 (1960) Columbia drainage district 1, Oreg .................. 1,071,000 (1955) Cowlitz County consolidated diking improvement dis- trict 1, W ash ..................................... 1,570,000 (1960) Deer Island drainage district, Oreg .................. 548,000 (1960) John drainage district, Oreg ......................... 151,000 (1960) Lake River delta area, Wash ........................ 1,110,000 (1957) Lewis River area, Wash ........................... 729,000 (1955) Magruder drainage district, Oreg .................... 77,000 (1960) Peninsula drainage district No. 2, Oreg ............... 507,000 (1960) The cost of these locations is ................... 6,749,000 The approved (1962) Federal cost for all approved work under the project, Lower Columbia River Basin, Oreg., and Wash., as au- thorized by the Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950 is $26,218,738. Local cooperation. The Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, pro- vides that local interests: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way; (b) make all neces- sary highway, highway bridge, and utility alterations; (c) hold and save the United States free from all damages due to the con- struction works; and (d) maintain and operate the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Sec- retary of the Army. Total non-Federal costs have not yet been evaluated. For details of status of requirements of local coopera- tion see individual project reports. Operations and results during fiscal year. The progress and status of work on projects which have been selected for construc- tion to date are given in the individual projects. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the improve- ment to the existing project in Sandy drainage district, Oreg., has been completed by local interests at no construction cost to the Government. Improvement of Multnomah County drainage district 1, Oreg., was completed by contract June 1961 with minor work accomplished this year and with construction in progress at two additional projects, Sauvie Island drainage district, Oreg., and Rainier drainage district, Oreg. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $3,078,711 for new work. 43. WASHOUGAL AREA, CLARK COUNTY, WASH., LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN LEVEES AT NEW LOCATIONS Location. The area is located in the southeastern part of Clark County, Wash., and extends along Columbia River about 41/2 miles, 1916 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 from Lawton Creek on the east to Washougal River on the west, and includes parts of the towns of Washougal and Camas. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for the construction of approximately 51/2 miles of levees and two tide boxes and pumping plants to protect the area from a flood of the 1948 magnitude. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950, House Document 531, 81st Congress, 2d session. The estimated Federal cost (1962) is $1,718,000. Local cooperation. The Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, provides that local interests: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way; (b) make all necessary highway, highway bridge, and utility alterations; (c) hold and save the United States free from all damages due to the construction works; and (d) maintain and operate the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Total estimated costs of all require- ments of local cooperation under terms of the project authoriza- tion amount to $106,000 (1962). Operations and results during fiscal year. Studies were ini- tiated to determine whether a single-purpose levee with appropri- ate works can be justified. The previously considered highway embankment by the State of Washington dropped at request of local interests. Total costs for the fiscal year were $1,906. Condition at end of fiscal year. No construction has been done. A new plan for industrial development is being considered by local interests. Total costs to June 30, 1962, were $64,042 for advance engi- neering and design. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.......... $29,500 ........ $24,032 ............ I $75,032 Cost.................. 3,421 $19,226 17,047 $2,890 $1,906 64,041 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962.......................... $10,991 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................... 10,991 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project...................... 1,642,968 ' Includes $2,000 preauthorization study costs. 44. MULTNOMAH COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 1, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREG., LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN LEVEES AND IMPROVEMENT TO EXISTING PROJECTS Location. This district is located in Multnomah County and adjoins the northeast city limits of Portland, Oreg., on Columbia River between river miles 108.2 and 119. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for strengthening of the main levee and for the construction of a cross levee to divide the district into two areas to minimize and localize damage due to failure at a point in the main levee. Addi- tional pumping capacity will be provided by the construction of a FLOOD CONTROL---PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1917 pumping plant in the east area of the district. Drainage structures equipped with gates at both ends will be installed at main slough crossings. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Con- trol Act approved May 17, 1950, House Document 531, 81st Con- gress, 2d session. The Federal cost of the project improvement is $1,510,738. Local cooperation. The Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, provides that local interests: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way; (b) make all necessary highway, highway bridge, and utility alterations; (c) hold and save the United States free from all damages due to the construction works; and (d) maintain and operate the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Total costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization amount to $164,000. Operations and results during fiscal year. Minor construction work was accomplished under two contracts completing the im- provement of the existing project. The drainage canal extension in vicinity of 174th Avenue and Marine Drive was accomplished in November 1961. The construction of an interceptor toe drain in the vicinity of 96th Avenue and Marine Drive was completed June 1962. Total costs for the fiscal year were $50,665. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project im- provement initiated July 1959 was completed June 1962. Main levee improvement was completed April 1960, the cross levee in August 1960, and the pumping plant and installation of facilities in June 1961. Minor work was accomplished in June 1962. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $1,510,738 completing the project. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962' New work: Appropriated.......... $410,000 $495,000 $92,000 $450,000 $738 $1,510,738 Cost.................. 32,551 47,880 732,217 586,245 50,665 1,510,738 'Includes $20,000 preauthorization study costs. 45. SAUVIE ISLAND DRAINAGE DISTRICT (Areas A and B) MULTNOMAH AND COLUMBIA COUNTIES, OREG., LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN LEVEES AND IMPROVEMENT TO EXISTING PROJECTS Location. This district is located in Multnomah and Columbia Counties, Oreg., at the upstream end of Sauvie Island, and extends along the left bank of Columbia River from the mouth of Willa- mette River, at river mile 101.5, downstream to mile 98.3. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for raising and strengthening portions of the existing levee, installing toe drains as required, placing gravel road surfacing on levee crown not presently surfaced, and increasing the capacity of the existing pumping plant. 1918 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950, House Document 531, 81st Congress, 2d session. The estimated Federal cost (1962) is $750,000. Local cooperation. The Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, provides that local interests: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way; (b) make all necessary highway, highway bridge, and utility alterations; (c) hold and save the United States free from all damages due to the construction works; and (d) maintain and operate the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Total estimated costs of all re- quirements of local cooperation under the terms of the project authorization amount to $37,000 (1962). Operations and results during fiscal year. Improvement of the existing levee system was initiated by contract July 1961. In June 1962 improvement to the pumping station was complete except for minor finishing. The work on the levee delayed by inclement weather and unfavorable soil conditions was 97 percent accom- plished. Total costs for the fiscal year were $528,044. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project im- provement initiated in July 1961 is essentially completed. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $641,897 for new work. Cost and financial summary Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962' New work: Appropriated .......... $12,700 . .$142,000 $543,300 $750,000 Cost.................. 12,189 $4,061 $5,950 50,068 528,044 641,897 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962......................... $94,138 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................... 94,138 1Includes $9,000 preauthorization study costs. 46. RAINIER DRAINAGE DISTRICT, COLUMBIA COUNTY, OREG., LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN LEVEES AND IMPROVEMENT TO EXISTING PROJECTS Location. This district is located in Columbia County, Oreg., west of the town of Rainier along Columbia River between river mile 62.2 and 66.8. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for raising and strengthening the existing spur levee along Rinearson Slough and constructing a dredged fill levee parallel and contiguous to the railroad embankment. It also provides for increasing the pump- ing capacity of the district. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950, House Document 531, 81st Congress, 2d session. The estimated Federal cost (1962) is $612,000. Local cooperation. The Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, provides that local interests: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way; (b) make FLOOD CONTROL--PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1919 all necessary highway, highway bridge, and utility alterations; (c) hold and save the United States free from all damages due to the construction works; and (d) maintain and operate the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Total estimated costs for all re- quirements of local cooperation under the terms of the project authorization amount to $33,000 (1962). Operations and results during fiscal year. Improvement of the existing levee along left side of Columbia River, Oreg., was ini- tiated under contract October 1961. At the end of the fiscal year the work on the levee delayed by wet weather was 53 percent accomplished. Under a contract awarded in May 1962 for improvement of the pumping station, notice to proceed will not be issued until Columbia River flood recedes to 9.5 feet. Total costs for the fiscal year were $242,461. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project ini- tiated in October 1961 will be completed in November 1962. Levee improvement is underway and contracts awarded for improve- ment of the pumping station and procurement of a pump, electric motor driver, and a motor starter. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $315,663 for new work. Cost and financial summary Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: .......... $7,000 Appropriated ................ $188,000 $381,000 $612,000 Cost .................. 7,501 $2,758 $3,690 33,965 242,461 315,663 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962........................... 31,889 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963............... .. 31,889 1 Includes $6,000 preauthorization study costs. 47. COWLITZ COUNTY DIKING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 13, WASH., LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN IM- PROVEMENT TO EXISTING PROJECTS Location. This district is located in Cowlitz County, Wash., on the left bank of Cowlitz River south of Kelso, opposite Columbia River mile 68.3. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for raising and strengthening the existing levee, installing toe drains and additional pumping capacity and filling depressions adjacent to the landward toe of the levee. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, House Document 531, 81st Congress, 2d session. The estimated Federal cost (1962) is $88,000. Local cooperation. The Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, provides that local interests: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way; (b) make all necessary highway, highway bridge, and utility alterations; (c) hold and save the United States free from all damages due to the construction works; and (d) maintain and operate the 1920 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Total estimated costs of all re- quirements of local cooperation under terms of the project au- thorization amount to $12,000 (1962). Operations and results during fiscal year. Preparation of a de- sign memorandum and contract plans and specifications was in progress. Total costs for the fiscal year were $649. Condition at end of fiscal year. No construction has been done. Planning for construction is underway. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $12,500 for advance engineering and design. Cost and financial summary Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated......... ........ ............. 7,000 ............ $5,000 $18,000 Cost ......... . ................ .................. 2,954 $2,897 649 12,500 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $... 5,500 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 80, 1963............... .... 5,500 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ....................... 70,000 1 Includes $6,000 preauthorization study costs. 48. COWLITZ COUNTY DIKING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 2, WASH., LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER, IMPROVEMENT TO EXISTING PROJECTS Location. The district is located in Cowlitz County, Wash., be- tween Cowlitz and Coweman Rivers, near Columbia River mile 68.3. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for raising and strengthening the existing levee along Coleman River, install- ing toe drains, placing impervious embankment outside of railroad embankment, and extending existing tide boxes. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, House Document 581, 81st Congress, 2d session. The estimated Federal cost (1962) is $318,000. Local cooperation. The Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, pro- vides that local interests: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way; (b) make all neces- sary highway, highway bridge, and utility alterations; (c) hold and save the United States free from all damages due to the con- struction works; and (d) maintain and operate the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Sec- retary of the Army. Total estimated costs of all requirements of local cooperation under the terms of the project authorization amount to $85,000 (1962). Operations and results during fiscal year. Preparation of a design memorandum and contract plans and specifications was in progress. Total costs for the fiscal year were $13,828. Condition at end of fiscal year. No construction has been done. Planning for construction is underway. FLOOD CONTROL-PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1921 Total costs to June 30, 1962, were $31,613 for advance engineer- ing and design. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 1 New work: .... ....... Appropriated......... .. ........ $27,000 $15,000 $48,000 ................. Cost .11,785 13,828 31,613 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962............................. $16,387 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 ................... ......... 50,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963........... . 66,387 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project .......................... 220,000 ' Includes $6,000 preauthorization study costs. 49. BEAVER DRAINAGE DISTRICT, COLUMBIA COUNTY, OREG., LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN LEVEES AND IMPROVE- MENT TO EXISTING PROJECTS Location. This district is located in Columbia County, Oreg., north of the town of Clatskanie and extends along Columbia River and Bradbury Slough between river miles 49.7 and 55.4. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for raising and strengthening portions of existing primary levee, strengthen- ing the levees along the Tank Creek diversion canal, and increasing pumping capacity of the district. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950, House Document 531, 81st Congress, 2d session. The estimated Federal cost (1962) $825,000. Local cooperation. The Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, provides that local interests: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way; (b)- make all necessary highway, highway bridge, and utility alterations; (c) hold and save the United States free from all damages due to the construction works; and (d) maintain and operate the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under the terms of the project authorization amount to $158,000 (1962). Operationsand results during fiscal year. Design memorandum covering the project improvement was approved by higher au- thority April 18, 1962. Plans and specifications for the levee im- provement were prepared but advertisement for construction is dependent upon receipt of rights-of-way from local interests. The sponsor is experiencing difficulty in securing entry permits. Total costs for the fiscal year were $39,615. Condition at end of fiscal year. No construction has been done. Planning has been completed for construction of the levee improve- ment portion of the project. Advertisement is dependent upon re- ceipt from local interests of required rights-of-way. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $87,833 for advance engineering and design. 1922 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1969 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ......... $13,500 .$242,000 $300,500 Cost.................. 11,383 $2,998 $1,984 $662 39,615 87,833 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .............................. $212,666 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 ............................... 516,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................ 728,666 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ..................... 8,500 1Includes $8,000 preauthorization study costs. 50. MIDLAND DRAINAGE DISTRICT, COLUMBIA COUNTY, OREG., LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN LEVEES AND IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING PROJECTS Location. This district is located in the northwest part of Colum- bia County, Oreg., 21/2 miles west of the town of Clatskanie along the left bank of Wallace Slough opposite Columbia River miles 47.7 and 49.7. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for strengthening of existing levee and for providing additional pumping capacity. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950, House Document 531, 81st Congress, 2d session. The estimated Federal cost (1962) is $133,000. Local cooperation. The Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, provides that local interests: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way; (b) make all necessary highway, highway bridge, and utility alterations; (c) hold and save the United States free from all damages due to the construction works; and (d) maintain and operate the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Total estimated costs of all re- quirements of local cooperation under terms of the project au- thorization amounts to $37,000 (1962). Operations and results during fiscal year. Design memorandum revised in March 1961 was returned for further revision. Total costs for the fiscal year were $107. Condition at end of fiscal year. No construction has been done. Planning for the project improvement has been essentially com- pleted. Total cost to June 30, 1962, have been $38,551 for advance engineering and design. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... $12,200 ..... $1,000 $39,200 Cost.................. 10,449 $4,717 $5,059 339 $107 38,551 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962......... .................. $649 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963................. 649 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project................. ....... 93,800 Includes $1,000 preauthorization study costs. FLOOD CONTROL---PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1923 51. WOODSON DRAINAGE DISTRICT, OREG., LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN LEVEES AND IMPROVEMENT TO EXISTING PROJECTS Location. This district is located in Columbia County, Oreg., on the right bank of Westport Slough, opposite Columbia River mile 46. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for raising and strengthening about 1.9 miles of levee, and relocating and enlarging the pumping plant. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950, House Document 531, 81st Congress, 2d session. The estimated Federal cost (1962) is $88,000. Local cooperation. The Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, provides that local interests: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way; (b) make all necessary highway, highway bridge, and utility alterations; (c) hold and save the United States free from all damages due to the construction works; and (d) maintain and operate the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Total estimated costs of all re- quirements of local cooperation under the terms of the project authorization amount to $28,000 (1962). Operations and results during fiscal year. Design memorandum revision under study. Total costs for the fiscal year were $730. Condition at end of fiscal year. No construction has been done. Revision of design memorandum, contract plans, and specifica- tions under study. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $14,422 for advance en- gineering and design. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 2 New work: Appropriated .......... ......... $10,500 $2,000 . .. . ... $14,500 . . Cost....................... ... 6,088 5,464 $140 $730 14,422 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............. ............. $78 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ....................... 78 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ........................... 73,500 1 Includes $2,000 preauthorization study costs. 2Includes $2,000 allotted under Code 721 (Small authorized projects) 52. WAHKIAKUM COUNTY CONSOLIDATED DIKING DISTRICT 1, WASH., LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN LEVEES AND IMPROVEMENT TO EXISTING WORKS Location. This district occupies both Puget and Little Islands located in Columbia River between river miles 30 and 44.5. These islands are in Wahkiakum County, Wash., near the town of Cathla- met. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for raising and strengthening all levees encircling the islands, filling of ad- 1924 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 jacent borrow pit ditches, constructing about 6,000 feet of major drainage canal, and additional tide box, and a pumping plant. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950, House Document 531, 81st Congress, 2d session. The estimated Federal cost (1962) is $1,440,000. Local cooperation. The Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, provides that local interests: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way; (b) make all necessary highway, highway bridge, and utility alterations; (c) hold and save the United States free from all damages due to the construction works; and (d) maintain and operate the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Total estimated costs for all re- quirements of local cooperation under the terms of the project authorization amount to $36,000 (1962). Operations and results during fiscal year. Preparation of the final draft of a design memorandum and contract plans and speci- fications was in progress at the end of the year. Total costs to June 30, 1962 were $2,563. Condition at end of fiscal year. No construction has been done. Planning for construction is in progress. Total costs to June 30, 1962, were $106,486 for advance engineer- ing and design. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: ................... Appropriated $72,000 $24,000 .$109,000 Cost.......................... 37,224 38,129 $15,570 $2,563 106,486 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962.................. ..... $2,514 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................ 2,514 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project........ ............. 1,331,000 SIncludes $13,000 preauthorization study costs. 53. LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN BANK PROTECTION WORKS, OREG. AND WASH. Location. On Columbia River and tributaries between Sandy River, Oreg., and mouth of Columbia River. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for con- struction of a total of 133,680 linear feet of bank-protection works at 61 locations along the Lower Columbia River below river mile 125 and along the principal tributaries in this reach, to protect existing improvements such as levees and developed industrial lands from further erosion. The existing project is a unit of the general comprehensive plan for flood control, navigation, and other purposes in the Columbia River Basin and was authorized in the Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950, House Document 531, 81st Congress, 2d session. The estimated Federal cost (1962) is $8,870,000. Local cooperation. The Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, provides that local interests: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way; (b) make FLOOD CONTROL---PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1925 all necessary highway, highway bridge, and utility alterations; (c) hold and save the United States free from all damages due to the construction works; and (d) maintain and operate the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Total estimated costs for all re- quirements of local cooperation were not evaluated. Operations and results during fiscal year. The construction of bank-protection works was accomplished at the following loca- tions: Esty location, left bank Willamette River in Sauvie Island drainage district, Oreg.; three locations, left bank Columbia River in Clatsop County drainage district 6 on Tenasillahe Island, Oreg.; four locations, left bank Prairie Channel in Svenson Island, Oreg.; and Boot, Township, and pumphouse locations, right bank Beaver Slough, in Beaver drainage district, Oreg. In June 1962 contracts were awarded for construction at the following locations: Wallace Slough, Upper Wallace, and Midland locations, left bank Wallace Slough, in Midland drainage district, Oreg.; Bridge, Wessix, and Wallace locations, right bank Beaver Slough, in Beaver drainage district, Oreg. Old Mill location, right bank Columbia River, Kalama, Wash. Planning was in progress for proposed construction at five addi- tional locations. Total costs for fiscal year were $440,667. Condition at end of fiscal year. Project construction initiated in July 1961 has been completed at 11 locations in 4 drainage dis- tricts. Planning for construction at additional locations is in prog- ress. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $562,519 for new work. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... $40,000 ......... . $20,000 $376,000 $400,000 $861,000 Cost.................. 26,073 $12,894 10,251 47,634 440,667 562,519 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ........................ $87,818 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963............................. 400,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963................... 487,818 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project. ................... .. 7,609,000 1Includes $25,000 preauthorization study costs. 54. WEST MUDDY CREEK AND MARYS RIVER, OREG., WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND MAJOR DRAINAGE Location. This project lies south and west of Corvallis, Oreg., on Marys River and tributary West Muddy Creek which enters into Willamette River. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for 39 miles of channel rectification of which 12.9 miles are on Marys River and 26.1 miles on a tributary, West Muddy Creek and its tribu- taries. An area of 16,275 acres will be benefited by the improve- ment. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act 1926 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 approved May 17, 1950, House Document 31, 81st Congress, 2d session. The estimated cost (1962) is $2,960,000. Local cooperation. The Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, pro- vides that local interests: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way; (b) make all neces- sary highway, highway bridge, and utility alterations; (c) hold and save the United States free from all damages due to the con- struction works; and (.d) maintain and operate the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Sec- retary of the Army. Total estimated cost of all requirements of local cooperation under the terms of the project authorization amount to $487,000 (1962). Operations and results during fiscal year. A public hearing was held with local interests February 1962 to explain the authorized construction and requirements of local cooperation. The majority of the property owners expressed a lack of interest and indicated opposition to construction at this time. The project was placed in "inactive status" May 18, 1962. The local interests will shortly be notified of the placing of the project on the 5-year statute of limitations for furnishing assurances of cooperation. Total costs for the fiscal year were $3,979 for advance engineer- ing. Conditions at end of fiscal year. No construction has been done. The project was placed in an "inactive status" May 18, 1962. The 5-year limitation for local interests to furnish assurances of co- operation will shortly be imposed. Total costs to June 30, 1962, were $3,979 for advance engineer- ing and design. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ......... .......... .. .. .... ...... ........... $6,000 $16,000 Cost................. $3,979 3,979 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962................... ...... $2,021 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 2,021 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project....................... 2,944,000 1Includes $10,000 preauthorization study costs. 55. OTHER AUTHORIZED FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS Cost and expenditures For last June 30, full retort Estimated Name of project see amount Annual Operation required to Rerort Construction and mainte- complete for-- nance COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN 1. Diking and improvement district 5, Cowlitz County, Wash.. 110O $161,380 ............. (1) 2. Beaver drainage district, Columbia County, Oreg......... 1940 274,578 ............ (1) 3. Magruder drainage district, Columbia County, Oreg....... 1940 61, 186 ............ (I) 4. Midland drainage district, Columbia County, Oreg........ 19539 77, 743 ........... (1) 5. Marshland drainage district, Columbia County, Oreg...... 1940 39,474 ............ (1) 6. Webb District Improvement Co., Columbia County, Oreg.. 1940 84, 591.............. (1) 7. Woodson drainage district; Columbia County, Oreg....... 1940 22, 796 ............ (1) 8. Westland District Improvement Co., Columbia County, O:eg... 1940 205,531 ............. () 9. Tenasillahe Island, Clatsop County, Oreg. ................ 1939 133,778.............() 10. Blind slough diking district, Clatsop County, Oreg........ 1939 163,396............ (1) See footnotes at end of table. FLOOD CONTROL--PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1927 OTHER AUTHORIZED FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS-Continued Cost and expenditures For last June 30, full report Estimated Name of project see amour t Annual Operation required to Report Construction and mainte- complete for- nance 11. Drainage district 1, Clatsop County, Oreg ............... 1939 $240,939 (1) 12. Diking district 2, Clatsop County, Oreg ............ . 1940 43,149. 13. Diking district 5, Clatsop County, Oreg ............. 1940 25,608 ( 2) 14. Warrenton diking district, No. 1, Clatsop County, Oreg... 1940 69,503 (') 15. Warrenton diking district 2, Clatsop County, Oreg........ 1940 117,142 (1) 16. Warrenton diking district 3, Clatsop County, Oreg........ 1940 74,596 ( 1) 17. Consolidated diking and improvement district 1, Cowlitz County, W ash............ .... .. .............. 1941 163,290 (1) 18. Diking district 1 and 3 (Puget Island) and Little Island, Wahkiakum County, Wash ........................ 1941 258,795 ( ') 19. Diking improvement district 1, Pacific County, Wash..... 1941 26,810 (1) 20. Karison Island, Clatsop County, Oreg ................ 1941 25,773 (1) 21. Deep River area, Wahkiakum County, Wash............. 1942 69,723 (1) 22. Sandy drainage district, Multnomah County, Oreg........ 1942 138,955 ( ) 23. Peninsula drainage district 1, Multnomah County, Oreg... 1942 211,250 (') 24. Peninsula drainage district 2, Multnomah County, Oreg... 1942 241,148. ( ) 25. Scappoose drainage district, Columbia County, Oreg.... 1942 424,309 ( I) 26. Rainier drainage district, Columbia County, Oreg......... 1942 47,661 (I) (2) 27. Knappa area, Clatsop County, Oreg................... . 1942 18,788 (1) 28. John Day River area Clatsop County, Oreg............. 1942 33,080 (1) 29. Walluski River, Clatsop County, Oreg ............ 1942 66,932 (1) 30. Youngs River dikes, Clatsop County, Oreg.............. 1942 248,802 31. Lewis and Clark River area, Clatsop County, Oreg...... 1942 158,418 (1) 32. Deer Island area, Columbia County, Oreg................ 1943 574,122 (o) 33. Westport district, Columbia and Clatsop Counties, Oreg... 1943 40,657 ( I) 34. Skamokawa Creek area, Wahkaikum County, Wash....... 1946 178,884 (1) (1) 35. Upper Grays River area, Wash................. 1947 61,263 $30,000 36. Multnomah diking district 1, Oreg..... ......... 1951 610,652 (1) (2) 37. Sauvie Island areas A and B, Multnomah County, Oreg... 1951 1,623,505 38. Diking and improvement district 4, Wahkaikum County, Wash...... ......... ................. 1951 169,542 ( 1) 39. Prescott area, Columbia County, Oreg ................ 1941 124 2$37,875 40. Diking district 3, Clatsop County, Oreg ............ 1938 258 24,740 Total Columbia River Basin ................... .. 7,188,152 30,000 42,615 LEWIS RIVER BASIN 41. Diking and improvement district 11, Cowlitz County, W ash.................................. 1943 172,521 f ........... (2) COWLITZ RIVER BASIN 42. Cowlitz County drainage improvement district 1, Wash... 1939 42,078 (1) 43. Diking improvement district 2, Cowlitz County, Wash..... 1940 120,728 ( ) 44. Diking Improvement district 13, Cowlitz County, Wash... 1939 26,262 (1) Total Cowlitz River Basin ..................... 189,069 (2) 45. Mill Four drainage district, Yaquina River, Oreg......... 1949 118,433 (1) 46. Pudding River, Oreg... ................... 1950 38,000 7,182,000 47. Coquille River, Oreg. 4 ............................. 1948 908 353,092 48. Umpqua River and Tributaries, Oreg.................... 1952 428,881 (1) 49. Vicinity of Nehalem, Nehalem River, Oreg.............. 1952 45,679 (1) 50. Castle Rock, Cowlitz River, Wash ................ 1957 104,921 .. . . . . . . . . (1) 51. Amazon Creek, Oreg. ............................. 1960 1,214,300 (1) 52. Cascadia Reservoir Oreg. 6...................... 112,000 34,388,000 53. Gate Creek Reservoir, Oreg. 6.................... 795,000 19,305,000 54. Waldo Lake Tunnel, Oreg. .................... ( s) 55. Wiley Creek Reservoir, Oreg ................. 7112,000 (9) 56. Floodwall and levees at Portland, Oreg. .............. 2018,900,000 57. Willamette River Basin channel, clearing and snagging.... 2115,000 3,005,00 58. Willamette Falls fish ladder....... ............. 12214,000 59. Channel improvement for flood control and major drain- age on tributaries to Willamette River, Oreg........... .. . . . . . . 49,879 I........ 132,548,294 1 Completed 2Classified inactive. Latest cost estimate-1954 SPreauthorization study cost of $3,000 included. Classified to "inactive" status March 16, 1961. 4 Classified inactive. Latest cost estimate--1953 S In addition, $154,751 was expended from contributed funds for new work, $88,784 "re- quired" and $65,967 "other". 8 Recommended projects. 7 Pro rata share of site-selection studies. 8 Authorization rescinded August 28, 1958 (Public Law 85-820, HR. 8652). 9 Recommendation for early authorization rescinded by authorization of Senate Doc. 104, 86th Congress, in Flood Control Act 1960. 1928 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 OTHER AUTHORIZED FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS-Continued 10 Classified to inactive status March 16, 1961. Latest cost estimate-1953. 11 Preauthorization study cost. Classified to inactive status March 16, 1961. "Classified inactive. Latest cost estimate-1954. 18Four locations classified deferred for restudy. Estimated cost $1,786,000-1961. Ten loca- tions classified inactive. Estimated cost $11,668,000-1962. These estimates not included in above table. 56. INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FLOOD CONTROL WORKS Funds in the amount of $115,050 have been allotted to June 30, 1962, to cover costs of the inspection of completed local flood control protection projects. The purpose of the inspection is to determine the condition of the completed works and to ascertain whether those works are being properly maintained by the local interest. Operations and results during fiscal year. A total of 50 diking and drainage districts (18 in Washington and 32 in Oregon) along the Columbia River and levees and revetments at 13 districts or lo- cations along various Oregon coast streams were inspected. Bank- protection works at 49 locations in Willamette River Basin were also inspected. In most cases a representative of the diking districts accompanied the Portland district inspector in making the inspections of their districts. Deficiencies in maintenance and the need for repairs were pointed out to the diking districts' representatives on the ground and a report was made for each district inspected on the conditions found with recommendations for correction of deficiencie Copies of these reports were fur- nished the diking districts concerned. The campaign to improve maintenance of completed Federal projects initiated by the House Appropriations Committee on Civil Functions, was continued. Periodic contact was maintained with the uncooperative areas reported in fiscal year 1961, to ascer- tain any change in their attitude and to provide technical assist- ance if requested. Of the 112 local flood-protection projects in the Portland, Oreg., District requiring maintenance by local interests eight were considered deficient in maintenance work. Total costs for the fiscal year were $17,801. Total costs to June 30, 1962 were $112,826. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 Maintenance: Ar propriated .......... $10,600 $15,500 $19,600 $14,000 $19,800 $115,050 Cost................. 13,829 14,490 17,308 16,642 17,801 112,826 57. FLOOD CONTROL WORK UNDER SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION Operations and results during fiscal year. Under authority of section 208 of the Flood Control Act approved September 3, 1954, channel clearing and excavation along Larson Inlet, Coos Bay, Oreg., was initiated by contract in August and was completed in November 1961. A total of 64,000 cubic yards of material was removed. Total costs for the fiscal year from Federal funds were $41,868. FLOOD CONTROL----PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1929 In addition, a cash contribution of $8,219 received from local interests was expended. Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $417,812 for new work authorized under the Snagging and Clearing Flood Control Acts. Small flood control projects not specifically authorized by Congress (Public Law 68584th Congress, July 11, 1956) Date of Date con- Federal Project Location authorized struction Date completed cost start W alterville ............ McKenzie River, Oreg........ Apr. 1961 Detailed project report, '$8,000 March 1961. Vicinity of Coburg...... McKenzie River, Oreg........ Mar. 196( 'Reconnaissance re- '5,800 port. Vicinity of Natron...... Middle Fork Willamette July 1961 Reconnaissance re- '3,500 River, Oreg. port November 1963. Norway ............... Coquille River, Oreg......... do..... Reconnaissance re- 2,800 port, September 1963. Randolph Slough Area... Coquille River and Seven do..... do............... =3,000 Mile Creek, Oreg. Fat Elk drainage district. Coquille River opposite Co- do..... do............... '2,800 quille, Oreg. Ressel ................. Molalla River, Oreg......... Nov. 1961 Sept. 1962 November 1962....... '11,600 Ames Creek ............ Sweet Home, Oreg........... Mar. 1961 Reconnaissance re- '5,500 port January 1963. Beaver Creek.......... Tillamook, Oreg......... June 1961 Detailed project re- '9,500 port July 1962 i i , 1 Dependent upon local decision as to cooperation. 2 Estimated. 8 Cost of report. Emergency flood control activities---repair,flood fighting, and rescue work (Public Law 99, 84th Congress, 1st session and antecedent legislation) Date of Date construction Date Federal Project Location authorized start completed cost Leeds Island levee............ Umpqua River, Oreg........ May 1961 Aug. 1962 Sept. 1962 '$10.,000 Armitage upstream extension, McKenzie River, Oreg....... ......... Oct. 1961 Nov. 1961 13,667 revetment repair. Hayes, Cox, and Landstrom South Santiam River, Oreg... ......... Oct. 1961 Feb. 1962 55,480 locations, revetment repair. 1 Estimated. 1930 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 58. EXAMINATION AND SURVEYS Navigation studies: The total cost of work during the fiscal year was $47,513. Total costs to June 30, 1962, were $4,173,231. The funds unexpended June 30, 1962, amounting to $8,976 plus allotment of $43,000, a total of $51,976, will be expended on the following reports: completion of reports on Port Orford and Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oreg., continuation of work on reports for Chetco River, Umpqua River, Yaquina River, and Siuslaw River, all in Oregon. Flood control studies: The total cost of work during the fiscal year was $118,839. Total costs to June 30, 1962, were $3,237,853. The funds unexpended June 30, 1962, amounting to $10,684 plus an allotment of $172,200, a total of $182,884, will be expended on the following reports: Completion of reports on Umpqua and Coquille Rivers, Oreg., and initiation of a comprehensive review study of Willamette River Basin, to include work initiated in the fiscal year 1962 on Calapooya, Thomas Creek, and Clackamas River, Oreg; under separate authorizations which will be covered by the overall Willamette report. 59. COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES The principal items of work included under the subject studies is as follows: a. Hydrologic studies, consisting of preparing hydro- logic data, in answer to various inquiries, for areas not associated with projects for which funds are available. b. Derivation of flood-forecasting procedures, which consists of compiling and analyzing streamflow, temperature, and precipita- tion data, in order to forecast and disseminate information on flood volume and peak discharges for Columbia River and major tributaries. c. Compiling and distributing weather and river-stage data, which consists of daily compilation and distribution of those con- cerned within this office, of data obtained from the U.S. Weather Bureau and Corps of Engineer field offices as a basis for normal functioning of the organization. d. Civil Works Investigations. During the fiscal year a contract for construction of the downstream section of the initial test facility for civil works investigation 825 was awarded and con- struction work under this contract was completed. Work on civil works investigation 826 consisted of devising a method of fastening two test electrodes to the existing chute walls by use of epoxy compounds and of construction of a ladder to provide access to and a working platform for repair of the electrodes. The test program for civil works investigation 857, using a gate with various tapered bottoms and lip extensions, was completed. Tests were also made to determine the effect on downpull forces of operation of an adjacent gate. Work was initiated on preparation of a final report on results of the study on emergency closure gate downpull forces. e. Flood plain information studies. Under a study initiated December 1961, work was in progress during the fiscal year on Willamette River flood plain in Lane County, Oreg. Twenty officers GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS-PORTLAND, OREG., DISTRICT 1931 of various Federal agencies were notified of initiation of the study. Hydrologic studies, including stage-frequency relationships at selected locations and surveys in the area were in progress. Total costs for the fiscal year were $94,176. Total cost to June 30, 1962 have been $317,057. IMPROVEMENT OF RIVERS AND HARBORS IN THE SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT This district comprises all of Washington except in the southern and southeastern portions, northern Idaho, and northwestern Montana embraced in the drainage basins tributary to the Pacific Ocean south of the international boundary to Cape Disappoint- ment, and to the Columbia River above the Yakima River, inclu- sive. IMPROVEMENTS Page Page Navigation Navigation-continued 1. Puget Sound and its trib- 17. Navigation work under spe- utary waters, Wash. ... 1933 cial authorization ...... 1965 2. Anacortes Harbor, Wash.. 1935 3. Swinomish Slough, Wash.. Flood Control 1936 4. Port Townsend, Wash ..... 1938 18. Columbia River Basin, local 5. Waterway connecting Port protection projects ..... 1966 Townsend Bay and Oak 19. Libby Dam, Kootenai River, Bay, Wash........... 1939 20. Mont............... 1967 Albeni Falls Reservoir, 6. Everett Harbor and Snoho- Pend Oreille River, mish River, Wash. ..... 1940 Idaho ................. 1969 7. Chief Joseph Dam, Colum- 21. Stillaguamish River, Wash. 1970 bia River, Wash. ...... 1943 22. Sammamish River, Wash. 1971 8. Quillayute River, Wash. ... 1945 23. Howard A. Hanson Reser- 9. Shilshole Bay, Seattle, voir, Wash. .......... 1972 Wash............... 1946 24. Tacoma, Puyallup River, 10. Lake Washington ship Wash. ............... 1974 canal, Wash. .......... 1948 25. Mud Mountain Reservoir, 11. Seattle Harbor, Wash. .... 1950 White River, Wash. .... 1975 12. Tacoma Harbor, Wash .. . 1953 26. Other authorized flood con- 13. Grays Harbor and Chehalis trol projects .......... 1976 River, Wash......... 1956 27. Inspection of completed 14. Willapa River and Harbor flood control works .... 1977 and Naselle River, Wash. 1961 28. Flood control work under 15. Navigation projects on special authorization .. 1978 which reconnaissance and condition surveys General Investigations only were conducted dur- 29. Surveys ................. 1980 ing the fiscal year ..... 1964 30. Research and development 1980 16. Other authorized naviga- 31. Collection of study of basic tion projects .......... 1965 data .................. 1980 1. PUGET SOUND AND ITS TRIBUTARY WATERS, WASH. Location. Puget Sound is located in the western part of the State of Washington. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Charts Nos. 6300, 6450, and 6460.) Previous projects. Project adopted by the River and Harbor Act of August 2, 1882,,contemplated clearing and maintaining the navigable portions of the Skagit, Stillaguamish, Nooksack, Snoho- mish, and Snoqualmie Rivers, Wash., free from snags, debris, and drift, by means of a shallow-draft stern-wheel snag boat con- structed for this purpose. For further details, see page 2003 of Annual Report for 1915 and page 1869 of Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for maintenance of Puget Sound and its tributary waters by snagging and dredging; and for re- moval, in cooperation with the city of Seattle, of floating debris 1933 1934 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 from the Seattle Harbor area. The actual cost for new work was $43,337. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $142,991. The existing project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of July 13, 1892 (Annual Report for 1893, p. 3425). The latest published map is in the Annual Report for 1913, page 3127. Local cooperation. None required. However, the city of Seattle is cooperating in a program for control of floating debris in Seattle Harbor. Terminal facilities. The terminal facilities at the numerous localities on Puget Sound and its tributary waters are, in general, considered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. The U.S. snag boat W. T. Preston was operated for about 10 months, accomplishing the following work: Obstructions removed Location Snags Piles Miscellaneous SeattleHarbor .................... 30 Duwamish Waterway .......... .... 336 16 1 scow, and miscellaneous debris. Everett Harbor and Snohomish River. 436 .......... Miscellaneous debris. Lake Washington. ................ 1,549 18 17 floats, 639 pile ends, 4 houseboats, 1 hull, and 334 bundles of miscellaneous debris. Lake Washington Ship Canal ........ 254 10 4 floats, 1 boat, 139 pile ends, and 198bundles of mis- cellaneous debris. Puget Sound....................... 36 3 Skagit River and North Fork........ 360 .......... 5 rocks, miscellaneous trees and debris. Tacoma Harbor ................. 10 .......... Miscellaneous debris. Totals ...................... 3,011 47 Floating obstructions to navigation were removed from ship lanes in the Seattle area by other U.S. vessels during the fiscal year. Total costs were $160,718, all for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The work has consisted chiefly of snagging and dredging in the principal tributaries of Puget Sound. No permanent results are obtainable, but the maintenance of existing channels requires practically continuous operation of the snag boat. The controlling depths range from 1 to 40 feet at mean lower low water. The total costs of the existing project to June 30, 1962, were $43,337 for new work and $3,064,250 for maintenance, a total of $3,107,587. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated..................... .............. .. ..... ........... $43,337 Cost................ .......................... 43,337 Maintenance: Appropriated ....... $135,866 $121,329 $146,730 $150,312 $161,000 3,132,028 Cost................. 135,866 121287 146, 762 150,322 718 160, 3,131,746 1 Includes $67,496 for maintenance for previous projects. RIVERS AND HARBORS - SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1935 2. ANACORTES HARBOR, WASH. Location. Anacortes Harbor is on the northern point of Fidalgo Island in Puget Sound, 17 miles south of Bellingham, Wash., and 64 miles north of Seattle. The main harbor is on Guemes Channel. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 6377.) Existing project. This provides for: (a) a channel in Capsante Waterway, 12 feet deep at mean lower low water and 150 to 250 feet wide, between the east side of Q Avenue and deep water in Fidalgo Bay, a distance of 2,850 feet; and (b) a mooring basin 12 feet deep at mean lower low water, 570 feet wide, and 960 feet long adjacent to north side of Capsante Waterway, protected by two pile breakwaters, 370 and 350 feet long, east and southeast of the basin, respectively. The tidal range betwen mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 8.2 feet. The extreme range is about 15.5 feet. The actual cost for new work was $203,377, exclusive of $59,523 contributed funds and $2,000 U.S. Coast Guard funds. The sec- tion between Q and R Avenues of the project is considered to be inactive. The cost of this portion was last revised in 1954 and was estimated to be $9,000. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $9,617. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Mar. 2, 1919 Channel in Capsante Waterway' ........... ....... . H. Doc. 1117, 64th Cong., 1st sess. Sept. 3, 1954 Mooring basin ....................................... S. Doc. 102, 83d Cong., 2d sess. (Con- tains latest published map.) 1 Includes inactive portion at west end between Q and R Avenues. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Funds in the amount of $59,523 have been contributed by local interests, and other non-Federal costs are estimated at $98,000 (July 1958). Terminal facilities. There are 24 piers and wharves in the port of Anacortes; 15 on Guemes Channel, one on Capsante Water- way, and six on Fidalgo Bay. Three wharves on Guemes Channel are open for public use; of these, one is publicly owned and oper- ated and used for handling general cargo in foreign and domestic trade. In addition, two wharves are used for ferries plying to the San Juan Islands and to Vancouver Island, British Columbia. One of these is privately owned and operated, and the other publicly owned and operated. The wharf and floats on Capsante Waterway and basin are publicly owned and operated and used for the receipt of petroleum products, and as a moorage for fishing and pleasure craft. All of the other wharves are used for general industrial purposes. In addition, there are two oil-refinery wharves located to the south of Capsante Waterway that are privately owned and operated and used for handling petroleum products in foreign and domestic trade. These facilities are considered adequate for exist- ing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance, con- tract: Channel dredging operations in Capsante Waterway were 1936 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 completed in October 1961 by removal of 24,744 cubic yards of material. Costs during the fiscal year were $26,059, all for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project is complete. Capsante Waterway was completed in 1930, except that portion west of R Avenue, which was omitted at the request of local in- terests. The project document for the 1954 modification provided, on the basis of surveys completed in 1948, for protection of the mooring basin by construction of a pile breakwater 380 feet long, 50 feet east of the basin. At the time of the survey, large log booms moored adjacent to a sawmill south of Capsante Waterway provided ample protection from southeasterly storms for small- boat moorages north of the waterway. However, the mill has since closed, the log booms have been removed, and mill operations will probably never be resumed. Therefore, an additional breakwater, 350 feet long, was constructed southeast of the mooring basin to provide protection formerly provided by the log booms. The break- water east of the basin was shortened to 370 feet and relocated to meet new harbor improvements proposed by local interests. Construction of the breakwaters was completed in February 1957. Local interests, in 1958, increased the length of the southeast breakwater to 440 feet. This extension reduced the entrance chan- nel width to 120 feet. Dredging of the mooring basin was com- pleted in July 1957, although project depth was not obtained throughout because of boulders encountered. In October 1961, the controlling dimensions in the portion of Capsante Waterway completed in 1930 were 12 by 150 feet in the entrance channel, except at the breakwater, where the width is 120 feet; and 13.1 by 240 feet in the inner portion. The mooring basin completed in July 1957 had controlling dimensions of 6 by 475 by 900 feet. Total costs to June 30, 1962, from Federal funds were $203,377 for new work and $79,030 for maintenance, a total of $282,407. In addition, $59,523 has been expended from contributed funds for new work. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962' New work: Appropriated......... ..... .. ....... .............. . ............ ... ......... $203,377 Cost ......... 283 .................................... ... 203,377 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... 12,130 $3,770 ............ $30,000 -$1,052 79,030 Cost............. 13,590 5,549 ............ 2,889 26,059 79,030 1In addition, $59,523 was expended from contributed funds for new work. SIncludes $7,000 of general investigations funds for preauthorization studies. 3. SWINOMISH SLOUGH, WASH. Location. This is an island passage, 11 miles long, between Saratoga Passage and Padilla Bay, in the northwestern part of the State of Washington, about 60 miles north of Seattle. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Charts Nos. 6300, 6376, and 6380.) Existing project. This provides for a channel 100 feet wide and 12 feet deep at mean lower low water from deep water in Saratoga Passage to deep water in Padilla Bay, a distance of 11 miles, by RIVERS AND HARBORS - SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1937 dredging and dike construction where necessary. The extreme tidal range is about 19 feet at the south end of the slough and about 16 feet at the north end. The range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 11.5 feet at the south end of the slough, 8.5 feet at the north end, and 6.5 feet at La Conner. The actual cost for new work was $409,030. The average an- nual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $89,997. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents and reports 1 July 13, 1892 Channel 4 feet deep and 100 feet wide, and dike construction.. H. Doc. 31, 52d Cong., 1st seas., and Annual Report, 1892, p. 2752. Aug. 30, 1935 Enlargement of the channel to present project dimensions.. Senate committee print, 73d Cong., 1st sess. 1 For latest published map, see H. Doc. 860, 63d Cong., 2d sess. Local cooperation. Under the provisions of the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1935, adopting the project for the 12-foot channel, local interests were required to furnish free of cost to the United States suitable areas for the disposal of dredged material during initial construction and for future maintenance as and when needed. Compliance with these conditions has been obtained as required. There have been no known non-Federal costs. Terminal facilities. There are 14 wharves on Swinomish Slough which are privately owned and operated for industrial purposes, and 2 wharves available for general public use. Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance, con- tract: Dredging was completed in May 1962 by removal of 198,649 cubic yards of material. Maintenance, hired labor: Quarterly condition surveys were made on channel centerline. Repair of timber dike at the "Hole- in-the-Wall" was completed in June 1962. Total costs during the fiscal year, including condition and opera- tion studies, were $155,951, all for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in 1938. The dikes are in fair condition, except the rock dike between Goat and McGlinn Islands. In May 1962, the control- ling depth in the channel was 11 feet at mean lower low water. The costs to June 30, 1962, were $409,030 for new work and $1,545,860 for maintenance, a total of $1,954,890. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Ap ropriated......... .................... ............... ... . .......... $409,030 ...... Cost................... .... ............................... 409,030 M intenance: Appropriated .......... -$139 $141,000 $133,670 $19,395 $156,100 1,546i009 Cost.................. -32 97,365 56,941 139,759 155,951 1,545,860 1938 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 4. PORT TOWNSEND, WASH. Location. Port Townsend is in northwestern Washington, about 40 miles northwest of Seattle, on the Olympic Peninsula, at the demarcation point between the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Ad- miralty Inlet which forms the northerly part of Puget Sound. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 6405.) Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for a mooring basin and breakwater, the basin with an area of 14 acres and depths of 12 and 15 feet below mean lower low water in the inner and outer sections, respectively, and the breakwater, with a length of 1,550 feet, composed of rock, timber, and earthfill section 950 feet long and a timber and rock section 600 feet long. The range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water at Port Townsend is 8.8 feet. The extreme range is about 16.5 feet. The estimate of cost for new work (July 1962) is $761,000, including $642,000 Corps of Engineers funds, $3,000 U.S. Coast Guard funds, and local contribution of $116,000. Other non- Federal costs are estimated at $238,000. The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1958. (See H. Doc. 418, 84th Cong., 2d sess., which contains the latest published map.) Local cooperation. Local interests are required to (a) Furnish without cost to the United States all lands, easements, rights-of- way, and suitable spoil-disposal areas for initial work and for subsequent maintenance, when and as required; (b) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and maintenance of the improvement; (c) construct as needed, main- tain, and operate adequate pier and float facilities, utilities, and a public landing with suitable service and supply facilities, open to all on equal terms; (d) alter as necessary and subsequently maintain the ferry landing facilities; (e) maintain the earthfill section of the breakwater and the moorage areas; and (f) con- tribute in cash or equivalent work 15.4 percent of the initial cost of the mooring basin and breakwater. Local interests have assured that they will comply with the requirements when Federal con- struction funds are available. Terminal facilities. There are 11 piers and wharves in Port Townsend Harbor. One, publicly owned and operated, is available for public use and one, privately owned and operated, serves as a general cargo terminal. The remaining nine are used for various industrial purposes. Of these one is used for oceangoing vessels and one is used as a railroad car ferry terminal. In addition, there are two small protected basins, publicly owned and operated, for commercial fishing and pleasure craft. These facilities, except for the boat basins, are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operationsand results during fiscal year. General design memo- randum was completed. Costs during the fiscal year were $15,183, all for new work. Condition at end of fiscal year. No construction work has been done on the project. General design memorandum has been com- pleted. RIVERS AND HARBORS - SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1939 Total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $22,383, all for new work. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated. ... .......... .......... .... ... ........ $33,300 $40,500 Cost.. . ........ .... .. .... .. . .. . . .......... 15,183 22,383 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962............................. $18,116 Unobligated balance available for year ending June 30, 1963 ..................... 18,116 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ..................... 601,500 1Includes $7,200 general investigation funds for preauthorization studies. 5. WATERWAY CONNECTING PORT TOWNSEND BAY AND OAK BAY, WASH. Location. The canal connects two bays which are arms of Admiralty Inlet on the west side of Puget Sound, in the north- western part of the State of Washington, about 40 miles north of Seattle. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 6405.) Existing project. This provides for a canal 15 feet deep at mean lower low water, 75 feet wide on the bottom and about 4,800 feet long, and for the construction of jetties to protect the channel at the southern or Oak Bay end, and a bulkhead for the retention of dredged material. 'The extreme tidal range is 16 feet. The range betwen mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 8.3 feet in Port Townsend Bay and 9.4 feet in Oak Bay. The actual cost for new work was $73,322. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $12,982. The existing project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of March 4, 1913 (H. Doc. 625, 62d Cong., 2d sess.). The latest published map is in the Annual Report for 1915, page 3441. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Terminal facilities. There are no terminal facilities directly served by the canal. Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance, hired labor: A condition survey of the channel was made in August 1961. Maintenance, contract: Maintenance dredging and repair of the west jetty were completed in August 1961 by removal of 8,594 cubic yards of material and by placing 11,562 tons of stone. Costs during the fiscal year were $47,695, all for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in 1915. In August 1961, the controlling depth in the channel was 14.8 feet at mean lower low water. Costs to June 30, Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated......... ... .. .. . ..... ............. ..... ... $73,322 Cost ....... ... ............ .. ...... ............ .......... 73,322 Maintenance: Appropriated ....................................... $66,000 -$1,091 131,677 Cost ................. .......... ... ..... .... 17,214 47,695 131,677 1940 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 1962, have been $73,322 for new work, and $131,677 for mainte- nance, a total of $204,999. 6. EVERETT HARBOR AND SNOHOMISH RIVER, WASH. Location. On Port Gardner Bay, at the northern end of Posses- sion Sound, an arm of Puget Sound, 30 miles north of Seattle and 45 miles south of Bellingham. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Sur- vey Chart No. 6448). Previous projects. The original project adopted by the River and Harbor Act of August 18, 1894, provided for a basin in front of the Everett Peninsula, for a channel from the end of the basin around the peninsula to the head of Old River, and for a dike from the lower end of Smith Island to the south end of the basin. By authority of joint resolution of Congress approved April 23, 1902, the work in Old River was discontinued. The proj- ect was further modified by the River and Harbor Act of March 3, 1905, to provide for survey of Everett Harbor with a view to the extension of the dike and of the dredged area. For further details, see page 704 of Annual Report for 1905, page 2005 of An- nual Report for 1915, and page 1883 of Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for: (a) A training dike extend- ing from a point opposite 23d Street northward to the outlet of Snohomish River, a distance of 12,550*feet, with a spur dike extending 400 feet to the pierhead line from the north end of the main dike; (b) a spur dike extending 1,410 feet westward from Preston Point; (c) removal of an existing section of training dike north of the Snohomish River outlet; (d) a channel 150 to 425 feet wide and 15 feet deep at mean lower low water from deep water in Port Gardner Bay to the 14th Street dock; thence a settling basin 700 feet wide, 1,200 feet long, and 20 feet deep, thence a channel 150 feet wide and 8 feet deep up the river to the head of Steamboat Slough, a total distance of about 6.3 miles; (e) a settling basin within the upper channel reach, about 1 mile in length and with a capacity of 1 million cubic yards; (f) recti- fication works at the heads of Steamboat and Ebey Sloughs to reduce sedimentation in the downstream section of Snohomish River; and (g) maintaining East Waterway to a depth of 30 feet at mean lower low water. The extreme tidal range is about 19 feet. The range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 11.1 feet. The estimated cost for new work (July 1962), exclusive of amounts expended under previous projects, is $1,461,000 includ- ing $1,411,000 Corps of Engineers funds, $43,000 U.S. Coast Guard funds, and $7,000 contributed funds. Other non-Federal costs are estimated at $256,000. The rectification works authorized by the 1960 River and Har- bor Act are to be restudied. The cost of this portion was last re- vised in 1961, and was estimated to be $1,700,000, including $40,000 local cash contribution. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $29,063. RIVERS AND HARBORS - SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1941 The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents June 25, 1910 Training dike 10,500 feet long extending across the bar at H. Doc. 1108, 60th Cong., 2d sess. the outlet of Old River Channel. July 3, 1930 Raising 6,000 feet of the training dike, extending spur dike, H. Doc. 377, 71st Cong., 2d seas. widening gap in dike as required, maintaining East Waterway and the channel to the gap. June 20, 1938 Abandoned the project for Snohomish River, and provided H. Doc. 546, 75th Cong., 3d sess. for the settling basin near 14th Street. Sept. 3, 1954 Spur dike at Preston Point, removal of training dike north H. Doc. 569, 81st Cong., 2d sess. of river outlet, enlarging channel to 14th Street, and deepening settling basin. July 14, 1960 Widening channel from settling basin to the gap; extending H. Doc. 348, 86th Cong., 2d sess. channel to head of Steamboat Slough; a settling basin (contains latest published map). within the upper channel reach; and rectification works at the heads of Steamboat and Ebey Sloughs.1 1 The rectification works have been classified as "deferred." Local cooperation. Fully complied with, including the require- ments of the 1960 River and Harbor Act, as follows: Local inter- ests are to (a) Contribute in cash 0.9 percent of the first cost of construction if dredge spoil is used for highway fill, or 2.3 percent if the spoil is used for land fill, either sum to be paid in installments prior to commencement of pertinent work items, in accordance with construction schedules as required by the Chief of Engineers, the final allocation of cost to be made after actual costs have been determined; (b) furnish without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction and subsequent maintenance, when and as re- quired; (c) provide at local expense suitable disposal areas within 1 mile of the dredging sites, with bulkheads where required, or pay any extra cost of pumping dredged material to areas in excess of 1 mile; (d) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and maintenance of the improvements; (e) provide and maintain at local expense suitable access chan- nels and berthing areas; and (f) accomplish and maintain without cost to the United States alterations as required in sewer, water supply, drainage, and other utility facilities. Total estimated cost for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the proj- ect authorization amount to $263,000 (July 1962). By resolu- tion 368 dated January 2, 1962, the Port of Everett furnished assurances of required local cooperation; and on March 9, 1962, contribution of $13,000 was received from the Port. Disposal areas have been provided within less than 1 mile of dredging, and where bulkheading is necessary, owners have agreed to pay the estimated cost of this work in advance of construction. By letter of October 20, 1961, to the Port of Everett, the Washington State Department of Highways agreed to accept the port's re- sponsibility for furnishing disposal areas for the material to be dredged from the Snohomish River upstream from the Highway 99 bridges; and have requested that the Corps include in the dredging contract any necessary provisions for clearing and dik- ing of the disposal areas, on the understanding that the Govern- ment would be compensated for this work. Funds amounting to $111,000 have been received from the department of highways for this purpose. Owners of utility crossings have been instructed to lower lines and cables below elevation 12 feet below mean lower 1942 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 low water. In two cases where existing pipelines were below chan- nel design grade, but above 12 feet below mean lower low water, owners have signed releases assuming liability for damage. Terminal facilities. There are 25 wharves and piers on Everett Harbor and Snohomish River, 12 are located on Port Gardner Bay, 6 on the channel to the gap, and 7 on Snohomish River. Seven wharves are suitable for use by oceangoing vessels; all of these are located on Port Gardner Bay and East Waterway Channel and one serves a publicly owned and operated general-cargo termi- nal that is open for public use. In addition, there is a protected basin, publicly owned and operated, for commercial fishing and pleasure craft. The remaining wharves are used by barges and light-draft vessels and serve various industrial purposes. These facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work, hired labor: A design memorandum was prepared and approved; plans and specifications were completed, and contract awarded on May 8, 1962. New work, contract: Contractor for channel and settling basin dredging began operations on May 18, 1962, and work is pro- gressing on clearing, diking, disposal areas, and dredging. The contract is about 5 percent complete. Maintenance, contract: Maintenance of the existing channel and settling basin was included in contract for new work, awarded May 8, 1962. Dredging was started June 12, 1962. Costs during the fiscal year were $77,513 for new work and $20,912 for maintenance, a total of $98,425. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project is about .52 percent complete. Dike work was commenced in September 1911 and terminated in September 1912. A 6,000-foot section of the dike was raised to an elevation of 14 feet above mean lower low water in 1931. The channel between the river outlet and the low- er harbor was dredged to 8 feet in 1931 and the settling basin to 12 feet in 1940. Dredging of East Waterway has been com- pleted by local interests. Construction of the spur dike was com- pleted in August 1957. Dredging of settling basin to 20-foot depth and widening and deepening of channel below 14th Street to widths of from 150 to 425 feet, and a 15-foot depth over a length of approximately 6,400 feet, were completed in October 1957. Additional riprap was placed along 260 linear feet of em- bankment on the harbor side of the spur dike in July 1958. Con- tract operations for channel and settling basin dredging were started in May 1962 and are about 5 percent complete. Controlling dimensions, when last ascertained, were as follows: Depth and width Date (feet) ascertained Channel from lower harbor to settling basin. ......................... 11.4 by 100 to 13 by 250. December 1961 Settling basin ...... ....... ................................. 9.2 by 500 by 1,150..... Do. From settling basin upstream to the gap in the dike................... 3.4 by 100.............. Do. East Waterway .................. ...................... 28.5................. September 1960 The main dike was in good condition, except for the southerly end. RIVERS AND HARBORS - SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1943 The work remaining to be done to complete the project consists of channel and settling basin dredging, now under contract, as authorized by the 1960 River and Harbor Act. The rectification works at Steamboat and Ebey Sloughs are to be restudied. The costs under the existing project to June 30, 1962, have been $753,411 for new work and $585,470 for maintenance, a total of $1,338,881. Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 2 8 New work: Appropriated .......... $216,000 -$4,070 ........................ $183,120 $1,277,227 Cost.................. 252,135 2,523 ..................... 77,513 1,171,620 Maintenance: Appropriated ..................... $53,545 $70,860 65,000 635,427 Cost................. .......... .......... 3,046 121,359 20,912 591,339 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................. $1,188 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963.......... ................. 551,982 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963................ 553,170 1 Includes $418,209 for new work and $5,869 for maintenance for previous projects. 2 Includes $18,000 general investigations funds for preauthorization studies. a In addition, $13,000 has been contributed by local interests for new work. CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Contributed.......... .......... ..... .... .......... .......... .$13,000 $13,000 Cost....................................... Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962.... ........................ $8,000 Unobligated balance available for year ending June 30, 1963 ....................... 8,000 7. CHIEF JOSEPH DAM, COLUMBIA RIVER, WASH. Location. The Columbia River rises in Columbia Lake, British Columbia, at elevation 2,650, flows northwesterly for nearly 200 miles, then southerly through Upper and Lower Arrows Lakes to enter the United States near the northeast corner of the State of Washington. From the international boundary the river flows south 112 miles to a point below the mouth of the Spokane River, then west 100 miles to the mouth of the Okanogan River, pass- ing Grand Coulee Dam and Chief Joseph Dam en route. Swinging south, the river follows the eastern foothills of the Cascade Mountains for 209 miles to its confluence with Snake River. A few miles below the Snake, it turns sharply westward and flows for 324 miles, forming the Washington-Oregon boundary, to the Pacific Ocean. The works covered by this project are on the Columbia River just upstream from the mouth of Foster Creek, 11/2 miles upstream from the town of Bridgeport, Wash., and 51 miles downstream from Grand Coulee Dam. (U.S. Geological Survey topographic sheet "Okanogan, Wash.," shows the general locality.) Existing project. The project consists of a straight concrete gravity overflow dam on the Columbia River, 220 feet high, a powerhouse, and an intake structure with gate bays for 27 gen- 1944 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 erating units. The ultimate installed capacity will depend on fu- ture development of upstream storage. The powerhouse has 16 generator units installed now, and provides superstructure for 17 units and substructure for 20 units. All units will be 64,000 kilowatts capacity. The actual cost of the completed project was $144,659,652 (16 units). The construction of recreation facilities for the completed project is estimated to cost $140,000, raising the total project estimate to $144,799,652. The latest (1955) approved estimate for average annual cost of operation and maintenance for a 50-year project life is $1,853,000 for 16 units. The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of July 24, 1946. (See H. Doc. 693, 79th Cong., 2d sess., which contains the latest published map.) Local cooperation. None required. Local interests contributed estimated value of work and materials of $15,000 (July 1959) for bank protection at Brewster, 12 miles downstream from the dam. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: Engi- neering and installation were continued throughout the year for the following items: Centralized control of main generating units, millisecond operations recorder, spillway gate remote control equipment, inspection and evaluation of pilot repair program for erosion of stilling basin, and miscellaneous minor completion items. Minor procurement contracts were completed during the fiscal year. Work was completed on minor contracts in progress. Maintenance: The project was operated throughout the fiscal year, and routine maintenance work was performed. Rebrazing of main generator ring parallel bus connections was completed by hired labor. Costs for the fiscal year were $42,423 for new work, and $1,154,- 422 for maintenance, a total of $1,196,845. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of existing proj- ect, which was started in September 1949, is complete. Land ac- quisition has been essentially completed, except for five tracts of land for recreation facilities. The dam, powerhouse structure, and relocations are complete. All 16 power units of the initial installation have been installed, with the last unit being put on the line on September 27, 1958. Recreation facilities are being provided for public use. The total costs to June 30, 1962, have been $144,659,652 for new work and $6,141,843 for maintenance, a total of $150,801,495. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: .......... Appropriated $4,740,000 $1,906,000 $189,000 $147,083 $10,409 '$144,659,652 Cost................. 4,689,240 1,279,293 726,894 356,285 42,423 144,659,652 Maintenance: .......... Appropriated 868,000 961,400 1,019,030 1,082,200 1,142,406 6,158,630 Cost.................. 873,595 912,224 1,059,583 1,085,066 1,154,422 6,141,843 Other new work data: Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963........... .................... 2$20,000 Unobligated balance available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................... .. 220,000 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ................. ...... 2120,000 1Includes $321,400 general investigations funds for preauthorization studies. a From appropriation for recreation on completed projects-Code 710. RIVERS AND HARBORS - SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1945 8. QUILLAYUTE RIVER, WASH. Location. This river is formed by the junction of the Soleduck and Bogachiel Rivers, and flows westerly 5 miles to the Pacific Ocean at La Push, Wash., about 30 miles south of Cape Flattery. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 6102.) Existing project. This provides for: (a) a jetty 15 feet high above mean lower low water on the easterly side of the river mouth, and a dike on the westerly side, with a view of stabilizing the entrance; (b) a channel 10 feet deep and 100 feet wide ex- tending 2,000 feet upstream from deep water; and (c) a basin 10 feet deep, 300 to 425 feet wide, and 2,400 feet long upstream of the channel. The length of the section included in the project is 4,400 feet. The range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water at La Push is 8.3 feet. The extreme range is about 15 feet. The actual cost of new work was $541,850, including $521,850 Federal funds and local contribution of $20,000. Other non- Federal costs were $46,000. The groins authorized with the dike are considered to be in- active. The cost of this portion was last revised in 1954, and was estimated to be $12,000. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $89,590. The existing project was authorized by the following : Acts Work authorized Documents July 3, 1930 Jetty (5 feet high) on easterly side of mouth, and a dike H. Doc. 125, 71st Cong., 1st sess. with groins, on the westerly side, to stabilize entrance.1 Mar. 2, 1945 Maintenance dredging to provide a channel 6 feet deep H. Doc. 218, 78th Cong., 1st sess. and of suitable width from ocean to within river mouth. Sept. 3, 1954 Raising jetty to height of 15 feet; channel 10 by 100 feet, H. Doc. 579, 81st Cong., 2d sess. (con- 2,000 feet long; moorage basin. 2 tains latest published map.) 1 The groins have been classified as "inactive." "Maintenance of these items, as well as the sandspit north of James Island, is included in this modification. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total actual costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, amount to $66,116 for new work and $23,581 for maintenance, a total of $89,697. In 1944, about $10,000 of Navy funds were expended on dredg- ing of the river channel. A channel 6 feet deep, 50 feet wide, and about 2,500 feet long, extending upstream from the Coast Guard ways, was dredged in 1948 and 1949 with Coast Guard funds. Terminal facilities. There are five terminals at La Push, near the mouth of the Quillayute River; of these, three privately owned, and one owned by the Port of Port Angeles within the project basin, are open to public use to accommodate small commercial and sports fishing vessels; and the fifth, owned by the United States, is part of the Coast Guard station. These facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance, con- tract: Repair of jetty and dike was completed January 3, 1962, 1946 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 by placing 21,010 tons of rock in the jetty and 3,298 tons in the dike. Contract for construction of a timber training wall and for maintenance dredging was awarded May 17, 1962. Approximately 36,500 cubic yards of material were removed to June 30, 1962, and training wall construction was about 30 percent complete. Cost during the fiscal year was $213,839, all for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in February 1960. The low jetty and dike were completed in 1939, omitting the groins, which do not appear necessary or desirable, and have been classified as "inactive." Channel and mooring basin dredging was completed in July 1957. The rock jetty, 1,370 feet long with 12-foot crest at elevation 15 feet above mean lower low water, was completed in October 1957. A field inspection and condition survey made in May 1962 indicate the jetty and dike to be in good condition. Controlling dimensions in the channel and basin were as follows: Depth and width Date (feet) ascertained Channel from deep water to boat basin . ........................ 11 by 100............. May 1962 Boat basin....... ........................................... 0.2by 400 by 1,070..... Do. The costs to June 30, 1962, have been $521,850 from Federal funds and $20,000 from contributed funds, a total of $541,850 for new work; and $649,257 for maintenance, a total of $1,191,- 107. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 1 New work: Appropriated........... ......... -$25,508 $35,358 ........... .......... $521,850 Cost................$248,471 ............. 35,358 ......................... 521,850 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... 12,155 77,900 223,880 $1,459 $278,500 813,960 Cost................. 30,916 7,607 189,608 5,982 213,839 649,257 1In addition, $20,000 has been expended from contributed funds for new work. 9. SHILSHOLE BAY, SEATTLE, WASH. Location. This bay is an indentation of Puget Sound within the northwesterly city limits of Seattle, at the entrance to the Lake Washington ship canal. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Sur- vey Chart No. 6449.) Existing project. This provides for construction of 4,200 feet of breakwater north of the Lake Washington ship canal entrance to form a small-boat basin, and dredging the entrance and south- erly part of the basin to a depth of 15 feet at mean lower low water and 1,100 feet square, and the northerly part of the basin to a depth of 10 feet. The diurnal range of tide is 11.3 feet, and the extreme range is about 19.3 feet. The actual cost of new work was $2,590,024, including $15,000 U.S. Coast Guard funds. Non-Federal costs are estimated at $6,007,800 (July 1962). The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor RIVERS AND HARBORS - SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1947 Act of September 3, 1954. (See H. Doc. 536, 81st Cong., 2d sess., which contains the latest published map.) Local cooperation. Provisions of the 1954 River and Harbor Act required local interests to: (a) Furnish without cost to the United States all necessary lands, easements, and rights-of-way, and spoil-disposal areas for construction and maintenance of the improvement, when and as required, including provision and main- tenance of necessary bulkheads for retention of the spoil; (b) provide and maintain all alterations in utilities, as required; (c) hold and save the United States free from all damages that may result from construction and maintenance of the improvement; (d) maintain project depths in the basin areas occupied by boat slips and stalls; and (e) provide, maintain, and operate suitable mooring facilities, including a public landing with supply facilities, utilities, and a parking area, open to all on equal terms. The Port of Seattle Commission, by resolution adopted October 25, 1956, assured the United States that the requirements of local cooperation will be met. Necessary rights-of-way for spoil dis- posal areas and bulkheads for retention of spoil were furnished by the Port of Seattle on November 21, 1956. The Port of Seattle has expended $4,715,800 in meeting the requirements of local cooperation, has work in progress amounting to $362,000, and proposes additional work amounting to $930,000, a total of $6,007,- 800. Work completed includes furnishing of land and rights-of- way, bulkheads and breakwater, pier, moorages, utilities and pav- ing, north breakwater, administration building foundation and superstructure, and marine traffic barrier. The moorage facili- ties are about 85 percent complete. Remaining work consists of additional floats and a dry storage area. Terminal facilities. There are seven pier and wharf facilities in Shilshole Bay, all of which are within the canal entrance below the locks. One facility within the project basin is publicly owned and operated and consists of two piers, a number of mooring floats, a boat-launching ramp, marine service station, and restaurant. The remaining six are privately owned and are used for servicing and moorage of small craft. Operationsand results during fiscal year. New work, contract: Construction of a 240-foot extension of the breakwater to provide additional protection for the northern portion of the basin was completed during the period July 17 to November 3, 1961, by placing 20,493 tons of stone. Costs during the fiscal year were $109,617, all for new work. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project was completed in June 1958; but additional protection for the northern portion of the basin, consisting of a 240-foot extension of the breakwater, was authorized in March 1961. The breakwater was completed in January 1958 to a length of 4,200 feet and a crest width of 10 feet at elevation 20 feet above mean lower low water; the 240- foot extension was completed in November 1961. Dredging of the boat basin was completed in June 1958, with a total of 940,000 cubic yards of material being removed. Controlling depths, when last ascertained, were as follows: 1948 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Depth and width Date (feet) ascertained South entrance channel ................ ......................... 16.9 by 300............ April 1961. North entrance channel ........................................... 15.5 by 180............. October 1961 Fairway channel ................................................. 19.1 by 200 to 15.7 by 500. April 1961 Total costs to June 30, 1962, were $2,575,092, all for new work. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... 1,730,000 $210,960 ......... $160,000 -$45,868 $2,575,092 Cost................. 1,684,039 264,712 ............ 4,515 109,617 2,575,092 10. LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL, WASH. Location. This improvement lies entirely within the city of Seattle and extends from Puget Sound through Shilshole Bay, Salmon Bay, Lake Union, Portage Bay, and Union Bay to deep water in Lake Washington. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 6447.) Previous projects. The original project adopted by the River and Harbor Act of August 18, 1894, provided for dredging Salmon Bay and the improvement of the waterway connecting the waters of Puget Sound, at Salmon Bay, with Lakes Union and Washing- ton, by enlarging the said waterways into a ship canal, with neces- sary locks and appliances. The project as modified by the River and Harbor Act of June 13, 1902, provided for dredging a low- water channel 10 feet in depth from Shilshole Bay through Sal- mon Bay to the wharves at Ballard; and for the appointment of a board of engineers to make investigations for constructing a canal, over alternate routes, with necessary locks and dams. For further details see page 2003, Annual Report for 1915, and page 1880, Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for a double lock and fixed dam with movable crest and necessary accessory works at the Narrows at the entrance to Salmon Bay, approximately 11/4 miles from deep water in Puget Sound; for a channel 34 feet deep at mean lower low water and 300 feet wide from Puget Sound to the Great Northern Railway bridge, about 5,500 feet, with a passing basin 34 feet deep and log basin 8 feet deep at the turn below the railway bridge; thence 34 feet deep and 150 to 200 feet wide to the locks, about 900 feet; and a guide pier 600 feet long; for the revetment of the canal banks between the locks and Lake Union and between Lakes Union and Washington; and for a channel 30 feet deep with a width of 100 feet from the locks to Lake Union, 200 feet thence to Portage Cut, 100 feet through Portage Cut, and thence 200 feet wide through Union Bay to Lake Washington. The following table shows the principal features of the double lock and dam. (The structures are located at Seattle, Wash.) RIVERS AND HARBORS - SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1949 Large lock Small lock Miles above mouth ..................................................... 1% 1Y4 Clear width of chamber ............................................... feet.. 80 28 Maximum available length................................... do 760 123 Lift .......... ........................................ do 26 26 Depth on upper miter sill 1..................................................do.. 36 16 Depth on intermediate miter sill 2.............................. ........... do.. 29 .............. Depth on lower miter sill ................................................. do.. 29 16 Character of foundation ... ............................................. (2) (2) Kind of dam ... .................................................. ....... () (') Type of construction......... ................................................ ( ) ( Year completed .. ....... ............................................ 1916 1916 Cost... . .... ) () ((..................................... 1 Low water in upper pool. 2Mean lower low water in Puget Sound. s Clay. 4 Fxed dam with movable crest. s Concrete. 6 The cost of double lock and dam was $2,224,712 and the emergency gates, completed in 1923, $174,698. The length of section included in this project is about 8 miles. The extreme tidal range is 19.3 feet. The range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 11.3 feet, and between mean lower low water and extreme low water is 4.5 feet. The ordinary fluctuation in the upper pool is approximately 22 inches; and the extreme fluctuation has been 3.6 feet. The actual cost for new work was $3,539,295, exclusive of amounts expended on previous projects. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $543,103. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents June 25, 1910 For a double lock and fixed dam with movable crest and H. Doc. 953, 60th Cong., 1st sess. Mar. 4, 1913 necessary accessory works at the entrance to Salmon Bay; dredging a channel from the locks to deep water in Puget Sound, and excavation by local interests of a channel from the locks into Lake Washington. Aug. 8, 1917 Dredging below the locks and revetting canal banks....... H. Doc. 800, 64th Cong., 1st sess. Sept. 22, 1922 Increased dimensions of the channel between Puget Sound H. Doc. 324, 67th Cong., 2d sass. and the locks and a 600-foot extension of the lower guide pier. June 26, 1934 Operating and care of the locks and dam provided for with funds from War Department appropriations for rivers and harbors. Aug. 30, 1935 2 Enlargement of the channel between the locks and Lake H. Doc. 140, 72d Cong., 1st sess. 3 Washington. 1 Permanent Appropriations Repeal Act. aIncluded in the Public Works Administration program, Sept. 6, 1933. s Contains the latest published maps. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total actual costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization were $988,638. Estimated additional non-Federal costs for right-of-way acquisition were $1 million (1931 price level). Terminal facilities. There are 195 wharves, piers, and landings on Lake Washington ship canal and adjacent inland waters, in- cluding Shilshole Bay, Salmon Bay, Lake Union, Portage Bay, and Lake Washington. Ten wharves are used for moorage and servic- ing of commercial fishing vessels; of these, two are publicly owned. Other publicly operated wharves include eight used by agencies of the U.S. Government, three by the city of Seattle, and three 1950 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 by King County. The other wharves include 40 used for the building, outfitting, or repair of vessels, 12 for handling pe- troleum products, 44 for various industrial purposes, and 67 for mooring and servicing pleasure craft. These facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance, hired labor: The locks were operated and maintained throughout the year. A recording salinity indicator was installed at University Bridge. Maintenance, contract: Work completed included fabrication and installation of a modified salt water drain intake; fabrication and installation of the south wall small lock mooring floats; re- pairs to northwest section of Portage Cut revetment, and minor repairs to southwest section of Portage Cut revetment. Costs dur- ing the fiscal year were $576,517, all for operation and care. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in 1934. The water between the locks and Lake Washing- ton is nontidal and, insofar as water supply will permit, is controlled between elevations 20 and 22 feet above mean lower low water in Puget Sound. Controlling depths were as follows: Feet Date ascertained Puget Sound tothelocks......................................... 29.7 February 1962 Locks toLake Union .. ......... ............................ 29.5 January 1962 Lake Union to Lake Washington ................................. 28.3 February 1962 The costs under the existing project to June 30, 1962, have been $3,539,295 for new work, including $192,516 public works funds, and $8,686,958 for operation and maintenance, a total of $12,- 226,253. In addition, the sum of $1,631,195 was expended between 1916 and 1936 on the operation and care of the works of improvement, under the provisions of the permanent indefinite appropriation for such purposes. In addition, there was expended by the State of Washington $246,567, and by King County, $742,071, in the excavation of the channel above the locks and in construction of concrete revetment at the portage. Cost and financial statement Totalto Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ................. ............ .. ........... ......... $4,024,297 Cost........................ ........... 4,024,297 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... $500,200 $491,900 $574,318 $634,800 $530,600 10,340,858 430,811 Cost................. 507,885 515,821 684,481 576,517 10,318,154 1Includes $485,002 for new work for previous projects. 11. SEATTLE HARBOR, WASH. Location. This harbor includes all waterways within the city limits of Seattle. The chief anchorage basin is Elliott Bay, an RIVERS AND HARBORS - SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1951 arm of Puget Sound, 30 miles north of Tacoma. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 6449.) Existing project. This provides for maintenance of the east and west waterways to a depth of 34 feet at mean lower low water, with a width of 750 feet for distances of 6,500 and 5,200 feet, respectively, from the pierhead line in Elliott Bay; for the mainte- nances of East Waterway between the upper end of the 750-foot section and Spokane Street, 34 feet deep, 700 feet long, and 400 feet wide, and of a turning basin, including the head of the East Waterway at the junction of the waterways south of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad bridge, to a depth of 30 feet, after these sections of the waterway have been dredged by local interests to full project dimensions; and for dredging the Duwamish Waterway 200 feet wide and 30 feet deep at mean lower low water between the West Waterway and First Avenue South, 150 by 20 feet between First and Eighth Avenues South, thence 150 by 15 feet to a point about 1.4 miles above the 14th Avenue South Bridge, with a turning basin 600 by 350 feet and 20 feet deep just south of the First Avenue South Bridge, and a turning basin 500 by 250 feet and 15 feet deep, and settling basin of about 100,000 cubic yards capacity at the upper end of the waterway, a distance of 5.12 miles. The total length of waterways included under the project is about 71/2 miles. The range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 11.3 feet. The extreme tidal range is 19.3 feet. The actual cost for new work was $239,668, including $170,335 Federal funds and $69,333 contributed by local interests. The settling basin portion of the project is considered to be inactive and is excluded from the foregoing cost estimate. The cost of this portion was last revised in 1954, and was estimated to be $23,000, exclusive of $28,500 to be contributed by local interests. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was 89,216. The existing project was authorized by the following: Act Work authorized Documents Mar. 2, 1919 Maintenance of the East and West Waterways 750 feet S. Doc. 313, 65th Cong., 3d sess. wide and 34 feet deep, and of the Duwamish Waterway 20 feet deep and 150 feet wide as far south as the Eighth Avenue South Bridge. Mar. 3, 1925\ Enlargement of the Duwamish Waterway 1............... H. Doec. 108, 68th Cong., 1st sess., and July 3, 1930] H. Doc. 126, 71st Cong., 2d sess.2 Aug. 30, 1935 Maintenance of the east waterway between the 750-foot H. Doc. 211, 72d Cong., 1st sess. section and Spokane St. and of the turning basin at the junction of the east and Duwamish waterways. 1Includes settling basin of 100,000 cubic-yard capacity which has been classified as inactive. 2 Contains latest published maps. Local cooperation. Fully complied with, including agreement to pay half of the cost of dredging the settling basin at such time as in the judgment of the United States seems necessary. Total actual known costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, amount to $69,333. Estimated cost for the inactive portion is $28,500 (1954). 1952 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Terminal facilities. There are 117 wharves and piers on Seattle Harbor, exclusive of those given in the report for Lake Wash- ington ship canal. Fifty-one are located on Elliott Bay, 16 on East Waterway, 9 on West Waterway, and 39 on Duwamish Water- way. Of these, 20 general cargo terminals and one grain terminal are open for public use. Thirteen of the general cargo terminals are publicly owned, and seven of these are publicly operated. The grain terminal is publicly owned and privately operated. The remaining 95 serve various industrial purposes, with the excep- tion of 9 that are either owned or leased by the United States and are restricted to Government use. These facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance, hired labor: Condition surveys of Duwamish and East Waterways were made in February 1962. Maintenance, contract: Dredging below First Avenue South Bridge, under contract awarded in May 1961, was completed in September 1961 with removal of 102,136 cubic yards of material. Costs during the fiscal year were $58,760, all for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in 1931, except the settling basin, which has been classified as inactive. Controlling dimensions were as follows: Depth and width Date (feet) ascertained West Waterway .......................................... 134 January 1961 East Waterwc y: 750-foot section............................................ 29.5 February 1962 400-foot section.............................................. 24.9by 250 January 1961 Duwamish Waterway: From head of West Waterway to 1st Ave. South .................. 227.3 February 1962 1st Ave. South to 8th Ave. South ............................... 14.2 by 75 Do. 8th Ave. South to 14th Ave. South...............................12.1 Do. 14th Ave. South to 4,500 feet above 14th Ave. South............... 6.2 by 100 Po. From 4,500 feet above 14th Ave. South to turning basin 1 by 75 Do. Leastdepth in turning basin ................................... 1.4 Do. 1Except along the edges and the extreme inner portion. 2 Except along the edges. Local interests have practically completed dredging of East Water- way above the 750-foot section and of the turning basin at the junction of the waterways to 30 feet. The costs from Federal funds to June 30, 1962, have been Cost and financial statement to Total Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962' New work: .. ......... Appropriated.......... ........... .......... .... ..... . ........ $170,335 Cost.................... 170,335 Maintenance: Appropriated..........$16,681 ............. $143,000 $51,000 $11,993 1,354,485 Cost................. 240,088 ............ 5,694 141,540 58,759 1,354,485 Other new work data: Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ......................... (2) 1 In addition, $69,333 for new work was expended from contributed funds. as "In- 2 $23,000 is estimated cost (July 1954) of settling basin, which has been classified active." RIVERS AND HARBORS - SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1953 $170,335 for new work and $1,354,485 for maintenance, a total of $1,524,820. In addition, $69,333 has been expended from con- tributed funds for new work. 12. TACOMA HARBOR, WASH. Location. This harbor is 30 miles south of Seattle and embraces Commencement Bay and tributary waterways. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 6407.) Previous projects. The project for the Puyallup Waterway, providing for a channel 500 feet wide, 32 feet deep, and 3,650 feet long, was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of March 3, 1905; suspended by the act of June 25, 1910; and abandoned by the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1935. For further de- tails, see pages 1372 to 1376 of Annual Report for 1934, and page 1875 of Annual Report for 1938. The project providing for maintenance of a channel in Wapato (Port Industrial) Waterway, 700 feet wide and 34 feet deep over such length as shall have been dredged by local interests to di- mensions stated, was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1935, superseded by the project for that waterway adopted March 2, 1945, and again superseded by the existing proj- ect adopted September 3, 1954. For further details, see page 1702 of Annual Report for 1944, and page 1502 of Annual Report for 1954. Existing project. This provides for: (a) A channel in City Waterway, 500 feet wide and 29 feet deep at mean lower low water from deep water in Commencement Bay to the 11th Street Bridge, 500 feet wide and 22 feet deep to the 14th Street Bridge, and vary- ing from 500 to 250 feet wide and 19 feet deep from the 14th Street Bridge to the end of this waterway, a total length of 8,500 feet; (b) a channel in Hylebos Waterway 200 feet wide and 30 feet deep from Commencement Bay to the bend below Lincoln Avenue, thence 150 feet wide and 30 feet deep for about 3,000 feet to the head of the waterway, and a turning basin of the same depth, 410 feet wide and 900 feet average length; (c) construction of two training walls, each about 700 feet long, at the mouth of Puyallup River; and (d) dredging to a depth of 30 feet, Port Industrial (Wapato) Waterway from deep water in Commencement Bay to not nearer than 100 feet from Lincoln Avenue, and over widths not nearer than 50 feet from established pierhead lines or lateral The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents June 13, 1902 City Waterway........ ............. ............... H. Doc. 76, 56th Cong., 2d sess. July 3, 1930 H Aug. 26, 1937 Hylebos Waterway.............. ........... Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. 25, 71st Cong., 2d sess., 1 and Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. 91, 74th Cong., 2d sess. Aug. 30, 1935 Training walls at the mouth of Puyallup River. (Training Rivers and Harbors Committee Doe. walls previously authorized by the Public Works Ad- 55, 72d Cong., 2d sess. ministration Sept. 6, 1933.) Sept. 3, 1954 Port Industrial (Wapato) Waterway extension ............. H. Doe. 271, 84th Cong., 2d sess. 1 Contains latest published maps of Hylebos Waterway. 2 Contains latest published map of Port Industrial Waterway. 1954 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 limits of the waterway, except through East 11th Street Bridge, where the channel width shall be 150 feet. The extreme tidal range is about 20 feet. The range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 11.8 feet. The actual cost of new work was $940,278, exclusive of amounts expended on previous projects, and exclusive of $62,700 value in work contributed by local interests for dredging Port Industrial (Wapato) Waterway. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $2,653. Recommended modification of project. The Chief of Engineers, in a report dated September 15, 1961, recommended modifica- tion of the existing project to provide for: (a) Extending Port Industrial Waterway approximately 3,900 feet at a width of 300 feet, and dredging a turning basin 1,200 feet wide beyond the end of the channel; deepening the existing channel and reducing the width to 600 feet between East 11th Street and Lincoln Avenue; deepening a 300-foot-wide portion of the existing chan- nel seaward of East 11th Street, all at a depth of 35 feet below mean lower low water; and reducing the channel width to 650 feet seaward of East 11th Street; and (b) extending Hylebos Waterway approximately 2,000 feet at a width of 200 feet and dredging a turning basin 770 feet wide beyond the end of the channel; reducing the authorized width of the existing turning basin including the existing channel, to 510 feet to correspond with the limits of the project as actually constructed; increasing the width of the existing channel to a minimum of 200 feet; widening the channel at the outside of the Lincoln Avenue bend to a maximum width of 300 feet for a length of approximately 300 feet; and widening the channel a maximum of 50 feet at the in- side of the bend below East 11th Street; all at the existing depth of 30 feet below mean lower low water, at an estimated total first cost of $2,481,000 (July 1961) to the Government (including $21,000 general investigations funds for preauthorization studies), and $8,000 annually for increased project maintenance; subject to certain conditions of local cooperation, including a cash contribution or equivalent work 29.5 and 19.5 percent, re- spectively, of the cost of construction by the Corps of Engineers on the Port Industrial and Hylebos Waterways improvements, presently estimated at a total of $921,000. Local cooperation. Fully complied with, including the provisions of the 1954 River and Harbor Act, authorizing extension of Port Industrial Waterway, which required local interests to: (a) Fur- nish all lands, easements, disposal areas, and rights-of-way neces- sary for construction and maintenance of the improvement when and as required; (b) hold and save the United States free from damages that may result from construction and maintenance of the improvement; (c) make alterations as required in sewer, water supply, drainage, and other utility facilities; and (d) pro- vide and maintain suitable terminal and transfer facilities, and adequate depths in approaches and berthing areas adjacent to the terminals. Disposal areas were furnished by the Port of Tacoma Novem- RIVERS AND HARBORS - SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1955 ber 19, 1955. In a formal agreement dated February 13, 1956, the Port of Tacoma agreed to comply with the foregoing require- ments. The Port has borne one-half the project costs allocable to land enhancement, amounting to $62,697, as required. No al- terations to utilities were necessary. The Port furnished lands and rights-of-way valued at $20,000, and dredged berthing areas at an actual cost of $128,494. Total actual costs to local interests for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the 1954 Modification, including required non-Federal contributions, amount to $211,191. Terminal facilities. When last enumerated in 1961, Tacoma Harbor contained 120 navigational facilities, including 46 wharves and piers originally constructed for oceangoing commerce, and 74 light-draft facilities, including marine repair and construction yards, recreational boat moorages, log dumps, and miscellaneous facilities serving barge and towboat operations. Of the original oceangoing facilities, 14 are deteriorated or idle, and 5 are oc- cupied by activities which do not utilize oceangoing vessels. The remainder have the following deep-draft navigational uses: 8 general cargo, including 3 publicly owned; 6 petroleum products, including 1 publicly owned; 10 industrial, including 2 publicly owned; 1 grain, publicly owned; 1 lumber, and 1 Federal. These 27 wharves and piers, currently used for oceangoing commerce, contain berthing space for about 36 vessels. Seven of the general- cargo piers and the grain terminal are open to general public use. The remaining facilities, except for the Federal pier, are either privately owned and operated or leased for private use. A bulk cargo terminal is under construction, and a new wharf, planned for construction soon by the Port of Tacoma, will be open to general public use. On completion of these features, Ta- coma's harbor facilities will be adequate for existing general- cargo commerce. However, new industrial water terminals are needed to promote future growth of the area. Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance, hired labor: Plans and specifications were prepared for dredging and widening of one bend in Hylebos Waterway, and contract was awarded June 29, 1962. Costs during the fiscal year were $3,739, all for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in August 1956. City Waterway was completed in 1905 at a cost of $150,019. Hylebos Waterway was completed in 1939 at a cost of $212,502. The two rubble-mound training walls at the mouth of Puyallup River were completed in 1934 at a cost of $51,609. On April 4, 1943, a slide destroyed the east training wall. Approximately 550 feet of this wall were replaced by an untreated contact-pile structure during July 1954, which was soon destroyed by teredo action. Construction of a treated con- tact-pile wall to replace the untreated structure was completed in May 1956. Both walls are in good condition. Extension of Port Industrial Waterway was completed in August 1956 at a cost of $662,637. The Port of Tacoma dredged about 1,588,000 cubic yards of the Federal project work in the waterway. The controlling depths, when last ascertained, were as follows: 1956 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Depth W dth Date (feet) (feet) ascertained City Waterway: Commencement Bay to South 11th Street ....................... 28.5 280 Mar. 1962. South 11th Street to South 14th Street .......................... 21.7 380 Do. 1,200 feet above South 14th Street ................................ 10.4 200 Do. South 14th Street to held of waterway .............................. 13.7 100 Do. Hylebos Waterway: Deep water in Commencement Bay to East 11th Street ............... 26.8 170 Feb. 1962. East 11th Street to bend below Lincoln Avenue .................... 27.7 140 Do. Above Lincoln Avenue. ........................................ 28.8 120 Do. Least depth in turning basin ..................................... 26.1 .......... Do. Port Industrial Waterway: Deep water in Commencement Bay to East 11th Street Bridge......... 29.0 600 Mar. 1962. East 11th Street Bridge to a point 300 feet from the head of the basin. 28.3 600 Do. Total costs under the existing project to June 30, 1962, were $940,278 for new work, including $51,609 public works funds, but exclusive of $62,700 of value of work contributed by local interests in accordance with their agreement to bear one-half the Port Industrial Waterway project costs allocable to land enhance- ment; and $339,900 for maintenance, a total of $1,280,178, not in- cluding $5,000 contributed funds for maintenance work on City Waterway. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 1 2 New work: Appropriated.......... ............ ......... ........ .... .... .......... .......... $1,099,862 Cost.................. .......... ......... . ............. . .... .. .......... 1,099,862 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... $10,000 -$476 ....................... $76,000 417,508 Cost.................. 88 9,436 ......................... 3,739 345,247 1 Includes $159,584 for new work and $5,347 for maintenance for previous projects. 2In addition, $5,000 for maintenance has been expended from contributed funds; and $62,700 value in work has been contributed by local interests for dredging Port Industrial Waterway. SIn addition, $19,800 has been contributed by the Port Commission, Port of Tacoma, for emergency widening of Hylebos Waterway. 13. GRAYS HARBOR AND CHEHALIS RIVER, WASH. Location. Grays Harbor lies at the mouth of Chehalis River, in the southwestern part of the State of Washington, 45 miles north of the entrance to Columbia River. The inner portion com- prises two main channels, the south and the north, connecting the harbor proper with the Chehalis River at Aberdeen. Chehalis River rises in the southwestern part of the State of Washington, about 40 miles east of the Pacific Ocean, flows in a general north- westerly direction and empties in to the eastern part of Grays Harbor. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 6195.) Previous projects. The original project for the Chehalis River, adopted by the River and Harbor Act of August 2, 1882, provided for removal of log jams and for annual snagging. The original project for the inner harbor, adopted by the River and Harbor Act of July 13, 1892, provided for improvement of north channel, by constructing a dike across middle channel and head of south channel; and improving Chehalis River from Grays Harbor to Montesano by dredging a channel 16 feet deep and 200 feet wide and by diking across five sloughs. For further details, see pages RIVERS AND HARBORS - SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1957 2002-2003 of Annual Report for 1915, and page 1863 of Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for an entrance channel across the bar 600 feet wide and 30 feet deep, to be secured by a south jetty 13,734 feet long and a north jetty 16,000 feet long, both at an elevation of 16 feet above mean lower low water and by dredg- ing; for maintenance of a channel 30 feet deep at mean lower low water and 350 feet wide from deep water in Grays Harbor to Cow Point, a distance of 14 miles; thence 30 feet deep and 200 feet wide, suitably widened at the bends, to a point 13,700 feet upstream from the Union Pacific Railroad bridge at Aberdeen, a distance of 41/8 miles, a turning basin 30 feet deep, 550 feet wide, and 1,000 feet long at the upstream end of the 30-foot channel near Cosmopolis; for a channel 14 feet deep at mean lower low water and 100 feet wide in South Bay to Bay City; for two break- waters at, and maintenance of an entrance channel to, Westhaven Cove; and for protection of Point Chehalis for an exposed length of about 7,500 feet. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 9 feet at Point Chehalis, 9.9 feet at Aberdeen, and 8.1 feet at Montesano. The extreme range is 15 feet at Point Chehalis, 18.1 feet at Aberdeen, and 23.8 feet at Montesano (river flood of 1935). The actual cost of new work was $4,989,197, including $4,785,- 363 Corps of Engineers funds, $6,000 U.S. Coast Guard funds, $162,000 U.S. Navy funds, and $35,834 contributed by local in- terests. Other non-Federal costs were $1,193,000. The Cosmopolis to Montesano portion of the project (dredging from 12- to 16- The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents an reports - -- -1-I- _ June 3, 1896 South jetty ... ... ........................... Annual Report, 1895, pp. 3517_3533. Mar. 2, 1907 A north jetty, 9,030 feet long ................... ....... Rivers and Harbors Committee Dc. 2, 59th Cong., 2d sess. Do. .......The 18-foot channel ............ .. ................. H. Doe. 507, 59th Cong., 1st sess. June 25, 1910 Extension of the north jetty, 7,000 feet; length of the Rivers and Harbors Committee Doe. south jetty fixed at 13,734 feet. 29, 61st Cong., 2d sess. Do ....... A 6-foot channel above Cosmopolis ..................... H. Doe. 1125, 60th Cong., 2d sess. Aug. 8, 1917 H. Doe. 1729, 64th Cong., 2d sess. Dredging in the bar channel ................... ........ Jan. 21, 1927 H. Doec. 582, 69th Cong., 2d sess. July 3, 1930 The 16-foot channel from Cosmopolis to Montesano 1...... H. Doec. 315, 70th Cong., 1st sess. Aug. 30, 1935 Reconstruction of the north and south jetties to an elevation Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. of 16 feet above mean lower low water. 2, 74th Cong., 1st sess. Do....... Maintenance of the 26-foot channel below Aberdeen (as H. Doec. 53, 73d Cong., 1st sess.; authorized by the Public Works Administration Dec. 11, Rivers and Harbors Committee Dec. 1933) and for combining the projects for Grays Harbor 2, 74th Cong., 1st sess. and bar entrance, and Grays Harbor, inner portion, and Chehalis River, under a modified project for Grays Har- bor and Chehalis River. Mar. 2, 1945 Maintenance of a 30-foot depth in the channel from deep Report on file in Office, Chief of En- water in Grays Harbor to the Port of Grays Harbor gineers. Commission terminal, which was deepened from 26 to 30 feet with Navy funds. June 30, 1948 The 14-foot channel to Bay City; breakwater at West- H. Doec. 635, 80th Cong., 21 sess. haven; protection of Point Chehalis; and maintenance of Westhaven entrance channel. 2 Sept. 3, 1954 Dredging and maintenance of a 30-foot channel and turning H. Doe. 412, 83d Cong., 2d sess. basin from Aberdeen to Cosmopolis. Do ....... Additional breakwater, 1,400 feet long, at Westhaven Cove.. H. Doe. 30, 84th Cong., 1st sess. a 1 This modification is classified as "inactive" and consists of a channel 16 feet deep, 150 feet wide, and 103/ miles long, with a turning basin 16 feet deep, 1,500 feet long, and 200 to 500 feet wide, at Montesano. a The uncompleted portion of west shore revetment, 2,200 linear feet, is classified "deferred." SContains latest published map. 1958 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 foot depth) is classified as inactive. The cost of this portion was last revised in 1955, and the Federal cost was estimated to be $244,000, with $244,000 to be contributed by local interests. The uncompleted portion of West Shore revetment, 2,200 linear feet, is to be restudied. The cost of this portion was last revised in 1961, and was estimated to be $530,000. The total cost of new work does not include amounts expended on previous projects. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $463,813. Local cooperation. The River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1930, adopting the 16-foot channel, provides that local interests con- tribute one-half the first cost, estimated at $280,000 (1955), and give assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War and Chief of Engineers that they will assume the entire cost of maintenance of same and provide a suitable public terminal at Montesano. These assurances have been given and $35,834 contributed, which was expended in 1931 with an equal amount of Government funds in securing a 12-foot channel to Montesano, the remaining con- tribution necessary to complete the project being deferred until a later date, as approved by the Secretary of War, March 18, 1931. The River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1935, continues the requirement that local interests shall pay one-half of the first cost of enlarging the channel between Cosmopolis and Montesano, and further provides that the Grays Harbor Port Commission shall continue to remove all snags and deadheads from the chan- nels, shall furnish free of cost to the United States suitable areas for the disposal of dredged material as and when needed, and shall assist in the work of maintenance by loaning to the United States, when not required on the work of the Commission its pipe- line dredge without charge other than reimbursement to the Port of Grays Harbor Commission for the operating costs of the dredge on a basis approved by the Chief of Engineers, and maintain the channel above the Union Pacific Railroad bridge at Aberdeen.' These conditions have been met as required to cover current needs. With Navy funds, the 26-foot channel was deepened to 30 feet, and widened to 350 feet in the narrow section, from the port terminal to deep water, at a cost of $162,000. Local cooperation requirements of the Act of June 30, 1948, authorizing the Bay City Channel and improvements at Westhaven and Point Chehalis, have been fully complied with. Total actual costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the 1948 Act amount to $661,000. Local cooperation requirements of the Act of September 3, 1954, authorizing the 30-foot channel to Cosmopolis and the additional breakwater at Westhaven Cove, have been fully complied with. The act continues the requirement that the Port of Grays Harbor Commission shall lend to the United States its pipeline dredge, when not required on necessary work for the port, for mainte- nance dredging, without charge other than reimbursement for the operation and maintenance costs, on a basis approved by the Chief of Engineers. Total actual costs for all requirements of local 1Modified by 1954 River and Harbor Act. RIVERS AND HARBORS - SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1959 cooperation under the terms of the 1954 act amount to $532,000, including $462,000 for Westhaven Cove breakwater, and $70,000 for the 30-foot channel. Terminal facilities. There are 33 wharves and piers on Grays Harbor and adjacent inland waters, including 1 general cargo terminal, 13 sawmill wharves, 2 pulp and papermill wharves, 7 fish wharves, 8 miscellaneous industrial wharves, and 2 are not in use. One general cargo wharf and two fish wharves are publicly owned and open to public use. These facilities are considered ade- quate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work, hired labor: Operations during the fiscal year consisted of engineering studies and observations of Point Chehalis. Costs during the fiscal year were $3,088. Maintenance, hired labor: The U. S. hopper dredge Davison, during the period August 11 to September 14, 1961, removed 204,589 cubic yards of material from Sand Island Shoal and 18,271 cubic yards from the north channel, a total of 222,860 cubic yards of material, bin measurement. The U.S. hopper dredge Pacific, during the period October 23, 1961, to March 11, 1962, removed 467,724 cubic yards from Sand Island Shoal, and 391,372 cubic yards from the crossover channel, a total of 859,096 cubic yards, bin measurement. The pipeline dredge Robert Gray, leased from the Port of Grays Harbor Commission, removed 347,148 cubic yards of material from the north channel. A total of 1,429,104 cubic yards of material was removed from the ship channel by all dredges. A turning basin 600 feet by 1,000 feet was dredged by the Port of Grays Harbor Commission down- stream from the Union Pacific Railroad bridge. Costs during the fiscal year were $3,088 for new work, and $531,932 for maintenance, a total of $535,020. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in November 1959, except for engineering studies and ob- servations of Point Chehalis protective works, and excluding the deferred and inactive portions. The south jetty was completed in 1902 with a groin 11,952 feet from the highwater line. A 12,656- foot section of the jetty was reconstructed to an elevation of 20 feet above mean lower low water during the period 1936 through 1940. In August 1960, the inner 100 feet of the recon- structed jetty had been partially removed, the next 4,800 feet were at or near grade, the next 500 feet showed subsidence to a maximum depth of 16 feet below grade, and the outer 7,256 feet varied from elevations 4 feet above to elevations below mean lower low water. The north jetty was completed to midtide eleva- tion in December 1913. It was later restored and raised to or above ordinary high water, this work being completed in January 1916. During 1941 and 1942, an 8,288-foot section was recon- structed westward from the high-water line, the inner 7,760 feet being raised to a crest elevation of + 20 feet and the remainder to an elevation of +30 feet. The remainder of the north jetty has not been restored. The 412-foot section seaward of the recon- structed jetty is at the elevation of mean lower low water, and the 7,300-foot section shoreward of the reconstructed jetty has 1960 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 sanded in. An examination of the reconstructed jetty, made in August 1960, showed that sea action had reduced the crest of the outer 528-foot section from elevation +30 to approximate elevation +20 feet, the next 2,300 feet showed a maximum settle- ment of 15 feet to elevation + 5 feet, and the next 2,200-foot sec- tion has settlements varying from 10 feet to zero. A section of old jetty rock has been exposed by a breach in the sandspit at the inshore end of the reconstructed work. The Westhaven Cove breakwater authorized by the 1948 River and Harbor Act was completed in two sections, A and B, and four timber-pile groins to protect Point Chehalis were constructed. In 1951, three rock groins were added to the Point Chehalis works. In 1952, the original timber-pile groins were reinforced, and a revetment con- necting all seven groins was constructed with stone removed from the east end of the reconstructed portion of the south jetty; and local interests completed initial dredging of the entrance channel to Westhaven Cove. In 1953 and 1954, section A of the breakwater and one of the groins were reinforced. Construction of 1,100 linear feet of west shore revetment at Westhaven Cove, extending westward and southward along the shore of Point Chehalis from groin 5, has been completed. Breakwater C, con- sisting of a timber-pile, rock-reinforced breakwater 1,350 feet long, was completed in January 1958, except for installation of horizontal planking, and rock revetment of the dredged fill dike placed by the Port of Grays Harbor at the end of breakwater C, which was completed in November 1959. A field reconnaissance made in February 1962 indicated that extension of the west shore revetment at Point Chehalis was not required at present, and existing protective works at Point Chehalis were found to be in good condition. Remaining 2,200- foot portion of revetment was classified "deferred." The 26-foot channel previously dredged by the Port of Grays Harbor below Aberdeen was deepened to 30 feet from the port terminal to deep water in the lower harbor in 1945 with U.S. Navy funds. Deepening of the 26- and 18-foot channels to 30 feet, between the port terminal and Cosmopolis, with a turning basin at Cosmopolis of the same depth, was completed in July 1956. The 6-foot channel between Cosmopolis and Montesano, completed in 1910, was deepened to 12 feet in 1931. The Bay City Channel was completed in July 1950. The controlling depths, when last ascertained, were as follows: Depth Width Date (feet) (feet) ascertained Bar channel and entrance................ .... .............. 37.0 600 Sept. 1961. Deep water in lower harbor to Cow Point ........................... 25.0 210 Mar., Apr., and May 1962. Cow Point to Cosmopolis. ............... ............................ ...... 27.2 200 Jan. 1962. Cosmopolis to Montesano .............. ........................ 8.9 Variable Apr. 1943. Bay City Channel ............. . .......................... 11.1 100 Jan. 1962. Westhaven Cove entrance channel ... ................ ....... 15.6 100 May 1962. The total costs of the existing project to June 30, 1962, were as follows: RIVERS AND HARBORS - SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1961 Funds New work Maintenance Total Regular. ................... ..................... 4,785,363 $16,391,510 $21,179,873 Public works............... ..................................... 57,000 57,000 Emergency relief .................. ....... .... ....... .............. . 409,660 409,660 U. S. Coast Guard ............................. .... .. 6,000 6,000 U. S. Navy............................................ 162,000 ................ 162,000 Total U. S.............. ................... 14,953,363 16,861,170 21,814,533 Contributed funds. .................................... . 35,834 47,889 83,723 Total, all funds ................................ 14,989,197 16,909,059 21,898,256 1 Includes $17,100 of general investigations funds for preauthorization studies. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 I 2 New work: Appropriated .......... $427,350 -$405 -$32,657 ....... -- $24 3$4,898,497 Cost .................. 346,830 3,485 78,700 $8,220 3,088 34,898,497 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... 435,000 375,441 522,420 454,309 532,900 16,899,590 Cost .................. 431,955 372,788 527,827 454,563 531,932 16,898,585 Other new work data: Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ......................... (4) 1 Includes $113,134 for new work and $37,415 for maintenance for previous projects. SIn addition, $35,834 for new work and $47,889 for maintenance was expended from con- tributed funds; and $162,000 was expended from Navy funds for new work. 3Includes $17,100 of general investigations funds for preauthorization studies. 4 $244,000 required for completion of inactive portion of project, or $530,000 for completion of deferred portion. 14. WILLAPA RIVER AND HARBOR AND NASELLE RIVER, WASH. Location. Willapa Harbor consists of the lower reaches of Willapa River and Willapa Bay, an inlet of the Pacific Ocean located about 30 miles north of the mouth of Columbia River in the State of Washington. Willapa River rises about 30 miles east of the harbor, flows in a general westerly direction, and empties into the bay. Naselle River rises in the Willapa Hills southeast of Willapa Bay, flows south and then northwest, and enters the bay near its southerly end, draining an area of 153 square miles. ( See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 6185.) Previous projects. The original project adopted by the River and Harbor Act of July 13, 1892, provided for a channel 100 feet wide and 8 feet deep from deep water in Willapa Bay to Willapa City, by dredging and construction of dikes across the head of Mailboat and Lauderbach sloughs, and for snagging the Naselle River. The act of August 18, 1894, appropriated funds for the work underway and for improving North River by removal of a log jam. The act of March 3, 1899, authorized additional work in clearing a channel through the log jam on North River and ap- propriated funds for work on the 8-foot channel to Willapa City. The act of June 13, 1902, authorized the expenditure of funds for the improvement of Willapa River and Harbor, North and Naselle Rivers, by snagging or otherwise. The act of March 2, 1907, contemplated a channel 150 feet wide and 12 feet deep be- tween South Bend and Raymond. The act of June 25, 1910, pro- vided for a channel 200 feet wide and 18 feet deep from deep 1962 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 water in Willapa Bay to the junction of the North and South Forks of the river at Raymond, and for a channel 18 feet deep and 150 feet wide up the South Fork for distance of 3,100 feet. For further details, see page 2001 of Annual Report for 1915; page 968 of Annual Report for 1910; and page 1861 of Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for; (a) A channel over the bar at the mouth of Willapa Bay, 26 feet deep at mean lower low water and at least 500 feet wide; (b) a channel 24 feet deep and 200 feet wide from deep water in Willapa Bay to the foot of Ferry Street at South Bend, thence 300 feet wide to the westerly end of the narrows, thence 250 feet wide to the forks of the river at Raymond, including a cutoff channel 3,100 feet long at the narrows and a closing dike at Mailboat Slough; (c) a channel 24 feet deep and 150 feet wide up the south fork to the deep basin above Cram lumber mill, and up the north fork to 12th Street, with a turning basin 250 feet wide, 350 feet long, and 24 feet deep at the latter point; (d) a channel 10 feet deep at mean lower low water and 40 feet wide from deep water in Palix River to Bay Center dock, with a widening at the shoreward end to provide a small mooring basin; (e) a mooring basin 15 feet deep, 350 feet wide, and 600 feet long adjacent to the port wharf at Tokeland; (f) an entrance channel at Nahcotta 10 feet deep and 300 feet wide, and a mooring basin 10 feet deep, 500 feet wide, and 1,100 feet long, protected by a rubblemound breakwater about 1,600 feet long; and (g) removal of snags, piles, and other obstructions in the navigable channel of the Naselle River be- tween Naselle and the mouth. The project includes about 26 miles of channel from the entrance through the Willapa River forks, 2,800 feet of the Palix River-Bay Center channel, and 9 miles of the Naselle River upstream of the U.S. Highway 101 bridge. The tidal range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 8.9 feet at Toke Point; 9.9 feet at Raymond; 9.2 feet at Bay Center; and 10.8 feet near Naselle. The extreme range is 18 feet at Toke Point; 19.3 feet at Raymond; 16 feet at Bay Center; and 18 feet near Naselle. The actual cost of new work, exclusive of amounts expended on previous projects, was $1,462,960, including $1,158,871 Corps of Engineers funds, $192,314 emergency relief funds, $40,000 U.S. Coast Guard funds, and $71,775 contributed by local interests. Other non-Federal costs were $111,000. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents July 27, 1916 Channel 24 feet deep, 200 feet wide, in Willapa River, and H. Doc. 706, 63d Cong., 2d sess. 150 feet wide is the forks. Aug. 30, 1935' Maintenance of the channel over the bar to a depth of 26 Rivers and Harbors Committee Doe. feet and minimum width of 500 feet. 41, 72d Cong., 1st sess. Do2.. . . . . . For the cutoff channel at the narrows ................... Rivers and Harbors Committee Doe. 37, 73d Cong., 2d sess. Mar. 2, 1945 Channel from deep water in Palix River to Bay Center dock.. H. Doc. 481, 76th Cong., 2d sess. Sept. 3, 1954 Widening Willapa River Channel to 300 and 250 feet H. Doe. 425, 83d Cong., 2d sess. between South Bend and the forks; Tokeland and Nahcotta Basins; and Naselle River clearance. x Included in the Public Works Administration program, Dec. 11, 1933. Included in the Emergency Relief program, May 28, 1935. s Contains latest published map. RIVERS AND HARBORS - SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1963 The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $205,983. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total actual costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, a- mount to $182,775. Terminal facilities. There are 29 wharves on Willapa River and Harbor, including 5 in Willapa Bay, 7 in Bay Center, 15 in Ray- mond and South Bend, and 2 in Tokeland. Three of the wharves at Raymond and South Bend are suitable for use by oceangoing ves- sels; one of these, which is publicly owned and operated, is open for use as a general cargo terminal, and two are located at saw- mills. All of the other wharves, including three that are publicly owned and operated, are used by light-draft vessels in local trade. These facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance, hired labor: The U.S. hopper dredge Pacific removed 31,037 cubic yards of material from the bar channel and 28,000 cubic yards from the inner channel during the period April 3-17, 1962. The U.S. hopper dredge Davison removed 282,036 cubic yards, bin measurement, from the bar channel during the period July 1 to August 11, 1961. Plans and specifications were prepared for maintenance dredging in the inner channel, and contract was awarded June 29, 1962. Maintenance, contract: Contract for maintenance dredging in Bay Center channel, awarded in June 1961, was completed on September 22, 1961, with the removal of 23,889 cubic yards of material. No work was done on contract awarded June 29, 1962, for maintenance dredging in the inner channel. Costs during the fiscal year were $192,692, all for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in November 1958. The entrance and Willapa River chan- nels were completed in 1936, except for the widening, which was completed in November 1958. The channel from Palix River to Bay Center was completed in 1949. Snagging of Naselle River was com- pleted in 1957; the channel was in good condition following main- tenance snagging in November 1959. Rock breakwater at Nahcotta boat basin was completed in 1958 to a length of 1,500 feet and a crest width of 6 feet at elevation 15 feet above mean lower low water; its condition was good in May 1961. Boat-basin dredging at Nahcotta and Tokeland was completed in July 1958. The dike at the head of Mailboat Slough is in good condition. Controlling di- mensions, when last ascertained, were as follows: Depth Width Date (feet) (feet) ascertained W illapa bar.............. ........ .... .......... . ........ 24.0 300 M ay 1962. Inner channels: Below South Bend............... .............. ......... 20.0 130 Feb. 1962. South Bend to forks at Rsymond .. ........................... 21.1 209 Do. Lower 800 feet of North Fork .... ............................ 20.2 100 June 1957. Lower 1,500 feet of South Fork .................................... 20.4 110 Feb. 1962. Upper portions of North and South Forks.. ........................ (1) (i) () Bay Center Channel. ........................................ .. 7.3 40 May 1962. Turning basin....... ................................. ... 7.0 ( 2) Do. See footnotes at end of table. 1964 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Depth Width Date (feet) (feet) ascertained Nahcotta boat basin ......................................... 8.3 500 Do. by 1,100 Entrance channel .................................. ....... 10.0 190 Do. Tokeland mooring basin ............................................ 7.2 340 Do. by 500 Entrance channel........ ........................ ........ 11.1 100 Do. 1 There has been no deep-draft navigation in the upper portions of the forks, and no soundings have been taken in recent years. 2 Variable. The total costs of the existing project to June 30, 1962, were as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total Regular......................................... $1,158,871 $4,053,224 $5,212,095 Public works ........................................... ......... 78,533 78,533 U.S. Coast Guard...................................... 40,000 ................ 40,000 Emergency relief. ....... .......................... .. 192,314 ................. 192,314 Total U.S.................................. ... 1,391,185 4,131,757 5,522,942 Contributed .................................. ... 71,775 ................ 71,77571,775 Total, all........................................ 1,462,960 4,131,757 5,594,717 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 2 New work: Appropriated.......... $355,000 $93,548 ............. $1,579,269 Cost................. 316,662 245,981 ............ ...................... 1,579,269 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... 198,200 197,500 $137,805 $324,864 $176,650 4,144,037 Cost ................. 191,945 203,053 138,433 303,793 192,692 4,138,934 1Includes $228,084 for new work and $7,177 for maintenance for previous projects. In addition, $71,775 for new work was expended from contributed funds for existing proj- ect and $6,597 contributed funds for previous project. SIncludes $192,314 emergency relief funds for new work, and $78,533 public works funds for maintenance for existing project. 15. NAVIGATION PROJECTS ON WHICH RECONNAISSANCE AND CONDITION SURVEYS ONLY WERE CONDUCTED DURING THE FISCAL YEAR Date Cost during reconnaissance Name of project fiscal year or condition survey conducted 1. Bellingham Harbor, Wash......... .......................................... 1$989 May 1962. 2. Blaine Harbor, Wash . ... 363 Do. 3. Everett Harbor and Snohomish River, Wash ................................... 1,761 June 1962. 4. Hammerley Inlet, W ash ................................................... 367 Feb. 1962. 5. Hoquiam River, W ash....... ............................................... 273 Jan. 1962. 6. Lake Crockett, W ash.. ............................................... 316 June 1962. 7. Neah Bay, W ash..... ............................................... 408 8. Olympia Harbor, Wash..... ............................................. 317 Feb. 1962. 9. Port Angeles Harbor, Wash... .......................................... 732 June 1962. 10. Port Gamble Harbor, Wash... .......................................... 439 Do. 11. Port Orchard Bay, W ash. .. .............................................. 72 12. Shilshole Bay, Seattle, W ash................................................. 2415 June 1962. 13. Tacoma Harbor, Wash.................... ............................ 5,106 Mar. 1962. Total cost duiring fiscal year............. ............................ 11,558 1 Expenditures for new work and maintenance reported under project heading. 2 Expenditures for new work reported under project heading. * Expenditures for maintenance reported under project heading. RIVERS AND HARBORS - SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1965 16. OTHER AUTHORIZED NAVIGATION PROJECTS For last Cost to June 30, 1962 full report Estimated Cost Name of project see amount estimate Annual Operation required to (last date Report Construction and complete of revision) for- maintenance 1. Bellingham Harbor, Wash.......... 1961 1$1,518, 158 2$165,201 .............. (3) 2. Blaine Harbor, Wash............... 1958 346,650 ............ .............. (a) 3. Columbia River, Wenatchee to 1923 4266,385 7,(693 .............. () Kettle Falls, Wash. 4. Flathead River, Mont. a............. 1901 9,811 ......................... () 5. Hammersley Inlet, Wash.: a. Active portion .............. 1950 9,000 10,683 .............. (s) b. Inactive portion............ 1950 ............................ $30,000 $30,000 (1954) 6. Hoquiam River, Wash............. 1950 51,294 5,316 .............. () 7. Kootenai River, Idaho and Mont..... 1933 9,255 5,643 .............. (a) 8. Lake Crockett, Wash.............. 1961 260,240 109,764 ............... (3) 9. Neah Bay, Wash. '................. 1960 2,057,266 247,459 .............. (a) 10. Olympia Harbor, Wash : a. Active portion ............. 1954 0259,919 1 79,751 .............. (a) b. Inactive portion............. 1954 2,906 .............. 370,094 373,000 (1957) 11. Poison Bay, Flathead Lake, Mont. .. 1918 4,491 259 .............. (a) 12. Port Angeles Harbor, Wash.: a. Active portion .............. 1960 470,873 ............. . ..... ....... (9 b. Inactive portion ............ 1960 ............................. 44,000 44,000 (1955) 13. Port Gamble Harbor, Wash.: a. Active portion.................. 1953 1111,911 13,337 .............. (3) b. Inactive portion............ 1953 ............................ 56,000 56,000 (1954) 14. Port Orchard Bay, Wash. .......... 1928 42,804 ............. ............. () 15. Skagit River, Wash.: a. Active portion .............. 1950 99,830 36,258 .............. ) b. Deferred portion............ 1950 ........... ............ 348,200 348,200 (1954) 16. Stillaguamish River, Wash. 2........ 1946 4,234 ............... . 245,766 250,000 (1956) 1In addition, $56,582 Federal funds were expended for previous projects; and $31,581 contributed funds were expended on existing project. 2In addition, $1,092 was expended for previous project. 3 Completed. 4 In addition, $8,005 was expended for previous project. 5 All work now contemplated has been completed. Through traffic impractical because of Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph Dams. SNo commerce reported. 7 All work now contemplated has been completed. 8 No maintenance required at present. 9 In addition, $183,257 was expended for previous projects. 10 In addition, $14,418 was expended for previous projects. 11 In addition, $21,260 was expended from contributed funds. 12 Classified "inactive." 17. NAVIGATION WORK UNDER SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION Small navigation projects not specifically authorized by Congress (Public Law 86-645, sec 107, 86 Cong, July 14, 1960). Date Date of Date Federal Project Location authorized construction completed cost' start Oak Harbor, Wash...... On Saratoga Passage, Puget Oct. 26,19612 ............ $.............. $2,206 Sound. 1 Actual fiscal year 1962 costs. 2 Reconnaissance report. 1966 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 18. COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN, LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECTS Location. The improvements included in this project are located along the Columbia River and its tributaries within the confines of the Seattle, Wash., District. Tributaries on which works are authorized are the Pend Oreille-Clark Fork River in Montana, Idaho, and Washington; the Okanogan, Entiat, Methow, Wenatchee, and Yakima Rivers in Washington; and Crab and Wilson Creeks, Washington. Existing project. The Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950, approved a general comprehensive plan for the Columbia River Basin for flood control and other purposes as set forth in House Document 531, 81st Congress, 2d session, and authorized to be appropriated the sum of $75 million for the partial accomplishment of the projects. Of this authorization, an amount not to exceed $15 million was authorized for construction of local flood-protection works in Columbia River Basin, the individual projects to be selected by the Chief of Engineers with the approval of the Secre- tary of the Army, subject to the condition that all work undertaken pursuant to this authority shall be economically justified prior to construction. Protection of the following areas located in the Seattle District has been considered under the authorizing act: Status June 30, 1962 Project Federal cost Non-Federal cost - _ (July 1962) (July 1962) Appropriated Cost Clark Fork at Missoula, Mont............. $249,000 $57,000 1$22,580 1$22,580 Lightning Creek, Clark Fork, Idaho........ 242,726 22,000 42,726 242,726 Total ........... ................. 291,726 59,000 65,306 65,306 1 Includes $2,000 general investigations funds for preauthorization studies. 2 Actual cost. Project completed. Note. This list does not include improvements in Portland and Walla Dis- tricts. The conditionally authorized projects for Crab and Wilson Creeks, Wash., Entiat, Methow, Okanogan, and Wenatchee Rivers, and Yakima River at Ellensburg, Wash., and St. Regis River Mont., have been classified "inactive," and are listed under "Other author- ized flood control projects." Local cooperation. Section 3 of the Flood Control Act approved June 22, 1936, as amended, applies. Non-Federal costs are evalu- ated in the justification reports prepared for each proposed location. Operations and results during fiscal year. No work was done during the fiscal year and there were no costs. Condition at end of fiscal year. Project for Lightning Creek, Clark Fork, Idaho, was completed in March 1959. Justification report studies were completed for the project, Clark Fork at Missoula, and report was approved by the Chief of Engineers on June 12, 1961. Total costs to June 30, 1962, for active projects have been $65,306, all for new work. FLOOD CONTROL--SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1967 Cost and financial statement Total to year Fiscal 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 2 New work: Appropriated......... ............. $54,726 $8,000 $580 .......... $65,306 Cost.......... $1,418 46,102 7,731 6,473 ............ 65,306 Other new work data: Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963.................................. $222,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963........ ....... . 222,000 Estimated additional amount needed to complete projects in Seattle District..... 84,420 1 Excludes projects in Portland and Walla Walla Districts, and inactive projects listed under "Other authorized flood control projects," as follows: Crab and Wilson Creeks, Wash.; Entiat River, Wash.; Methow River, Wash.; Okanogan River, Wash.; St. Regis River, Mont.; Wenatchee River, Wash.; Yakima River at Ellensburg, Wash. 2 Includes $2,000 general investigations funds for preauthorization studies for Clark Fork at Missoula, Mont. a Clark Fork at Missoula, Columbia River Basin, Mont. 19. LIBBY DAM, KOOTENAI RIVER, MONT. Location. The Kootenai River rises in British Columbia, flows southerly about 40 miles into Montana and thence northwesterly across western Montana and the northeastern corner of Idaho to reenter British Columbia, where it empties into Columbia River after passing through Kootenay Lake. Libby Dam will be located on the Kootenai River, about 17 miles upstream from Libby, Mont., and 219 miles upstream from the confluence of the Kootenai with the Columbia River. (See U.S. Geological Survey topographic sheet, "Thompson Lakes, Mont.") Existing project. The project provides for a straight concrete gravity overflow flood control and power dam on Kootenai River about 400 feet high; for a powerhouse; and for a reservoir backing water into Canada with a usable storage capacity of 5,010,000 acre-feet at 50 percent drawdown. The initial power installation will consist of four units, each unit with a capacity of 89,000 kilowatts. Construction of the dam will depend on Canadian ratification of the treaty between the United States and Canada relating to international cooperation in water-resource develop- ment of the Columbia River Basin. The estimate of cost for new work is $332 million (July 1962) (4 units). The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950. (See H. Doc. 531, 81st Cong., 2d sess., which contains the latest published map.) Local cooperation. None required. Operations and results during fiscal year. Studies were con- centrated on initial planning of all major project features and on preparation of a firm construction budget estimate, to be completed by September 1962. Topographic mapping of the dam and reser- voir areas (about 34,000 acres) of the highway relocations (about 100 miles), and of the four routes being considered for relocation of 60 miles of the Great Northern Railway were completed in December 1961. Preliminary foundation explorations of the several damsites, four railway routes, and highway relocations were accomplished. Studies on the dam were directed toward establishing the location and type of dam. Concrete-gravity, earth- fill, multiple-arch, massive-headbuttress and hollow-gravity-type 1968 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 dams were studied and all possible sites upstream from Fisher River were investigated. It appears that a concrete-gravity dam in the vicinity of river mile 219 affords the most economical struc- ture and the most favorable site for the Libby Dam project; how- ever, a firm decision will not be made until more detailed explora- tion has been accomplished at both abutments to assure that there are no underlying faults which could affect the stability of the abutments. The major effort during the fiscal year was con- centrated on the Great Northern Railway relocation studies, as this will be the first item of work to be constructed. Four routes were evaluated in cooperation with the railway company to deter- mine the most favorable route for relocating the present trackage in the reservoir area. These evaluation studies have been submitted to the Great Northern Railway Co. for their consideration in selec- tion of a relocation route. Road relocation studies in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service and the Montana State Highway Commission revealed that highway relocations are required on both sides of the reservoir between Jennings and the Eureka area. Route studies have shown that relocated Montana State Highway 37 would cross the Kootenai River downstream of the dam and follow the east bank of the reservoir to a connection with the existing highway in the vicinity of Eureka, and a forest development road would follow the west bank of the reservoir and connect with Montana State Highway 37 downstream of the dam and also at a point about 51/2 miles downstream from Rexford by a bridge crossing of the reservoir. Studies were continued on planning of lesser features of the project, such as recreation areas; reservoir timber harvest and clearing; relocation or adjustment of utilities, structures, and cemeteries in the reservoir area; determination of the number and size of generating units; investigation of concrete-aggregate sources; hydrology and reservoir operation; tailwater and down- stream channel improvement; and real estate planning of land requirements. Costs during the fiscal year were $1,669,433, all for new work. Condition at end of fiscal year. No construction work has been done. Preconstruction planning was resumed in April 1961. Plan- ning studies are about 35 percent complete, and are proceeding on a schedule of starting construction in fiscal year 1964. Author- ization for construction of Libby Dam is dependent on ratification by Canada of the proposed treaty for cooperative development of the water resources of the Columbia River Basin. The treaty was ratified by the United States in March 1961. Status of major design memorandum studies as of June 30, 1962, is as follows: Design memoranda Percent complete Number and size of units ......................................... 80 Hydrology and reservoir operation ............................ 75 Relocation of Great Northern Railway ................................ 81 Location and type of dam ............................................ 70 Preliminary reservoir master plan .................................. 45 Relocation of Montana State Highway 37 and Forest development road ... 63 General design memorandum ........................................ 9 Construction materials ..................................... ... 53 Tailwater and downstream channel improvement ...................... 60 Real estate studies ................................................. 12 FLOOD CONTROL-SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1969 Total costs to June 30, 1962, were $2,613,400, all for new work. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated......... ........ .......... $375,000 $1,639,352 $2,630,852 Cost................. $3,302 $77 ............ 327,467 1,669,433 2,613,400 Other new work data: Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963.................... ......... $2,600,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963............... 2,600,000 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ................. 326,769,148 1 Includes $100,000 of general investigations funds for preauthorization studies. 20. ALBENI FALLS RESERVOIR, PEND OREILLE RIVER, IDAHO Location. Pend Oreille River has its source in Pend Oreille Lake in northern Idaho, which receives most of its inflow from Clark Fork. The lake has an area of about 83,500 acres. Pend Oreille River leaves the lake near Sandpoint, Idaho, and flows westerly 25 miles to Albeni Falls, where the channel formerly was divided by an island and a low waterfall of about 7 feet. About 2 miles downstream from Albeni Falls, the stream enters the State of Washington, in which its course is northwesterly for 72 miles to the Canadian border. In Canada, Pend Oreille River flows westerly for 16 miles and joins the Columbia River. Just downstream from this junction, Columbia River enters the United States, where it flows generally southward across Washington and westerly along the Washington-Oregon line to the Pacific Ocean, a total distance of about 748 miles. (See U.S. Geological Survey topographic sheets "Sandpoint, Idaho," and "Newport, Wash.") Existing project. The project consists of a low concrete gravity dam at Albeni Falls on Pend Oreille River for power generation, flood control, and related water uses. The dam is a gated, gravity- structure spillway in the left channel and a powerhouse having an installation of 42,600 kilowatts in the right channel, creating a reservoir with a usable storage capacity of 1,153,000 acre-feet. The damsite is 838 and 90 miles upstream from the mouths of Columbia and Pend Oreille Rivers, respectively, and is 50 miles northeast of Spokane, Wash. The actual cost of the completed project was $30,769,614. The construction of recreation facilities for the completed project is estimated to cost $230,000, raising the total project estimate to $30,999,614. The latest (1955) approved estimate for average annual operation and maintenance cost during a 50-year project life is $345,000. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950. (See S. Doc. 9, 81st Cong., 1st sess., which contains the latest published map.) Local cooperation. None required. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: Engineer- ing studies were continued during the fiscal year for minor com- pletion items. Acquisition of land rights for alleviation of erosion damage for the reservoir was continued. Construction was com- pleted on minor items required to complete the project, and was continued on recreation facilities. 1970 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Maintenance: The reservoir was operated through its 10th annual cycle of storage and release during the year. The highest pool level attained in fiscal year 1962 was elevation 2062.62 on September 23, 1961; the lowest was elevation 2052.26 on January 25, 1962. Storage between these elevations is 944,000 acre-feet. Routine structural, mechanical, and electrical maintenance was performed on the spillway dam, powerhouse, and equipment. Costs during the fiscal year were $51,299 for new work, and $356,459 for maintenance, a total of $407,758. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project was started in January 1951 and was substantially completed in June 1957. The project started operations in June 1952, impounding storage which was used to increase minimum flows through down- stream powerplants. Three generating units have been in com- mercial operation since August 1955. Evaluation of reservoir effects on erosion of vulnerable public and private properties is continuing. Negotiations are proceeding with a view to satisfying claims or providing protection for damaged properties so far as legally required. Construction has been completed on minor items required to complete the project, and is continuing on recreation facilities. The costs to June 30, 1962, have been $30,860,077 for new work and $2,036,395 for maintenance, a total of $32,896,472. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: .......... $60,000 Appropriated $10,000 $181,100 $74,689 $31,825 1$30,863,614 Cost..................163,251 86,840 208,999 88,737 51,299 230,860,077 Maintenance: .......... 253,000 Appropriated 279,000 287,320 316,800 350,994 2,037,700 Cost................. 251,273 281,592 287,219 311,222 356,459 2,036,395 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ........................... 8$1,023 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 ............................... ... 18,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 819,023 Estimated additional amount needed to .complete project ................... .. 3118,000 1 Includes $94,000 from appropriation for recreation on completed projects-Code 710. 2Includes $90,463 for recreation on completed projects-Code 710. 3 From appropriation for recreation on completed projects-Code 710. 21. STILLAGUAMISH RIVER, WASH. Location. Stillaguamish River is formed by the confluence of its north and south forks at Arlington, Wash., and flows westerly a distance of 22 miles to Puget Sound, entering Port Susan through Hat Slough and South Pass, and Skagit Bay through West Pass. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 6450, and U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles Stanwood, Marysville, and Stil- laguamish, Wash.-) Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for works to reduce bank erosion and channel changes on Stillaguamish River between Arlington and the head of Hat Slough, a distance of 15 miles, and on Cook Slough, 3 miles long, as follows: Revet- ment at 26 places on the river and Cook Slough; a concrete weir 275 feet long between steel-sheet-pile piers at the head of Cook FLOOD CONTROL-SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1971 Slough to limit flow through the slough; and two cutoff channels, each about 900 feet long, to eliminate sharp bends in Cook Slough. Tidal influence extends about 3 miles into the improved section. Flood stages of 16 feet above low water at the Cook Slough weir have been observed. The actual cost for new work was $220,594. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $41,817. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved June 22, 1936 (special report in Office of the Chief of Engineers). House Document 657, 71st Congress, 3d session contains the latest published map of the locality. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, amount to $5,000 (1937 price level). Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance, hired la- bor: Brush removal and revetment repairs, started in June 1961, were completed in August 1961. Maintenance, contract: Brush removal contract was awarded in June 1962. No work was accomplished during the fiscal year. Total costs during the fiscal year, including condition and opera- tion studies, were $28,733, all for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in 1939. In June 1962, brush removal was required at nu- merous locations to put the revetments into good condition. Other features were in good condition. The costs to June 30, 1962, were $134,595 from regular funds and $85,999 from emergency relief funds, a total of $220,594, for new work; and $414,152 for main- tenance, a total of $634,746. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated......... .......... .... .............. ......... .... 1$220,594 Cost ................. . .. ....... .. . . .......... .. ......... 1220,594 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... $21,800 $78,716 $83,604 $12,800 $30,800 432,787 Cost.................. 19,504 28,030 70,436 62,382 28,733 414,152 1Includes $85,999 emergency relief funds. 22. SAMMAMISH RIVER, WASH. Location. Sammamish River originates at the northern end of Sammamish Lake, 11 miles east of Seattle, Wash., and flows north- westerly 15 miles to the northern end of Lake Washington, which forms the eastern boundary of Seattle. (See U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles Bothell, Kirkland, Redmond, and Edmonds, East.) Existing project. The project would provide a major drainage improvement and partial flood protection by enlarging the river channel from Sammamish Lake to Lake Washington. Depths would be increased an average of 5 feet, and widths would be increased from an average of about 15 feet to a range of 32 to 50 feet. The estimated cost of the project is $2,435,000 (July 1962), in- 1972 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 cluding $1,928,000 Federal funds, and local contribution of $507,000. Other non-Federal costs are estimated at $205,000. The existing project was authorized by the Flood-Control Act of July 3, 1958. (See H. Doc. 157, 84th Cong., 1st sess., which con- tains the latest published map.) Local cooperation. Local interests are required to: (a) Furnish all rights-of-way; (b) alter highway, foot, and farm bridges as may be required by the proposed channel improvement; (c) main- tain the river channel and North Creek levee after completion of the project; (d) hold and save the United States free from dam- ages due to the construction works; and (e) contribute, either in cash or in work, 21 percent of the first cost of construction of the main channel improvement, work on tributaries, and railroad bridge alterations. Most of the required highway bridge altera- tions have already been accomplished through normal highway replacements and improvements. By letter dated July 26, 1960, the Board of County Commissioners, King County, gave formal assurance that they will comply with the requirements for local cooperation. Estimated cost of the improvements to local interests is $712,000, including a cash contribution of $507,000. Operations and results during fiscal year. A general design mem- orandum was prepared and approved, and plans and specifications were essentially completed. Costs during the fiscal year were $75,297, all for new work. Condition at end of fiscal year. Preliminary planning is 98 per- cent complete, including general design memorandum and plans and specifications. No construction work has been done. Total costs to June 30, 1962, were $132,826, all for new work. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated......... ......... ......... .......... $49,420 $67,348 $138,768 Cost .. ...... ............................ 35,529 75,297 132,826 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $1,142 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963.......... ................... 1,060,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................... 1,061,142 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ..................... 729,232 1Includes $22,000 general investigations funds, for preauthorization studies. 23. HOWARD A. HANSON RESERVOIR, WASH. Location. Green River lies wholly in King County, Wash. From its source at the crest of the Cascade Mountains in the vicinity of Stampede Pass, the river flows westerly for 40 miles to Auburn, thence northerly 32 miles to its mouth in Elliott Bay, which forms the principal part of Seattle's salt water harbor. Howard A. Han- son Damsite is on the upper Green River, 6 miles southeast of Kanaskat, Wash., and 1 mile downstream from the mouth of North Fork. (See U.S. Geological Survey topographic sheet, "Cedar Lake quadrangle, Wash.") Existing project. The project provides for a rockfill dam about 235 feet high, with a gated spillway having a concrete weir at elevation 1,176 feet above mean sea level and top of gates at FLOOD CONTROL--SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1973 elevation 1,206, to create a reservoir with a capacity of 106,000 acre-feet. The length of the dam along the top is approximately 675 feet; and at the bottom, 100 feet. The improvement is designed to control flooding in the Green River Valley to prevent existing agricultural and urban flood damage, and to make possible further expansion of the Seattle industrial area. The estimate of cost for new work (July 1962) is $39,500,000 including $37,500,000 Federal costs and $2 million local cash con- tribution. The approved estimate for average annual cost of main- tenance and operation for a 50-year project life is $83,000 (1954). The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950. (See H. Doc. 271, 81st Cong., 1st sess., which con- tains the latest published map.) Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total actual costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, amount to $2 million. Operations and results during fiscal year. New workk: Land acquisition was continued. Letter report supplements to design memoranda were issued for reservoir access roads and regulating- gate holding device. Construction contracts were awarded for drift-control facilities, additional reservoir clearing, and painting of bridge 79 on the project access road. Contract work was com- pleted on construction of rockfill dam, spillway, outlet works, ad- ministration building, and access road; U.S. Forest Service Bridge by the Forest Service; drift-control facilities; additional reservoir clearing, and painting of bridge 79. Agreement with the city of Tacoma for protection of water supply during construction of the project was terminated. Relocation agreement with the Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. was completed. Work continued on re- location of Northern Pacific Railway facility under agreement with the railway company. The 5-year deferred construction period for the portion of the line upstream from the dam was established be- ginning January 1, 1962. Maintenance: Operation of the regulating gates was started November 1, 1961, for flood control and reservoir flushing opera- tions. Modification of the newly installed debris booms was made, and reservoir kept free of drift material. Maintenance of turbidi- meter station was continued, and maintenance of roads, buildings, grounds, powerline, equipment, and stream and weather gages was commenced November 1, 1961, or as installed. Condition and oper- ation studies were continued. Maximum inflow was about 10,200 second-feet, and maximum discharge was about 9,400 second-feet. Maximum elevation of pool was 1,145 feet. Costs during the fiscal year were $3,852,375 for new work and $76,190 for maintenance, a total of $3,928,565. Conditionat end of fiscal year. Work on the project was initiated in February 1956, and is about 98 percent complete. Engineering and design are about 99 percent complete, and land acquisition is 68 percent complete. Relocation work has been completed on power and telephone lines, and other miscellaneous utilities, and is 99 per- cent complete on roads and railroad. Contract work was completed April 5, 1962, on the dam, spillway, outlet works, administration 1974 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 building, permanent access road, operations area, and general utili- ties. Work completed on the reservoir includes swamp and slide treatment (pilot operation), clearing, pollution surveillance, water- quality surveillance studies, and drift control facilities and clear- ing. A water-quality surveillance contract with the University of Washington has been initiated, to develop a program which will forewarn of an undesirable water-quality condition in sufficient time to permit drawdown of conservation storage. The city of Ta- coma is performing chemical and physical analysis for water- quality determination under a contract extending through December 1962. Supply contracts have been completed for miscel- laneous operating equipment. Work remaining to be done to complete the project includes en- gineering studies for reservoir area swamp treatment, reservoir regulation manual, operation and maintenance manual, completion of minor construction features now in progress and of contracts to be awarded for regulating-gate holding device, inflammable ma- terials storage and fueling facilities, and parts for modification of 48-inch ball valve, and completion of land acquisition. Costs to June 30, 1962, have been $36,814,692, Federal funds, and $2 million contributed funds, a total of $38,814,692, for new work; and $86,741 for maintenance, a total of $38,901,433. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 1 New work: Appropriated.......... $9,238,000 $6,900,000 $5,869,457 $4,142,228 $3,950,024 $37,148,909 Cost.................. 10,579,651 6,862,885 5,202,312 4,623,157 3,852,375 236,814,692 Maintenance: Appropriated...... ..... . ....... ... ..... 11,000 76,400 87,400 Cost .................. 10,551 76,190 86,741 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .............................. $320,821 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963. ........... ................. 100,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................. 420,821 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ....................... 251,091 1 In addition, $2 million for new work has been expended from contributed funds. Includes $98,000 of general investigations funds for preauthorization studies. 24. TACOMA, PUYALLUP RIVER, WASH. Location. The Puyallup River has its source in the glaciers on the western slopes of Mount Rainier in the State of Washington, flows northwesterly 50 miles, and empties into Commencement Bay, an arm of Puget Sound, at Tacoma, Wash. The work covered by this project is on Puyallup River, within the city limits of Tacoma. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey chart No. 6407.) Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for a chan- nel with a capacity of 50,000 second-fleet between the East 11th Street Bridge and the lower end of the intercounty improvement, a distance of about 2.2 miles, by straightening the channel, build- ing levees, revetting the channel and levees, and making all neces- sary bridge changes. The 11th Street Bridge at the lower end of the project is 0.75 mile above the mouth of the Puyallup River. The diurnal tidal range at the mouth of the river is 11.8 feet and the ex- treme range is 20 feet. The improvement was planned in conjunc- FLOOD CONTROL--SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1975 tion with Mud Mountain Dam and affords protection against floods about 50 percent greater than the maximum discharge of record. The actual cost for new work was $3,942,818. The average an- nual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $4,107. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved June 22, 1936. (See Senate Committee Print, "Puyallup River, Wash.," 74th Cong., 2d sess.) Local cooperation. None required. Section 2 of the Flood Control Act approved June 28, 1938, applies. Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance, hired labor: Brush control by spraying was started in June and com- pleted in July 1961. Costs during the fiscal year, including condi- tion and operation studies, were $4,838, all for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in 1950. Reconstruction of six bridges, channel improve- ment, and levee construction were completed in 1949. Placing of additional riprap was completed in May 1950. In June 1962, the project was in good condition. The costs to June 30, 1962, were $3,942,818 for new work and $32,906 for maintenance, a total of $3,975,724. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ......... .......... ......................... ..... $3,942,818 Cost................. .. .......... .......... 3,942,818 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... $4,200 $4,184 $9,460 $8,000 -$6,000 34,159 Cost.................. 2,926 7,401 3,337 2,032 4,838 32,906 25. MUD MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR, WHITE RIVER, WASH. Location. The White River rises on the northeastern slope of Mount Rainier, in the State of Washington, and flows in a general northwesterly direction for 57 miles to its confluence with the Puyallup River. The White River is the principal tributary of the Puyallup River and enters the latter 10 miles above its mouth in Puget Sound at Tacoma, Wash. The works covered by this project are on White River near Mud Mountain, 6 miles southeast of Enumclaw, Wash. (See U.S. Geological Survey topographic sheet "Cedar Lake quadrangle, Washington.") Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for the construction of a rockfill dam, 700 feet long at crest elevation and rising 425 feet above bedrock. The dam is located 28 miles above the confluence of the White and Puyallup Rivers and 38 miles above the mouth of the Puyallup River. The reservoir has a storage capacity of approximately 106,000 acre-feet. Outlet works are lo- cated in the right abutment and permit controlled discharge of 17,700 cubic feet per second through two concrete-lined tunnels, with uncontrolled discharge over a spillway having a maximum capacity of 139,000 cubic feet per second. The improvement affords flood protection of the White and Puyallup River Valleys and protects the Tacoma industrial district in conjunction with the authorized project at that locality against floods about 50 per- cent greater than the maximum discharge of record. 1976 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved June 22, 1936. (See Senate Committee print, "Puyallup River, Wash.," 74th Cong., 2d sess.) The actual cost for new work was $13,208,063. The average an- nual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $151,545. Local cooperation. None required. Section 2 of the Flood Control Act approved June 28, 1938, applies. In July 1958, King County contributed $3,928 for changes on access-road bridge. Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance, con- tract: Remote control of the Howell-Bunger valves was completed in June 1962. Maintenance, hired labor: Operation, ordinary maintenance, and minor rehabilitation were carried on by project personnel throughout the year. Work was completed on repair of the 9-foot tunnel intake columns and the invert of the 9-foot tunnel. Condi- tion and operation studies were continued by engineering person- nel. There was no flood of consequence during the year, maximum inflow being about 8,000 second-feet in January, at which time the pool rose to elevation 1,036.7. Discharges were regulated several times for debris handling and repairs to a downstream diversion dam. A maximum pool elevation of 1,049 was created in April for the year. The auxiliary powerplant was operated on two separate days for inspection and to repair commercial power feeder line. A total of 1,654 migratory fish was transported around the dam in tank trucks. Costs during the fiscal year were $120,635, all for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted in June 1953. The costs to June 30, 1962, were $13,182,063 from regular funds and $26,000 from emergency funds, a total of $13,208,063 for new work; and $1,940,821 from regular funds and $3,928 from contributed funds, a total of $1,944,749 for mainte- nance, a combined total of $15,152,812. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: ........ Appropriated.......... .......... ........... ................. ..... $13,208,063 ........ Cost.................. .. .... .... ... .......... .......... 13,208,063 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... $207,900 $117,098 $167,316 $167,000 $136,400 1,981,666 Cost................. 106,481 191,959 170,634 168,017 120,635 1,940,821 1In addition, $3,928 has been expended from contributed funds for maintenance. 26. OTHER AUTHORIZED FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS For last Cost to June 30, 1962 full report Estimated Cost estimate Name of project see amount (last date of Annual Operation required to revision) Report Construction and complete for- maintenance 1. American Lake, vicinity of Fort Lewis, Wash ............... 1957 '$59,582 ............................. (2) 2. Clark Fork at Missoula, Colum- bia River Basin, Mont....... 1961 .............. '22,580 $226,420 $249,000 (1962) 3. Coeur d'Alene, Spokane River, Idaho ..................... 1942 152,872 ............. ...... ...... .(2) FLOOD CONTROL---SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1977 OTHER AUTHORIZED FLOOD-CONTROL PROJECTS-Continued For last Cost to June 30, 1962 full report Estimated Cost estimate Name of project see amount (last date of Annual Operation required to revision) Report Construction and complete for- maintenance 4. Crab and Wilson Creeks, Colum- bia River Basin, Wash. b .... 1958 $9,000 .............. $384,000 $393,000 (1959) 5. Entiat River, Columbia River Basin, Wash........... .... 1958 ............................ 139,000 139,000 (1957) 6. Hoquiam, Aberdeen, and Cos- mopolis, Chehalis River, Wash. 1948 83,631 .............. 1,976,369 62,060,000 (1952) 7. Lightning Creek, Clark Fork, Columbia River Basin, Idaho. 1959 742,726 .......... .............. .. (2) 8. Methow River, Columbia River Basin, Wash.+ ............... 1958 ..... .............. 364,000 364,000 (1957) 9. Mission Creek at Cashmere, Wash. .. ............ 1955 10,856 .............. . 137,144 148,000 (1954) 10. Okanogan River, Columbia River Basin, Wash. 4......... 1958 1,100 ............... 195,900 197,000 (1957) 11. Priest Rapids Dam, Columbia River, Wash ............... 1954 9350,000 .......... (i0) (10) 12. Raymond, Willapa River, Wash. 8 1950 1128, 743 .............. 12464,257 11493,000 (1960) 13. St. Maries, St. Joe River, Idaho. 1942 357,698 ............. ............ (2) 14. St. Regis River, Columbia River Basin, Mont. 4'............. 1958 1,400 .............. 83,600 85,000 (1958) 15. Skagit River, Wash. 1.......... 1938 ........................... 8,320,000 8,320,000 (1954) 16. Spokane, Spokane River, Wash. 1 1939 2,944 .............. 77, 756 "s0, 700 (1954) 17. Upper Puyallup River, Wash.... 1938 1'71,495 .............. .......... (2) 18. Wenatchee River, Columbia River Basin, Wash. '.. ....... 1958 ............................ 137,000 137,000 (1957) 19. Yakima River at Ellensburg, Columbia River Basin, Wash.4 1958 .......................... 1,355,000 1'71,355,000 (1960) 20. Yakima, Yakima River, Wash... 1948 381,961 ............. ............ () 1 In addition, $10,000 contributed funds have been expended. 2 Completed and transferred to local interests for maintenance. * Includes $2,000 general investigations funds for preauthorization studies. 4 Project classified "inactive." s Local interests were formally notified of the required conditions of local cooperation on July 25, 1959, and requested to furnish assurances that they will be met. O Assurances of local cooperation were requested Oct. 15, 1947. Authorization for the proj- ect expired in October 1952, due to failure of local interests to furnish assurance of local cooperation within the time specified by law. 7 In addition, local interests' costs were $2,000. 8 Project classified "deferred." 9 For partnership planning. Excludes funds expended to date for acquisition of lands under partnership arrangement for Priest Rapids and Wanapum Dams, in accordance with provisions of Public Law 544, 83d Cong., 2d sess. 10 Project constructed by Grant County public utility district. 11 Includes $5,000 general investigations funds for preauthorization studies. 12 In addition, local interests' costs are estimated to be $79,000. 18 Project classified "inactive." Recommended for abandonment in survey report transmitted to Congress November 28, 1956. 14 Project classified "inactive." Recommended for abandonment in paragraph 99 of appendix D to Review Report on Columbia River and tributaries, dated October 1, 1948 (H. Doc. 531, 81st Cong., 2d sess.). 15 In addition, local interests' costs are estimated to be $13,200. 1e Emergency relief funds. In addition, $13,704 contributed funds were expended. The work was completed as a Works Progress Administration project, at no cost to the Corps of Engineers. 17 In addition, local interests' costs are estimated to be $60,000. Formal request for assur- ances of local cooperation was submitted to the Board of Couny Commissioners, Kittitas County, on June 10, 1960. 27. INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FLOOD CONTROL WORKS Inspections are made of Federally constructed local flood-protec- tion projects, which are maintained by local interests, and agencies responsible for their operation and maintenance are advised of any needed repairs. During fiscal year 1962, inspections were made of works on the following: American and Coeur d'Alene Lakes; Calispell, Foster, French, Jackman, Lightning, Mission, Salmon, Tacoma, and Wilson Creeks; and Cedar, Chehalis, Coeur d'Alene, Columbia, Clear- water, Elwha, Entiat, Dungeness, Flathead Clark Fork, Green- 1978 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Duwamish, Hoh, Hoquiam, Kootenai Lummi, Methow, Nisqually, Nooksack, Naches, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, Pilchuck, Puyallup, Quinault, Satsop, Saint Joe, Saint Regis, Similkameen, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Skykomish, Soleduck Stillaguamish, Skagit, Teana- way, Twisp, Wenatchee, Wynoochee, and Yakima Rivers. Costs during the fiscal year were $2,540. Costs to date were $28,732, all for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 Maintenance: Appropriated... $1,300 $3,000 $2,930 $3,000 $3,000 $29,447 Cost............. 1,19 2,993 1,841 4,690 2,540 28,732 28. FLOOD CONTROL WORK UNDER SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION Snagging and clearing of navigable streams and tributaries in the interest of flood control (Sec. 208 of the 1954 Flood-ControlAct, Public Law 780, 83d Cong., Sept. 3, 1954) Date Date of Date Project Location authorized construction completed Federal start cost Pinecreek, Idaho........ Pinecreek channel, from Mar. 15, 1962 2 ................ ............. $6, 166 mouth upstream 9 miles to mouth of Langlois Creek, in Shoshone County, Idaho. 1Actual fiscal year 1962 costs. Funds revoked during fiscal year, $6,000, from Jackman Creek, Skagit River, Wash. 2 Investigation only. Small flood-control projects not specifically authorized by Congress (Public Law 685, 84th Cong., July 11, 1956) Date Date of Date Project Location authorized construction completed Federal start cost Calispell Creek, Wash. 21 miles downstream from Mar. 7, 19572 (3) .............. (tributary of Pend Albeni Falls Dam, near Oreille River). Cusick, in diking district 2. Diking District 1, Pend 24 miles downstream from Dec. 1, 1959 (3) .................... Oreille County, Wash. Albeni Falls Dam, near (Pend Oreille River). Cusick, Wash. Dungeness River, Clal- Lower 2.5-mile reach of river Oct. 26, 19612 (4) ............... $9,195 lam County, Wash. (below Woodcock Road). Skykomish River at Skykomish and Wallace Jan. 9, 1961 2 (4) .............. 11,638 Startup, Wash. (Wal- Rivers in vicinity of Start- lace River). up. SActual fiscal year 1962 costs. 2 Detailed project report. 3 Construction not authorized. Studies terminated as result of unfavorable benefit-cost rlatto. 4 Construction not yet authorized. FLOOD CONTROL-SEATTLE, WASH., DISTRICT 1979 Emergency bank protection (Sec. 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, Public Law 526, 79th Cong., July 24, 1946) Date Date of Date Project Location authorized construction completed Federal ---------- i start I cost 1 Dungeness River, Clal- Taylor cutoff road, on left May 1, 1961 Aug. 10, 1961 Oct. 4, 1961 $12,103 lam County, Wash. bank of Dungeness River, 1 mile upstream of U.S. Highway 101, about 3 miles west of Sequim. Foster Creek Road, Left bank of Foster Creek, 3 Oct. 11, 1961 Jan. 15, 1962 41,428 Douglas County, Wash. miles upstream from Chief Joseph Dam, Wash. Hob River Road, Jeffer- Right bank of Hoh River, 5 Apr. 11, 1961 Sept. 7, 1961 Nov. 2, 1961 10,005 son County, Wash. miles east of U.S. Highway 101. Quinault River Road, Left bank of Quinault River, June 6, 1961 Oct. 12, 1961 Dec. 29, 1961 15,764 Jefferson County, 4 miles upstream from Lake Wash. Quinault. Snohomish Sewage La- Right bank of Snohomish Apr. 19, 1960 ( 2 g o o n, Snohomish, River, immediately down- Wash. stream of city limits of Snohomish. Soleduck River Bridge, Right and left bridge ap- June 6, 1961 Oct. 7, 1961 Dec. 6, 1961 16,212 Clallam County, Wash. proaches on upstream side of Soleduck River Bridge, just above mouth of Sole- duck River. L Actual fiscal year 1962 costs. ' Project terminated; not required at the present time. Emergency flood-control activities---repair,flood fighting and rescue work (Public Law 99, 84th Cong., 1st sess. and antecedent legislation) Date Date of Date Project Location authorized construction completed Federal start cost' Advance preparation, Seattle District.............. Continuing... Not Not $21,833 various locations. applicable applicable Flood reporting and .... do... do......... ... do...... .do ...... -101,904 fighting. Postflood reporting...... Kootenai River, vicinity of Sept. 12, 1961 ... do......... ... do. ....... 2,192 Bonners Ferry, Idaho. Repair and restoration: Bonners F e rr y Bonners Ferry, Idaho, and Aug. 4, 1961 Sept. 12, 1961 May 1, 1962 876,474 (Kootenai River), vicinity. daho, miscel- laneous repairs and investiga- tions. Snohomish River, Wash.: Crabbs Property.... Vicinity of Snobomish....... Apr. 25, 1961 Sept. 18, 1961 Sept. 28, 1961 6,735 Ebey Island ........ Vicinity of Everett .......... ... do......... Nov. 6, 1961 Nov. 15, 1961 2,557 1 Actual fiscal year 1962 costs. Additional costs during the fiscal year for work completed in previous fiscal year were $571 for Snohomish River, Wash. (Lazy Valley Ranch), and $251 for Skagit River, Wash. (district 20). Funds were revoked during fiscal year 1962 as follows: Flood reporting and fighting, $372,855; Shohomish River, Wash. (Crabbs property), $500; Kootenai Flats area, Idaho (rehabilitation, 1959 flood), $14,299; Skagit River, Wash. (district 20), $2,750; Snohomish River, Wash. (Lazy Valley Ranch), $3,057; and Snohomish River, Various Locations (1959 flood), $3,677. 1980 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 29. SURVEYS Funds amounting to $306,034 were allotted during the fiscal year, and $25,000 contributed funds were received. Costs for work accomplished during the year were $275,382. The balance unexpended June 30, 1962, $47,623 Federal funds and $25,000 contributed funds, a total of $72,623, and an antici- pated allotment for fiscal year 1963 of $300,200, a total of $372,823, will be applied as needed during fiscal year 1963 to payment of expenses to be incurred under this heading. 30. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT The work programed for research and development consists of storm studies and other hydrologic studies. Costs of these studies during the fiscal year amounted to $6,039. An anticipated allot- ment of $16,000 will be applied to studies planned for fiscal year 1963. 31. COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA The work programed for collection and study of basic data covers international water studies and flood plain information studies. Costs of these studies during the fiscal year amounted to $26,577. An anticipated allotment of $47,200, together with the balance unexpended June 30, 1962, $20,731, a total of $67,931, will be applied to studies planned for fiscal year 1963. IMPROVEMENT OF RIVERS AND HARBORS IN THE WALLA WALLA, WASH., DISTRICT This district comprises southeastern Washington, exclusive of the watershed of the Columbia River and tributaries above and including the Yakima River, Wash.; all of Idaho, except the northern part and a small southeastern portion; a portion of western Wyoming; a small part of northwestern Utah; part of northeastern Nevada; and a part of eastern Oregon. IMPROVEMENTS Page Page Navigation Flood Control---continued 1. Snake River, Oreg., Wash., 12. Jackson Hole, Snake River, and Idaho ............. 1981 Wyo .................. 1998 2. Lower Granite lock and 13. Blackfoot River, Columbia dam, Snake River, River Basin, Idaho .... 1999 Wash ................. 1984 14. Lucky Peak Reservoir, 3. Little Goose lock and dam, Boise River, Idaho .... 2000 Snake River, Wash. .... 1985 4. Lower Monumental lock 15. Boise Valley, Columbia and dam, Snake River, River Basin, Idaho .... 2001 Wash ................ 1986 16. Bruces Eddy Reservoir, 5. Ice Harbor lock and dam, North Fork Clearwater Snake River, Wash. .... 1987 River, Idaho .......... 20'02 6. McNary lock and dam, 17. Colfax, Palouse River, Columbia River, Oreg., Wash. ................ 2004 and Wash. ........... 1990 18. Dayton, Touchet River, 7. John Day lock and dam, Wash ................ 2005 Columbia River, Oreg, and Wash............. 1992 19. Mill Creek Reservoir, Wash. 2005 8. Columbia River and tribu- 20. Other authorized flood con- taries above Celilo Falls trol projects .......... 2007 to Kennewick, Wash. .. 1994 21. Inspection of completed 9. Navigation projects on flood control works .... 2008 which reconnaissance 22. Flood control work under and condition surveys special authorization ... 2008 only were conducted dur- ing the fiscal year .... 1996 23. Scheduling of flood control operations ............ 2009 10. Other authorized naviga- tion projects .......... 1996 General Investigations Flood Control 24. Surveys ................. 2010 11. Columbia River Basin, lo- 25. Collection and study of cal flood-protection pro- basic data ............ 2010 jects ................. 1997 26. Research and development . 2010 1. SNAKE RIVER, OREG., WASH., AND IDAHO Location. The Snake River, which is the largest tributary of Columbia River, rises in Yellowstone National Park, in the west- ern part of Wyoming, flows in a generally westerly direction for about 1,000 miles and empties into the Columbia River near Pasco, Wash., 324 miles from the Pacific Ocean. Previous projects. Prior to the Act of June 13, 1902 the im- provement of Snake River below Lewiston, Idaho, (river mile 140), was associated with improvement of Columbia River above Celilo Falls. The total cost and expenditure prior to adoption of a formal project was $168,500, of which $153,410 was for new 1981 1982 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 work, and $15,090 was for maintenance. For further details, see page 1991 of Annual Report for 1915. Open-river improvement of Snake River from Riparia, Wash. (river mile 67) to Pittsburgh Landing (river mile 218) was authorized by act of June 13, 1902 (H. Doc. 126, 56th Cong., 2d sess.), with no specified channel dimensions above Lewiston. For further details, see page 2246 of Annual Report for 1903 and page 1986 of Annual Report for 1906. This authorization was extended to include improvement from the mouth to Riparia by act of June 25, 1910 (H. Doc. 411, 55th Cong., 2d sess.), and was further extended to include the reach from Pittsburgh Landing (river mile 218) to Johnson Bar Landing (river mile 231) by act of August 30, 1935. (Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. 25, 75th Cong., 1st sess.) Under these authorizations the total cost and expenditure for improvement below Lewiston, Idaho was $418,220, of which $246,740 was for new work and $171,480 was for main- tenance. In addition, the State of Washington contributed $85,000 in 1907 for new work below Riparia, Wash. The total costs of previous projects are summarized, as follows: New work Maintenance Total Prior to June 13, 1902........... ............ ..... $153,410.26 $15,089.74 $168,500.00 1902 to Act of March 2, 1945 ........................... 1246, 739.54 171,480.34 1418,219.88 Totals............. ........................ 400,149.80 186,570.08 586,719.88 1 In addition, $85,000 for new work expended from contributed funds. Existing project. The River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945 (H. Doc. 704, 75th Cong., 3d sess.) authorized construction of such dams as are necessary and open-channel improvements for purposes of providing slackwater navigation and irrigation be- tween the mouth of Snake River and Lewiston, Idaho. This authorization modifies the previous authorizations only for that portion of the improvement below Lewiston, Idaho. The acts of June 13, 1902, and August 30, 1935, as they pertain to the open river improvement from Lewiston, Idaho to Johnson Bar Landing are part of the existing project. Improvements presently included in the authorized project are as follows: Estimated cost (July 1962 base) Lower Granite lock and dam, river mile 107.5........................... ......................... $151,000,000 Little Goose lock and dam, river mile 70.3 ... ........... ................................. 146,000,000 Lower Monumental lock and dam, river mile 41.6 ............................................ 162,000,000 Ice Harbor lock and dam, river mile 9.7..... .... .................................. 123,700,000 Open -river improvement, Lewiston to Johnson Bar Landing .................................... 34,613 Total.... ............................ ........... ....................... 582,734,613 1No channel dimensions specified; maintenance only. Local cooperation. No conditions were imposed by law. Terminal facilities. There is a privately owned 40- by 60-foot warehouse and grain terminal just above Lewiston at river mile 140.5 which handles passengers and general cargo for present up-river shipping. There are also three small marinas in the Lewiston-Clarkston area in the same vicinity. One new waterside RIVERS AND HARBORS - WALLA WALLA, WASH., DISTRICT 1983 grain terminal of 160,000-bushel capacity has been constructed on Ice Harbor Pool at river mile 29 with initial shipping of grain scheduled for July 1962. In addition, there are some nine grain storage facilities above Ice Harbor Pool to Lewiston which are on existing rail lines paralleling the river at near water level. Above Lewiston and near Asotin are two grain elevators affording truck- receiving and water-shipping connections. Ice Harbor pool was raised in December 1961 through January 1962; Lower Monumental Pool is scheduled for raising in Decem- ber 1967; and slack-water transportation all the way to Lewiston- Asotin area will be available in 1970 if presently proposed schedules for Little Goose and Lower Granite locks and dams are followed. In anticipation of this development all riverside counties have formed port districts and are making plans for future terminal facilities. Operationsand results during fiscal year. Operations and results during fiscal year on Lower Granite lock and dam, Little Goose lock and dam, Lower Monumental lock and dam, and Ice Harbor lock and dam are given in an individual report on each of those projects. Total costs during the fiscal year were $18,126,906 for new work, and $148,877 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The following table summarizes the status of work under "Snake River, Oreg., Wash., and Idaho." Total new Approved work ap- Cost to June 30, 1962 Percent Project 1962 estimated propriations completed Construction cost to June 30, data 1962 New work Maintenance Lower Granite lock and dam1 '2$151,000, 000 $715,823 $585,969 Little Goose lock and dam 1 2146,000,000 1,875,100 1,708,466 Lower Monumental lock and 162,000,000 12,485,000 11,386,569 ............ 7 Construction dam 1. begun in June 1961. Ice Harbor lockand dam 1.. 123,700,000 122,637,173 121,895,220 $148,877 99 Construction begun in Jan- uary1956. Surveys for navigation aids.. ............ ...... .......... 3,394 Open-river improvement, Lewistonto Johnson Bar 34,613 34,613 34,613 67,921 .......... Maintenance Landing a only. Total............... $582,734,613137,747,709 135,610,838 220,192 1 See individual report. 2 Pro rata cost of site-selection studies, preauthorization studies, and advance engineering. 3 No channel dimension specified. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated........ $26,473,000 $19,683,000$30,502,000$27,995,923$19,415,000 1$138,147,859 Cost..................26,399,063 19,361,873 29,104,279 29,270,049 18,126,906 1136,010,988 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... 2,294 38,800 --4,050 2,900 150,000 2407,891 Cost.............. 2,294 25,166 9,584 2,894 148,877 2406,762 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962........................... $890,668 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 .............................. 19,962,827 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................ 20,853,495 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project .................... 425,024,077 1 Includes $400,150 for new work on previous projects, and $370,000 preauthorization studies. Does not include contributed funds for new work consisting of $85,000 on previous projects, and $82,500 for artificial spawning channel. Includes $186,570 for maintenance on previous projects. 1984 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 2. LOWER GRANITE LOCK AND DAM, SNAKE RIVER, WASH. Location. The project site is located at river mile 107.5 on the Snake River at the head of the proposed Little Goose Pool, and about 33 miles downstream from Lewiston, Idaho. Existing project. The project provides for a dam, powerplant, navigation lock, and appurtenant facilities, and will require back- water levees near the head of the pool in the Lewiston, Idaho- Clarkston, Wash. area. The improvement will provide for naviga- tion, hydroelectric power generation, recreation and incidental irrigation. The presently proposed normal pool elevation of 735 feet mean sea level, which is subject to review, would create a reservoir extending upstream about 36 miles and would provide slack-water navigation in the Lewiston-Clarkston area. The total length of the dam structure will be approximately 3,100 feet. It will consist of a powerhouse, spillway dam, navigation lock, necessary nonoverflow sections, and fish-passing facilities. The powerplant will be constructed for three 135,000 kilowatt units to be installed initially with provisions for three additional similar units. The spillway will provide capacity to pass a design flood of 850,000 cubic feet per second. The navigation lock will be of single-lift type and will have clear plan dimensions of 86 by 675 feet and will provide a minimum depth of 15 feet over the lock sills. Backwater levees in the Lewiston-Clarkston area will be about 7 miles in length. The estimate of cost for new work, revised in 1962, is $151 million. The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act approved March 2, 1945. (See H. Doc. 704, 75th Congress, 3d session.) Operations and results during fiscal year. Hydrologic studies pertinent to planning of the project and studies leading to the establishment of the Lower Granite upper pool level, to be pub- lished as design memorandum 1, hydrology, and design memoran- dum 2, upper pool determination, respectively, have been initiated. Field data for general-design memorandum studies are being accumulated. The dam was sited in the vicinity of mile 107.5 in connection with approved Little Goose Pool studies published in Little Goose design memorandum 1 dated February 13, 1961. Total costs during the fiscal year were $370,146, all for new work. Condition at end of fiscal year. Design memorandum 1 is 40 percent complete and design memorandum 2 is 60 percent complete. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .................. ......... -$17,100 -$4,077 $500,000 1$715,823 Cost...................$4,516 $3,447 -2,466 326 370,146 '585,969 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962. ................... .... $78,608 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 .............................. 500,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963................ 578,608 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project....................... 149,784,177 'Includes $75,000 preauthorization studies. RIVERS AND HARBORS - WALLA WALLA, WASH., DISTRICT 1985 The general-design memorandum is scheduled for submission at the end of fiscal year 1963. No construction work has been done. Total costs have been $585,969, all for new work. 3. LITTLE GOOSE LOCK AND DAM, SNAKE RIVER, WASH. Location. The site of this project will be 70.3 miles above the mouth of Snake River, at the head of the proposed Lower Monu- mental pool, 40 miles north of Walla Walla, Wash. and 45 miles west of Lewiston, Idaho. Existing project. The project provides for a dam, powerplant, navigation lock and appurtenant facilities. The improvement will provide for navigation, hydroelectric power generation, and inci- dental irrigation. The dam will be designed for a normal pool at elevation 638 mean seal level. The normal pool will create a reser- voir extending upstream about 37.2 miles and providing slack water to the Lower Granite lock and dam site. The total length of the dam structure will be approximately 2,660 feet. It will consist of a powerhouse, spillway dam, navigation lock, and necessary non- overflow sections. Fish-passing facilities including two ladders will be provided. The powerhouse will be constructed for three 135,000- kilowatt generating units to be installed initially, with provisions for three additional 135,000-kilowatt units for an ultimate in- stalled capacity of 810,000 kilowatts. The spillway dam will pro- vide capacity to pass a design flood of 850,000 cubic feet per second. The navigation lock will be of single-lift type and will have clear plan dimensions of 86 by 675 feet and will provide a minimum depth of 15 feet over the lock sills. The estimate of the cost for new work, revised in 1962, is $146 million. The existing project was authorized by the River and Har- bor Act approved March 2, 1954. (See H. Doc. 704, 75th Cong., 3d sess.) Operations and results during fiscal year. The general-design memorandum was completed. Detailed-design memoranda on fea- tures to be constructed in the south shore contract, South shore access roads, temporary office building, portions of the railroad re- locations, and first-stage construction are being prepared. Develop- ment of contract drawings on the above features was started. Total costs during the fiscal year were $624,480, all for new work. Condition at end of fiscal year. The general-design memorandum has been approved except for the portions relating to relocations and to power. Detailed design of the project is approximately 5 per- Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... ...... ........ $390,100 $550,000 $715,000 1$1,875,100 Cost .................. $7,027 $2,665 314,528 549,765 624,480 11,708,466 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ......................... $146,035 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 ............................. 1,600,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963................. 1,746,035 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project. ................. . 142,524,900 1 Includes $70,000 preauthorization studies. 1986 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 cent complete. The entire project is 1 percent complete. No con- struction work has been done. Total costs were $1,708,466, all for new work. 4. LOWER MONUMENTAL LOCK AND DAM, SNAKE RIVER, WASH. Location. The site of this project, in accordance with a letter report dated October 20, 1948, and revised April 26, 1949, was tentatively established at river mile 44.7 above the mouth of the Snake River at the head of Ice Harbor lock and dam pool approxi- mately 45 miles east of Pasco, Wash. The general-design memo- randum was submitted to higher authority in October 1959. De- tailed planning studies conducted in its development establish the location of the project at river mile 41.6. Existing project. The project provides for construction of a dam, powerplant, navigation lock, relocation of railroads and high- ways above the proposed pool level at elevation 540 mean sea level, and appurtenant facilities, creating a slackwater pool about 30 miles long extending to the site of Little Goose lock and dam. The dam, which raises the normal water surface approximately 100 feet above the downstream Ice Harbor lock and dam pool level, will be 3,800 feet long. It will consist of an earthfill and rockfill dam at the right (north) abutment, a powerhouse, spillway dam, navi- gation lock and an earthfill and rockfill dam at the left (south) abutment. The powerhouse will be composed of three 135,000 kilowatt units to be installed initially and substructure con- structed for three additional units-an ultimate total of six 135,000 kilowatt units or 810,000 kilowatts. The spillway dam will be 508 feet long and overflow crest at elevation 483 mean sea level will be surmounted by 8 radial gates each 50 feet wide and 59 feet high. This will provide capacity to pass a spillway-design flood of 850,000 cubic feet per second. The deck will be at elevation 553 mean sea level and will provide a service road and track for a gantry crane. The navigation lock is a single-lift type, and will have a clear plan dimension of the lock chamber 86 by 675 feet, and will provide a minimum depth of 15 feet over the lock sills. Fish-passing facilities including two ladders will be provided. The estimated cost for new work, revised in 1962, is $162 mil- lion. The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act approved March 2, 1945. (See House Doc. 704, 75th Cong., 3d sess.) Operationsand results during fiscal year. Construction work was initiated during the fiscal year on the south shore construction contract. This work includes 71/2 bays of the spillway, south non- overflow dam, navigation lock, south fish ladder and south abut- ment embankment. Work on this contract has just begun and ac- complishment is less than one percent of the total contract. A supply contract for three 135,000 kilowatt turbines was also let during the fiscal year. This was part of a contract for 15 turbine units, 12 of which are for John Day lock and dam. Work done un- der this contract is less than one percent complete. A contract was awarded for construction on the north shore access road which extends from the town of Kahlotus to the dam- site, a distance of about 5.6 miles, and was 97 percent complete. RIVERS AND HARBORS - WALLA WALLA, WASH., DISTRICT 1987 Work was continued on the first phase construction contract which includes the first-step cofferdam, initial portion of the north embankment abutment, river diversion excavation, and shoofly of the Northern Pacific Railway in the damsite area. This contract was 99 percent complete with only cleanup work remaining. Work was initiated and completed on the temporary project of- fice and motor maintenance shop. The south shore access road, 7 miles long, was completed. Engineering studies were continued throughout the year on rail- road and county and State highway relocations. Work pursuant to the purchase of real estate for both the north and south shore reservoir requirements was continued. Detailed-design memoran- da studies were continued. Memoranda for real estate (part 2), Union Pacific Railroad relocations, including Snake River Bridge at river mile 61.8, and second- and third-step cofferdams was sub- mitted to higher authority for approval. The powerplant prelimi- nary design report was also -submitted to higher authority for approval. Total costs during the fiscal year were $8,146,438 for new work. Condition at end of fiscal year. The first phase work outlined in preceding paragraph is 99 percent complete. The temporary proj- ect office, motor maintenance shop and south shore access road are complete. The north shore access road is 97 percent complete with part of the bituminous surfacing and cleanup to be accomplished. The south shore contract and turbine contracts delineated in the preceding subheading are less than 1 percent complete. Con- struction began in fiscal year 1961, and the entire project is 7 percent complete with total cost of $11,386,569, all for new work. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.......... $500,000 Cost.................. 463,203 $550,000 542,816 $830, 000 $1,150,000 $9,200,000 814,388 1,164,725 8,146,438 111,38 '$12,485,000 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ......................... $579,678 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 ............................ 16,800,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 17,379,678 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ...................... 132,715,000 1Includes $75,000 preauthorization studies. 5. ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, SNAKE RIVER, WASH. Location. The site of this project is on the Snake River, 9.7 miles above the mouth of the river, at the head of the McNary lock and dam pool, and 12 miles east of Pasco, Wash. Existing project. The project provides for the construction of a dam, powerplant, navigation lock, fish ladders, appurtenant facilities, and the relocation of railroads. The improvement will provide for navigation, hydroelectric power generation and inci- dental irrigation. The dam is designed for a normal pool at elevation 440 mean sea level. The normal pool will create a reservoir extending upstream about 31.9 miles, providing slack 1988 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 water to the Lower Monumental lock and damsite. The total length of the structure will be approximately 2,790 feet. Begin- ning at the south, the project consists of a concrete nonoverflow section, a concrete powerhouse, a spillway dam, a concrete non- overflow section, a navigation lock, and an earth-and-rock-filled embankment at the north abutment. Fish-passing facilities, in- cluding two ladders, will be provided. The powerplant will be con- structed for three 90,000-kilowatt units to be installed initially with provision for three additional units, an ultimate total of six units. The spillway dam will be 610 feet long and the overflow crest at elevation 391 mean sea level will be surmounted by 10 radial gates 50 feet wide by 52.9 feet high which will provide capacity to pass a spillway design flood of 850,000 cubic feet per second. The deck will be at elevation 453 mean sea level and will provide a service road and track for a gantry crane. The navigation lock is a single- lift type and will have clear plan dimensions of 86 by 675 feet. A navigation channel with a width of 250 feet and minimum depth of 15 feet will be provided from the mouth to mile 9.7 on Snake River. The estimate of cost for new work approved in 1962 is $123,- 700,000. The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act approved March 2, 1945. (See H. Doc. 704, 75th Cong., 3d sess.) Operations and results during fiscal year. Contract work for completion of the powerhouse structure and installation of equip- ment was continued throughout the year. Installation of three 90,000-kilowatt generators, main unit transformers, 480 and 4160 volt power centers, switchgear, and 115-kilovolt transmission equipment was completed. First power was produced from unit 1 on December 18, 1961. Power units 3 and 2 were placed in service February 8 and 27, 1962, respectively, and produced 537,258 megawatt-hours which were delivered to the Bonneville Power Administration, the marketing agency. During load rejec- tion tests on January 4, 1962, the linkage mechanism in unit 1 failed. The failure resulted in extensive damage to the turbine. Removal of the generator, and disassembly of the turbine is in progress to determine the extent of apparent and other undisclosed damage and the repair necessary. Present indications are that the unit will not be restored to service before February 1963. Progress under the north shore construction contract continued throughout the year, resulting in completion of the spillway, north nonoverflow dam sections, north shore fishway, navigation lock, and appurtenances. This work involved placing of 70,000 cubic yards of concrete in addition to completing erection and installa- tion of the navigation lock vertical-lift gate and machinery, lock filling and emptying system valves, piping, electrical system, and other fishway and lock-operating equipment. This contract is sub- stantially complete. The powerhouse completion contract and the north shore con- tract were advanced to such a stage of completion that initial rais- ing of the pool to elevation 400 feet mean sea level was started November 28, 1961, as scheduled. The remaining raises were taken in 10-foot increments to elevation 422.5 to provide engineering data RIVERS AND HARBORS - WALLA WALLA, WASH., DISTRICT 1989 on the turbines and allow time for repair of slides and settlement areas on the relocated railroads adjoining the reservoir. This final raise was started January 15, 1962, at elevation 422.5 and the nor- mal pool elevation 440 mean sea level was reached April 27, 1962. The two prior continuing contracts for navigation approach channel dredging involving 700,000 cubic yards of rock and 2,500,000 cubic yards of common excavation, in addition to a third contract involving 101,000 cubic yards of underwater un- classified excavation, were completed this year to provide a 15-foot minimum depth channel to the project. The construction contract for embankment protection of 14 miles of the Northern Pacific Railway along Ice Harbor reservoir was completed during the year. A contract for the construction of six concrete pontoons and anchorages for the 553-foot upstream floating guidewall of the navigation lock was completed during the year. Miscellaneous contracts were completed for stream-gaging facilities, a wind-wave station, a water well, and reservoir recrea- tion facilities. A contract has been awarded for the log boom and cable anchorages of the reservoir debris-disposal facilities, and bids have been opened for the log conveyor portion of these facili- ties. Engineering studies are underway on buildings, grounds, and landscaping development at the site, navigation lock fire-protection equipment, and repairs to the spillway stilling basin. Total costs during the fiscal year were $8,985,842 for new work, and $148,877 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The project was placed on a permanent operating basis on January 1, 1962. Dedication cere- monies were held May 9, 1962, through the efforts and sponsorship of local communities and agencies in the area. The work remain- ing involves completion of engineering studies on lock fire-protec- tion equipment, buildings, landscaping and grounds development, stilling basin repairs and other minor items in addition to com- pleton of security fencing and debris-disposal contracts. The entire project is considered to be 99 percent complete as of June 30, 1962. Total costs were $121,895,220 for new work, and $148,877 for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... $25,973,000 $19,133,000 $29,299,000 $26,300,000 $9,000,000 1$122,637,173 Cost .................. 25,924,317 18,812,945 27,977,829 27,555,232 8,985,842 1121,895,220 Maintenance: Appropriated......... ......... ......... ........ ... ....... 150,000 150,000 Cost .............. ........... .............................. 148,877 148,877 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ........................ $86,346 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 .......... ..................... 1,062,827 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 1,149,173 1 Includes $150,000 preauthorization studies. Does not include $82,500 contributed for artificial spawning channel. 1990 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 6. McNARY LOCK AND DAM, COLUMBIA RIVER, OREG., AND WASH. Location. The site of this project is on the Columbia River, 292 miles above the mouth, near Umatilla, Oreg., and 3 miles above the mouth of the Umatilla River. Existing project. This project provides for a dam, powerplant and navigation lock, for power, navigation and incidental irriga- tion. The dam which raises the normal water surface approxi- mately 85 feet to elevation 340 mean sea level is approximately 7,300 feet long and consists of an earthfill and rockfill dam at the Oregon (south) abutment, concrete powerhouse, spillway dam, navigation lock, and earthfill and rockfill dam at the Washington (north) abutment. The powerhouse has an installation of 14 main units of 70,000 kilowatts each totaling 980,000 kilowatts. In addition, there are two station service units rated 3,000 kilowatts each. The main units and station service units may be operated, including starting and stopping, from the powerhouse control room. The spillway dam is 1,310 feet long, and the overflow crest at 291 feet above sea level is surmounted by 22 vertical-lift gates placed between piers which extend to elevation 361 mean sea level where a service road permits project traffic to cross the dam. Two 200-ton gantry cranes and three fixed hoists provide the means of adjusting the gates. The fixed hoists and the crane hoists can be remotely operated from the powerhouse control room to control five of the 22 gates. The upper end of the reservoir is retained by 17.8 miles of levees, 21 miles of drainage ditches, and 18 pumping plants to protect parts of Pasco, Kennewick, and Richland from flooding. The navigation lock is a single-lift type, capable of oper- ating at all flows less than 1,300,000 cubic feet per second. Facilities for the upstream migration of fish consists of two fish ladders, a lock, and an elevator. All structures are founded on a massive basalt flow that reaches a maximum thickness of 130 feet and directly overlies a sedimentary interbed. The pool created by the dam provides a navigable channel with a depth of 12 feet or over between the dam and the confluence of the Yakima River, a distance of approximately 48 miles. The principal data concerning the navigation lock and spillway dam are shown in the following table: Navigation lock Type ............................... Single lift. Dimensions: Net clear width of chamber ........ 86 feet. Net clear length .................. 675 feet. Lift (vertical) : At extreme low water and normal pool ........................... 92 feet. At mean annual flow (190,000 cubic feet per second) ................ 84.4 feet. At average maximum flow (550,000 cubic feet per second) ........... 72.3 feet. Depth over miter sill at adopted low water (43,00 cubic feet per second) ... 12 feet. Depth over upper sill at normal pool (ele- vation 340) ........................ 20 feet. Character of foundation ............... Basalt flow. RIVERS AND HARBORS - WALLA WALLA, WASH., DISTRICT 1991 Spillway damn, Overall length of spillway dam section .. 1,310 feet. Type of construction .................. Concrete gravity. Elevation spillway crest .............. 291 feet above mean sea level. Elevation deck ................ . 361 feet above mean sea level. Height, maximum (foundation to deck) 158 feet. Type of control ...................... Fixed wheel segmental lift gates. Number of gates ..................... 22. Size of gates ......................... 50 by 53 feet. Stilling basin type .................... Concrete apron with baffles. Normal pool elevation ................. 340 feet above mean sea level. Maximum pool elevation ............... 356.5 feet above mean sea level. Maximum spillway capacity at normal pool elevation .................... 1,480,000 cubic feet per second. Maximum spillway capacity at maximum pool elevation ...................... 2,200,000 cubic feet per second. The estimated cost of the dam, navigation lock, 14-power-unit generating installation, fishways, attendant buildings and grounds, and modifications to two railroad bridges is $294 million (July 1962). The construction of additional recreation facilities for the completed project is estimated to cost $325,000, raising the total project cost to $294,325,000. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $1,701,292. The existing project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act approved March 2, 1945. (See H. Doc. 704, 75th Cong., 3d sess.) Operations and results during fiscal year. Contracts were con- tinued and the following facilities have been added to the project: Seeding and planting, two public restrooms, remote control of station service units, and reservoir telemark facilities. Recreation facilities were improved and enlarged mainly by local interests. Negotiations for the proposed disposal of levee 11B and pumping- plant to the Port of Pasco were not consumated. Ordinary operation and maintenance was carried on by both Government forces and local interests. A total of 1,038,400 persons visited the project during the calendar year 1961. This includes visitors to the dam as well as those to the public recrea- tional sites. During the fiscal year, a total of 4,858,783 megawatt- hours of electrical energy were delivered to the Bonneville Power Administration, the marketing agency. A total of 1,087,279 tons, consisting mainly of grain and petroleum products, passed through the lock. Total costs during the fiscal year were $20,297 for new work and $1,700,449 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the existing project was begun May 5, 1947. Initial construction is essentially complete as of June 30, 1961; however the addition of modifica- tions to two railroad bridges over the Columbia and Snake Rivers has decreased the percentage complete to 97. Public Law 546, 82d Congress, authorizes modification of a Union Pacific Railroad bridge across Columbia River, and a Northern Pacific Railway bridge across Snake River in order to eliminate serious naviga- tion hazards which were caused by the formation of McNary Res- ervoir. Additional legislation regarding bridge clearances on navigable streams is now before Congress. Further negotiations 1992 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 for modification of these bridges have been deferred by the owners pending the outcome of this legislation. The project was placed on a permanent operation basis on De- cember 1, 1953. The pool was raised to normal operating elevation 340 on December 6, 1953. Except for routine maintenance, all 14 power units were in commercial operation since February 1957. Total costs were $286,278,679 for new work, and $12,423,421 for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... $740,000 $500,000 $1,144,900 $12,500 $9,176 1 $286,477,922 Cost.................. 1,243,799 638,759 674,504 403,239 20,297 1286,278,679 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... 1,735,000 1,645,700 1,657,770 1,810,700 1,710,000 12,501,670 Cost................ 1,715,302 1,643,934 1,652,116 1,794,657 1,700,449 12,423,421 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962........................ $199,243 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963................... .............. 35,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 234,243 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project. ................... .. 7,812,078 'Includes $185,000 donated funds and $347,246 preauthorization studies. 2Includes $46,676 allotted under Code 710, recreation facilities on completed projects. 7. JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, COLUMBIA RIVER, OREG. AND WASH. Location. The site of this project is on Columbia River, about 3 miles downstream from the mouth of John Day River and about 215 miles above the mouth of Columbia River. Existing project. The project was originally authorized by the Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950, in accordance with the plan presented in House Document 531, 81st Congress, 2d session, to provide for a dam, power plant, navigation lock and appurtenant facilities, with a slackwater pool about 75 miles long extending to McNary lock and dam, and the relocations of rail- roads, highways, utilities, and communities affected by the pro- posed reservoir. Under this plan the project would provide 2 million acre-feet of surcharge storage space between normal pool elevation 255 and 292 for control of floods on Columbia River. The powerhouse would provide 13 generating units of 85,000 kilowatts each for a total initial installed capacity of 1,105,000 kilowatts. Subsequent to project authorization noted above, a review of the flood-control features of John Day Dam was authorized by resolution of the Senate Committee on Public Works dated April 22, 1953. This review, dated March 25 and revised December 14, 1955, determined that the originally proposed pool fluctuation between elevations 255 and 292 would unduly handicap present and future developments bordering John Day Pool. It recom- mended adoption of normal pool at about elevation 262 with about 500,000 acre-feet of flood-storage space to be obtained between proposed drawdown level at elevation 252 and maximum con- trolled pool at elevation 265. Other features of the project would remain essentially unchanged. The Review Report was approved by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors on January 19, 1956, and submitted to the Congress August 9, 1956, where it was RIVERS AND HARBORS - WALLA WALLA, WASH., DISTRICT 1993 ordered to be printed as Senate Document 10, 85th Congress, 1st session. The revised project proposed in the review report is economi- cally feasible to a slightly greater degree than the project as orig- inally authorized. In addition it has the firm support of local interests, whereas the original proposal is strongly opposed. Also, planning funds appropriated in fiscal years 1956 and 1957 were based on continuation of studies using pools and storage recom- mended in review report. In view of this situation and contingent upon indicated approval of the Public Works Committees of Con- gress, the review report plan is considered to represent the presently, authorized project. Funds available for advance engineering for fiscal year 1956 were used in further development of the review report plan, and a site selection report was prepared under date of June 15, 1956. Funds available for advance engineering for fiscal year 1957 were used for general-design memorandum studies. In accordance therewith, a normal pool level at elevation 265 now appears to be most economical with flood-control storage space in the amount of 500,000 acre-feet available between elevations 257 and 268. The project would include a single-lift navigation lock 86 feet wide by 675 feet long, in clear dimensions, with a normal lift of 105 feet; spillway, with twenty 50- by 58-foot gates, would be designed to pass a flood of 2,250,000 cubic feet per second at maximum pool elevation 276 feet above mean sea level; and fish ladders and other facilities as necessary would be provided for passage of migratory fish. Conclusions from completed power studies indicate an initial installation of not less than 10 units and an ultimate installation of 20 units. The nameplate rating of each unit has been increased from 108,700 kilowatts to 135,000 kilowatts. In accordance with inclusion of the completed power studies, the initial power installa- tion will consist of at least 10 units at 135,000 kilowatts each-a total of 1,350,000 kilowatts. The estimated cost of new work, revised in 1962, is $410 million. Operationsand results during fiscal year. Relocation agreement contracts with the Oregon Highway Commission, the Washington Highway Commission, and the Union Pacific Railroad were con- summated. Construction of railroad shooflies and highway detours continued during the year and was completed. Grading continued on the highway relocation contracts under the jurisdiction of the Washington Highway Commission. A contract was awarded for grading a section of the Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway. The John Day River highway bridge contract was awarded by the Oregon State Highway Department under the agreement contract. Work in the city of Arlington on streets, reservoir, water system, and sewerlines is progressing. In addition, two minor contracts for modification of water and sewer systems have been awarded by the city. A contract by the Corps of Engineers for fill, flood channel, and railroad modifications within Arlington was awarded. Construction on the Arlington Elementary School was completed. Work under construction contracts continued in connection with the lock, spillway, and north shore embankment. A portion of the 1994 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 south shore abutment was completed. A contract was awarded for 10 turbine units. Preparation of plans and specifications continued for the power- house and associated features, and for the relocation of railroads, highways, and communities. Total costs during the fiscal year were $20,378,953, all for new work. Condition at end of fiscal year. Railroad shooflies and highway detours on which construction was started the previous year are complete. In addition, a contract for another shoofly and a highway detour during the year have been completed. The first contract work on the water system, sewerlines, reservoir, and streets in Arlington is 40 percent complete and is administered by the city of Arlington. Construction of the Arlington Elementary School is complete. Relocation of Wasco Electric Cooperative, Inc., power facilities is 97 percent complete. Relocation of approximately 12 miles of Washington State Highway 8 under the agreement con- tract with the Oregon Highway Commission is approximately 90 percent complete. A contract for approximately 8 miles of Spo- kane, Portland & Seattle Railway relocations is about 11 percent complete. Construction of the highway bridge over the John Day River is approximately 20 percent complete. Work on the Arling- ton fill, flood channel, and railroad relocations is approximately 7 percent complete. A contract for a section of the south abutment at the dam is complete. The contract for construction of the navigation lock, spillway, and north embankment is 97 percent complete. Included in this work is the removal of the first-step cofferdam from which the upstream leg has been removed. All work on the project, except grading operations, has been suspended because of an iron workers' strike which started May 28, 1962. The effect of this delay on the overall project schedule cannot be appraised at this time. Construction of the project started in June 1958, and the entire project is 18 percent complete. Total costs were $74,068,439, all for new work. Cost and financial statement Total to year Fiscal 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: .......... Appropriated $916,000 $7,554,000$14,335,000$30,900,000 $20,400,000 1$76,480,000 Cost...................845,302 7,092,655 14,718,821 28,743,044 20,378,953 174,068,439 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ........................ $1,940,388 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963............................... 39,000,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 40,940,338 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project. ................... .. 294,520,000 'Includes $350,000 preauthorization studies. 8. COLUMBIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES ABOVE CELILO FALLS TO KENNEWICK, WASH. Location. This project includes improvement of 128 miles of the Columbia River between the head of Celilo Falls and Kenne- wick, Wash. (See U.S. Geological Survey Map of Washington.) RIVERS AND HARBORS - WALLA WALLA, WASH., DISTRICT 1995 Previous project. The original project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of June 10, 1872, and modified by the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1907. For further details, see page 1992 of Annual Report for 1915; page 1889, Annual Report for 1931; and page 1845, Annual Report for 1938. Existing project. This provides for a channel 7 feet deep and 150 feet wide at low water from Celilo Falls to Wallula, with no specified depth or width between Wallula and the mouth of the Snake River and for an approach channel 6 feet deep at low water from the navigation channel in the Columbia River to the site of port development at Arlington, Oreg. The actual cost for new work exclusive of amounts expended on the previous project was $1,356,584. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $13,649. The incomplete channel rectification work at Owyhee Rapids, Squally Hook and at Indian Rapids, is classified as inactive and is excluded from the foregoing cost estimate. The cost of this portion revised in 1954 is estimated to be $419,000. Construction of The Dalles Dam and raising of the reservoir has provided a slackwater pool extending upriver to the site of John Day Dam and has provided slackwater over the lower 25 miles of the original project. Creation of the pool behind McNary Dam (river mile 292) has provided slackwater over the upper 36 miles of the original project. The remaining reach of the river included in this project is comprised of approximately 67 miles of open river between The Dalles Pool and McNary Dam. Upon creation of the pool behind John Day Dam, slackwater will also be provided over this reach of the river. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Apr. 8, 1935 Emergency Relief Appropriation Act authorized the exist- Rivers and Harbors Committee Doe. ingproject as an emergency relief project. 17, 63d Cong., 2d sess. Aug. 30, 1935 Adopted existing project as a river and harbor project..... Do. Mar. 2, 1945 Arlington approach channel ....................... S. Doc. 28, 76th Cong., 1st sess Mar. 2, 1945 Kennewick approach channel .......... .......... H. Doc. 324, 77th Cong., 1st sess. 2 1Contains latest published map. 2Construction of McNary Dam has obviated the necessity for this work. Local cooperation. The River and Harbor Act approved March 2, 1945, provides that for the Arlington Channel, local interests give assurances that they will construct a suitable freight termi- nal, open to all on equal terms. These assurances were approved December 29, 1947, but a suitable freight terminal has not been constructed. Terminal facilities. There are five privately owned terminals on the Columbia River with rail, water, and truck connections with storage capacity of 4,885,000 bushels of grain; three privately owned terminals with truck and water connections with storage capacity of 1,610,000 bushels of grain. Two terminals on the Columbia River have a capacity of 20,200,000 gallons of petroleum products and 448,500 gallons of liquid fertilizer served by water, truck, and rail pipeline. One privately owned terminal on the Snake River at mile 1.9 with water, rail, and truck connection has 1996 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 a storage capacity of 6 million bushels of grain. Two privately owned terminals on the Snake River with water, rail, truck, and pipeline connections have capacities of 50,079,000 gallons of petro- leum products, .5,755 tons of dry fertilizer, 893,646 gallons of liquid fertilizer, 25,112 gallons of acid, 45,000 barrels of asphalt emulsions, and 12,000 barrels of cement. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work in this reach of the river is being continued and reported in connection with John Day lock and dam project. Dredging was performed at all rapids from The Dalles Reservoir to McNary Dam except at Miller's Drift. The work was performed at a cost of $26,011, all for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. The authorized 7-foot channel, 150 feet wide, has been completed to McNary lock and dam. The controlling depth of 7 feet between the head of The Dalles Pool and McNary Dam was restored by dredging in fiscal year 1961. For that portion of the project within McNary and The Dalles Pools the depths are in excess of 7 feet with minimum depth of 15 feet over upper lock sills. The Arlington approach channel was completed in 1948. Total costs have been $1,356,584 for new work (includes $400,- 000 emergency relief administration funds) and $902,864 for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.......... .......... ....................... ....... ..... ..... $1,851,195 Cost....... ............... ..................... . . 11,851,195 Maintenance: Appropriated..........$26,973 $4,700 $4,950 $5,100 $26,500 21,004,236 Cost.................. 27,535 4,502 5,047 5,148 26,011 21,003,694 1 Includes $494,611 for new work on previous projects. In .addition, $25,000 for new work was expended from contributed funds. 2 Includes $100,830 for maintenance on previous projects. 9. NAVIGATION PROJECTS ON WHICH RECONNAISSANCE AND CONDITION SURVEYS ONLY WERE CONDUCTED DURING THE FISCAL YEAR Cost during Date reconnaissance Name of project fiscal year or condition survey conducted Snake River Channel-Lewiston to Johnson Bar Landing ...................... $1,551 Sept. 1961 10. OTHER AUTHORIZED NAVIGATION PROJECTS For last Cost to June 30, 1962 full report Estimated Cost Name of project see amount estimate Annual Operation required to (last date Report Construction and complete of revision) for- maintenance Umatilla Harbor ................... 1952 ................ ............ 1$678,000 1957 1No funds appropriated for work. Inactive. FLOOD CONTROL---WALLA WALLA, WASH., DISTRICT 1997 11. COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN, LOCAL FLOOD-PROTECTION PROJECTS Location. The improvements included in this project are lo- cated along the Columbia River and its tributaries. Existing project. The Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950, approved a general comprehensive plan for the Columbia River Basin for flood control and other purposes as set forth in House Document 531, 81st Congress, 2d session, and authorized the sum of $75 million to be appropriated for the partial accom- plishment of certain projects. Of this authorization, an amount not to exceed $15 million was authorized for the construction of local flood-protection works throughout the Columbia River Basin, subject to the conditions that all work undertaken pursuant to this authority shall be economically justified prior to construction, and local cooperation specified in the 1936 Flood Control Act, as amended, shall be required. Protection to the following areas, located in the Walla Walla District, is being considered under this latter authorization. Estimated Status June 30, 1962 Project Federal cost Appropriated Cost Teton River, Idaho (not justifiel)................................ ............. $10,387 $10,387 Heise-Roberts extension, Idaho ..... ....................... $1,780,000 40,677 40,677 Mud Lake area, Idaho (not justiSed)............................ ........... 5,996 5,996 Shelley area, Snake River, Idaho 1.......................................32,335 32,335 32,335 Blackfoot area, Snake River, Idaho 1 .............................. 42,796 42,796 42,796 Blackfoot River, Idaho .............................. .. 398,000 102,174 101,587 Portneuf River and Marsh Creek, Idaho 1 ...................... 1,420,000 103,476 103,476 Little Wood River, Idaho (Carey) 1...... ............ ........ . 64,000 21,334 21,334 Camas Creek, Idaho (not justified) ............................ ............ ........ 10,680 10,680 Boise Valley, Idaho (Ada County unit) .......................... 504,000 58,800 43,805 Malheur River, Oreg. (Vale unit) 1........ .... ..... 3412........80 341,280 341,280 Payette Valley Idaho (not justified) ............... . .............. 23,178 23,178 Weiser River, Idaho ................ ........................ 531,090 94,427 94,427 Whitebird Creek, Idaho a .............................................. 1,896 1,896 Grande Ronde Valley, Oreg. 1.................................. 8,670,000 133,458 133,458 South Fork, Clearwater River, Idaho 3.......................... ......... 3,899 3,899 Kendrick, Potlatch River, Idaho 1 ............................. 59,941 59,941 59,941 Palouse River, Wash...................... ............... 737,000 1,600 1,600 Mill Creek, Wash. (not justified) ............................. .............. 3,537 3,537 Touchet River, Wash. (not justified) ..................................... 11,198 11,198 Lower Walla Walla River, Wash. (not justified) .... .......... ......... 4,000 4,000 Umatilla River, Oreg. (Echo) 1 ........................... .... 883,000 28,145 28,145 John Day River area, Oreg................................. 457,000 46,572 35,248 Total................ ....................................... 1,181,786 1,154,880 1 Reported under "Other authorized flood-control projects." a The economic justification of work proposed has been established in compliance with conditions set forth in the Flood Control Act of 1950. Reported in detail in an individual report. a Construction of emergency work at this location has obviated the need for improvements. Note. This list does not include improvements in Portland and Seattle Districts. Local cooperation. Section 3 of the Flood Control Act approved June 22, 1936, as amended, applies to all the flood-control projects. Operations and results during fiscal year. The justification re- port for John Day River area, Oreg., project was completed. Boise Valley, Idaho, project; and Blackfoot River, Idaho, project are reported in detail in individual reports. Total costs during the fiscal year were $34,280. Conditionat end of fiscal year. The justification report for John Day River area, Oreg., project is complete and awaiting approval. 1998 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 The plan of improvement has been presented to local interests, and they have expressed their approval of the plan and their will- ingness to comply with sponsorship requirements. Boise Valley, Idaho, project; and Blackfoot River, Idaho, project are reported in detail in individual reports. A justification report on Heise-Roberts extension, Idaho, pre- viously submitted to the North Pacific Division has been returned by them with recommended revisions. Due to lack of funds, no work has been accomplished on Palouse River, Wash., since the time this project was conditionally au- thorized. Cost to date on this project consists of preauthorization studies only. Total costs to date for all Columbia River local flood protection projects in the foregoing table, including those listed under "Other authorized flood-control projects," were $1,154,880. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... -$5 $18,741 -$5,636 $22,300 $12,000 1$163,620 Cost ................. 18,695 24,740 16,403 27,553 1,201 1152,296 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962............................. $11,324 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963................................... 20,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................... 31,324 SComprises the following projects: Teton River, Idaho; Heise-Roberts extension, Idaho; Mud Lake area, Idaho; Camas Creek, Idaho; Payette Valley, Idaho; Whitebird Creek, Idaho; South Fork, Clearwater River, Idaho; Palouse River, Wash.; Mill Creek, Wash.; Touchet River, Wash.; Lower Walla Walla River, Wash.; and John Day River area, Oreg. Includes $24,500 preauthorization studies for this group of projects. Excludes projects reported under "Other authorized flood-control projects": Shelley area, Snake River, Idaho; Blackfoot area, Snake River, Idaho; Portneuf River and Marsh Creek, Idaho; Little Wood River (Carey), Idaho; Malheur River (Vale), Oreg.; Weiser River, Idaho; Grande Ronde Valley, Oreg.; Kendrick, Potlatch River, Idaho; and Umatilla River (Echo) Oreg. Excludes projects reported in detail in an individual report: Blackfoot River, Idaho; and Boise Valley, Idaho. Does not include amounts for improvements in Portland and Seattle Districts. 12. JACKSON HOLE, SNAKE RIVER, WYO. Location. This project is located on both banks of the Snake River in the vicinity of Wilson, Wyo. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for a levee with full riprap protection on the right bank, extending from the J. Y. Ranch, which is 10 miles upstream from the Jackson-Wilson Highway Bridge to a point 3.5 miles below the same bridge-a total length of 13.5 miles. The plan also provides for a levee with full riprap protection along the left bank, extending from the north line of the Lucas Ranch, which is 10 miles upstream from the Jackson-Wilson Highway Bridge to a point 5 miles downstream and extending 1.5 miles immediately upstream from the Jackson- Wilson Highway Bridge to a point 3.5 miles below the bridge for a total length of 10 miles. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved May 17, 1950 (Public Law 516, 81st Cong., 2d sess.). The estimated cost revised in 1962 is $2,- 510,000 for construction. The costs of rights-of-way are to be paid by local interests. FLOOD CONTROL-WALLA WALLA, WASH., DISTRICT 1999 Local cooperation. Section 3 of the Flood Control Act approved June 22, 1936, as amended, applies. Formal assurance of local cooperation by the sponsor was approved June 23, 1961. Operations and results during fiscal year. Surveys on the 3.5 miles below Jackson-Wilson Highway Bridge were completed. Preparation of plans and specifications for this portion of the project began and continued during the year. Total costs during the fiscal year were $27,872. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the existing au- thorized project was initiated in November 1957. Contracts for construction of levees and relocation of irrigation headgates up- stream from Jackson-Wilson Highway Bridge are completed. With respect to the 3.5 miles below Jackson-Wilson Highway Bridge, surveys are complete and plans and specifications for the right and left banks are 75 percent complete. The entire project is 63 per- cent complete. Total costs were $1,574,327. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... $56,000 $320,000 $665,000 ............ $50,000 1$1,601,000 Cost.................. 417,977 276,960 708,937 $3,703 27,872 11,574,327 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962............................. $26,673 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963.......... .................. 430,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963................. 456,673 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ....................... 479,000 1Includes $12,000 preauthorization studies. 13. BLACKFOOT RIVER, COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN, IDAHO Location. This project provides flood protection to the lower 16 miles of the Blackfoot River along the eastern boundary of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation near the city of Blackfoot in Bingham County, Idaho. Existing project. The project provides for widening, deepen- ing and shortening the river channel and for erection of levees through a 5-mile reach of the river from river mile 10.8 to 16. It also provides for a floodwater diversion channel at river mile 10.8 to the Snake River in order to protect the lower 11 miles of Blackfoot River valley lands. The existing project was conditionally authorized under section 204 of the Flood Control Act, approved May 17, 1950 (Public Law 516, 81st Cong., 2d sess.), subject to economic justification. Eco- nomic justification was established in fiscal year 1958. The esti- mated cost, revised in 1962, is $398,000. Local cooperation. Section 3 of the Flood Control Act approved June 22, 1936, as amended, applies. Local interests have agreed to sponsorship requirements including relocations of public utili- ties and bridges at their own expense. Formation of a flood con- trol district is complete. Operations and results during fiscal year. Negotiations con- tinued with local interests to obtain sponsorship agreements. Preparation of plans and specifications continued. Right-of-way 2000 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 drawings were completed and forwarded to sponsor. Total costs during the fiscal year were $30,018. Condition at end of fiscal year. Surveys have been completed. Preparation of plans and specifications is approximately 75 per- cent complete. No construction has been done. Total costs were $101,587. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated..................... $42,191 $12,000 $16,083 $20,000 '$102,174 Cost.................. $815 22,956 2,558 34,161 30,018 '101,587 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .......................... $586 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 ................................ 295,826 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963................... 296,412 1Includes $1,900 preauthorization studies. 14. LUCKY PEAK RESERVOIR, BOISE RIVER, IDAHO Location. On the Boise River in southwestern Idaho approxi- mately 9 miles southeast of the city of Boise, and approximately 12 miles downstream from Arrowrock Reservoir. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for con- struction of a rolled-earthfill dam approximately 250 feet high and 1,700 feet long at the crest, with a reservoir providing a total storage, at normal pool level, of 306,000 acre-feet. The ungated ogee-type spillway with unlined channel is located on the left abutment and is designed to pass 93,000 cubic feet per second at maximum pool. The outlet works located on the left abutment con- sist of a tunnel controlled by six 5-by 10-foot slide gate valves. The plan contemplates the joint use of storage in Lucky Peak, Arrowrock, and Anderson Ranch Reservoirs. Operations of the dam as a flood-control facility will be by the Department of the Army under the direction of the Secretary of the Army with the understanding that complete or partial joint use of the storage in the three reservoirs may be undertaken at such time as may be agreed upon by the Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the In- terior, and local interests concerned with flood control and use of irrigation water. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved July 24, 1946. Cost of the completed project was $19,081,250. The construction of additional recrea- tional facilities for the completed project is estimated to cost $344,000, raising the total project estimate to $19,425,250. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $79,188. Local cooperation. No conditions were imposed by law. Operations and results during fiscal year. Modification of flip buckets 2, 3, 4, and 5 was completed. The accomplishment of this work reduced the amount of water spray on State Highway 21, thus preventing hazardous icing conditions during freezing weather. Additional recreational facilities were installed by Government forces at one location. These facilities consisted of a boat-launch- ing ramp, parking area, a road, and a boat-landing dock. Other FLOOD CONTROL--WALLA WALLA, WASH., DISTRICT 2001 facilities were improved and expanded by the State of Idaho. Recreational facilities continue to show heavy usage, 447,000 per- sons having visited the project during calendar year 1961. Normal operation and maintenance of the project continued throughout the year. Total costs during the fiscal year were $10,881 for new work and $90,465 for maintenance. Conditionat end of fiscal year. Construction of the existing proj- ect was initiated in November 1947 and completed in June 1961. Total costs were $19,110,963 for new work and $525,304 for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.......... $70,000 $288,500 ............ $37,750 $15,300 '$19,116,550 Cost.................. 370,927 384,197 $55,689 111,298 10,881 19,110,963 Maintenance: .......... Appropriated 80,600 73,400 72,800 77,480 91,500 526,540 Cost.................. 81,662 72,726 73,669 77,416 90,465 525,304 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................. $5,587 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963................................ 66,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................... . 71,587 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ................... ..... 242,700 'Includes $35,300 allotted under Code 710, recreation facilities on completed projects. 15. BOISE VALLEY, COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN, IDAHO Location. The proposed project is located on the Boise River in intermittent reaches of channel from the vicinity of Boise, Idaho, river mile 52, downstream to the Snake River, river mile 0. Existing project. Previous emergency flood-control projects have been accomplished at various locations on this portion of the river. The plan of improvement provides for the raising of existing levees and structures to existing hydraulic design criteria. It also provides for construction of levees in reaches where protec- tion does not presently exist. The project was conditionally authorized under the Columbia River Basin plan by section 204 of the Flood Control Act, approved May 17, 1950, (Public Law 516, 81st Congress, 2d session), subject to economic justification. Economic justification was established in fiscal year 1962. That portion of the project in Canyon County from river mile 1 to river mile 37 has been placed in an inactive status due to in- ability of local interests to meet sponsorship requirements. The estimated cost of the project (1962) is $504,000. The in- active Canyon County portion of the project is excluded from the foregoing cost estimate. The cost of this inactive portion was last revised in 1962, and was estimated to be $667,000. Local cooperation. Section 3 of the Flood Control Act approved June 22, 1936, as amended, applies. The officials of Ada County have furnished a letter of intent to sponsor the portion of the project in Ada County. Canyon County officials have given written notice that they are unable to meet sponsorship requirements for their portion of the project. 2002 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Operations and results during fiscal year. The justification re- port was fully approved. Preparation of the general design memo- randum was started. The Canyon County portion (river mile 1 to river mile 37) was placed in an inactive category. Total costs for the fiscal year were $3,061. Condition at end of fiscal year. Preparation of the general-de- sign memorandum is 5 percent complete. Canyon County portion is in an inactive status. Total costs were $43,805. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... . ........... $24,000 $39,800 ............ -$40,000 $58,800 Cost................. $4,702 1,563 3,244 $2,233 3,061 43,805 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .............................. $14,995 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 ......... ..... ................ 21,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ...................... 35,995 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ....................... 424,200 1Includes $25,000 preauthorization studies. 16. BRUCES EDDY RESERVOIR, NORTH FORK CLEARWATER RIVER, IDAHO Location. The site of Bruces Eddy Dam is located on the North Fork of the Clearwater River 1.9 miles above its junction with the Clearwater River, near Orofino, Idaho, and about 35 miles east of Lewiston, Idaho. Existing project. The current project authorization is limited to detailed planning. As presently proposed the dam would be a straight concrete gravity structure 630 feet in effective height at normal pool elevation 1,600 and about 3,200 feet in length at the crest. The dam would create a reservoir having a gross storage capacity of 3,453,000 acre-feet of which 2 million acre-feet would be effective for both local and regional flood control, and for at-site and downstream power generation. In addition, the reservoir pool, extending 53 miles into a rugged and relatively inaccessible tim- berland, would provide important transportation savings in connec- tion with movements of marketable logs and would also afford substantial recreational benefits. The powerhouse would provide three 100,000-kilowatt generat- ing units to be installed initially, with provisions for three addi- tional 100,000-kilowatt units for an ultimate installed capacity of 600,000 kilowatts. No significant runs of salmon occur in Clearwater River; how- ever, considerable migrations of steelhead trout are recorded at the Washington Water Power Co. Dam at Lewiston, Idaho, near the mouth of Clearwater River. Accordingly, it is proposed that fish-passage facilities will be provided at Bruces Eddy Dam to accommodate present fish movements and improve existing runs. Bruces Eddy reservoir site is also the habitat for elk, deer, and other wildlife. Project plans propose acquisition of browse areas outside the reservoir limits to compensate for those inundated by the reservoir. FLOOD CONTROL-WALLA WALLA, WASH., DISTRICT 2003 The estimated cost for new work, last revised in 1961, is $186 million for a concrete gravity dam with normal pool elevation 1,600. The existing project has not been authorized for construction; however, detailed planning was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved July 3, 1958, in accordance with general plans for a project with normal pool elevation 1,540 presented in Senate Document 51, 84th Congress, 1st session. Local cooperation. In the absence of authorizing legislation, conditions of local cooperation have not been established. From all standpoints except log transport, project benefits are of na- tional significance and would not normally require local coopera- tion. Local cooperation may be required in connection with costs of log-passing facilities at the dam because of the local nature of the benefits to be derived. Operations and results during fiscal year. Design memorandum 1, hydrology, was submitted July 21, 1960, and as a result thereof decision was reached that a concrete gravity dam should be con- structed. Subsequently normal pool elevation 1,600 was approved by indorsement dated September 6, 1961. Design memorandum 3, general-design memorandum, was submitted September 18, 1961, based on a straight concrete gravity dam with the stipulation that studies of a curved dam would be submitted in a supplement thereto. Work was continued on design memoranda concerning concrete aggregates and dam shape and stress analysis, and was started on design memoranda for initial relocations, access and detour roads; reservoir preliminary master plan; supplement to the general design memorandum; and real estate design memo- randum. Field work included core drilling and tunneling for foundation and aggregate information. Core drilling was started at a possible site about 1,200 feet downstream from the original site but infor- mation is not complete enough to determine the merits of this location. Surveys of initial relocations and detour roads were begun. Office work consisted of stress analysis of arch dams of various shapes at slightly varied locations, designs and estimates of different types and arrangements of ancillary and diversion struc- tures, study of project provisions for fish and wildlife, and studies of log-transport methods and benefits in cooperation with the Forest Service. Total costs during the fiscal year were $586,199. Conditions at end of fiscal year. The general-design memoran- dum has been submitted. A supplement to the general-design memorandum has been started. Status of completion of other design memoranda is as follows: concrete aggregates, 40 percent; dam shape and stress analysis, 35 percent; real estate, 15 percent; initial relocation, access and detour roads, 5 percent; preliminary design report, powerplant, 10 percent; and reservoir master plan, 10 percent. Total costs were $2,377,301, all for new work. 2004 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated .......... .......... $630,000 $741,000 $600,000 $700,000 $2,671,090 Cost .......................... 570,956 662,978 557,167 586,199 2,377,301 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962.......................... $215,212 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 215,212 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ....................... (2) 21 Includes $130,000 preauthorization studies. Project authorized for planning only. 17. COLFAX, PALOUSE RIVER, WASH. Location. This project is located on the Palouse River and the South Fork of the Palouse River and adjacent to their confluence and on Spring Flat Creek in eastern Washington. Existing project. This provides for flood-control works in the vicinity of and through Colfax, Wash., by channel enlargement and modification, levees, floodwalls, revetments, and modification of railroad bridges. The estimated Federal cost revised in 1962 is $4,380,000 for construction. The cost of lands and damages is to be paid by local interests. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved December 22, 1944 (H. Doc. 888, 77th Cong., 2d sess.). Local cooperation. Section 3 of the Flood Control Act approved June 22, 1936, as amended, applies. In addition to the usual requirements, local interests are required to accomplish at their own expense the street and bridge modifications necessary for the construction of the project, and to make a cash contribution of $2,260 to defray cost of special wall sections to serve as abut- ments for new bridges. Formal assurance resolution has been re- ceived from the City of Colfax, and a bond issue for financing the project has been approved. Operations and results during fiscal year. First unit: Prepara- tion of plans and specifications were completed. A contract was awarded and construction started. Second unit: Preparation of plans and specifications continued. Total costs for the fiscal year were $130,589. Condition at end of fiscal year. First unit: Construction was started in January 1962 and is 21/2 percent complete. Second unit: Plans and specifications are 57 percent complete. Sponsor has been furnished with the rights-of-way drawings on both units. Total costs of the entire project have been $508,819. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... $136,000 . $28,300 $320,556 $350,000 $959,507 Cost................. 19,516 $51,849 88,524 100,359 130,589 508,819 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962......................... $436,977 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963.................................. 1,100,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963................... 1,536,977 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project.................. .. 2,320,493 1Includes $3,800 preauthorization studies. FLOOD CONTROL---WALLA WALLA, WASH., DISTRICT 2005 18. DAYTON, TOUCHET RIVER, WASH. Location. The project is located in a 2.9 mile reach of the Touchet River, through the city of Dayton, 25 miles northeast of Walla Walla, Wash. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for the construction of earth and gravel levees and enlargement and straightening of the channel through the city of Dayton, Wash. The project will provide protection for the city of Dayton against floods with a discharge more than 1.5 times as great as that of the maximum flood of record which occurred in 1931. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941. The latest (1962) approved estimate of total Federal cost is $340,000 and $3,950 to be paid by local interests. Local cooperation. Section 3 of the Flood Control Act approved June 22, 1936, as amended, applies. Assurances of local coopera- tion have been received. Operations and results during fiscal year. A general-design memorandum to determine a detailed plan of improvement was completed and approved. Preparation of plans and specifications wai started. Total costs during the fiscal year were $9,461. Condition at end of fiscal year. The general-design memoran- dum has been completed and approved. Preparation of plans and specifications is approximately 5 percent complete. No construc- tion has been done. Total costs were $48,481. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962' New work: Appropriated............... ... .......... .......... $30,377 $5,000 $55,741 Cost ................. .... ...... .......... 18,656 9,461 48,481 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .............................. $7,260 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963........... 21,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. . 28,260 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project...................... 263,259 1Includes $4,300 preauthorization studies. 19. MILL CREEK RESERVOIR, WASH. Location. Near Walla Walla, Wash., on Mill Creek, a tributary of the Walla Walla River. Existing project. This project consists of an offstream storage dam, outlet works, diversion works, diversion structure, and 6 miles of improved channel. The storage dam, which forms a reservoir of 6,000 acre-feet capacity, is a rolled-earthfill structure 145 feet high, 3,200 feet long at the crest, and 800 feet wide at the base. Floodwater is diverted to storage by means of diversion works on Mill Creek consisting of a rolled-earthfill dam 1,700 feet long and 20 feet high, with a concrete spillway section and headworks at the left abutment, and a concrete-lined canal leading from the headworks to the storage reservoir. Stored water is subsequently released through outlet works consisting of a steel-lined concrete conduit through the base of the storage dam and a canal 5,900 feet in 2006 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 length from the dam to Mill Creek. The normal flow of water past the diversion works is apportioned, by means of two concrete division structures, to the three delta streams, Yellowhawk, Gar- rison, and Mill Creek. The project controls the entire Mill Creek drainage area of 85 square miles, and provides protection against a flood of 11,400 second-feet. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved June 28, 1938. The Flood Control Act approved August 18, 1941, modified the project in ac- cordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document 719, 76th Congress, 3d session. Cost of the com- pleted project was $2,162,155. The construction of recreation facilities for the completed project is estimated to cost $210,000, raising the total project estimate o $2,372,155. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $21,516. Local cooperation. For the project, except for Mill Creek through the city of Walla Walla, section 2 of the Flood Control Act approved June 28, 1938, applies. For the section of Mill Creek through the city of Walla Walla, Wash., local interests agreed to provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the project; to hold and save the United States free from claims for damages resulting from improvements, and to maintain and operate the project after completion. Assurances of compliance with these require- ments received from local interests were approved by the division engineer March 2, 1948. Local interests contributed $80,000 toward the cost of channel improvement through the city of Walla Walla. Operation and maintenance costs of local interests were $48,889 for the calendar year 1961 and have totaled $376,852 to date. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: Planning was continued for development and use of recreation facilities. A contract was awarded to construct a water-supply system and sanitary facilities. Maintenance: Ordinary operation and maintenance by Govern- ment forces continued. Reservoir regulation was routine except diversion of water for bed sealing. One farm bridge over the auxiliary outlet canal was replaced. During the calendar year 1961, 22,000 persons visited the project. Total costs for the fiscal year were $7,713 for new work, and $21,854 for maintenance. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the dam and appurtenant works was completed in 1942. An auxiliary outlet canal from the dam to Russel Creek, and construction of additional drainage at the toe of the dam were completed in 1944. Paving of the channel through the city of Walla Walla was completed in 1948. Compaction of reservoir area, installation of seepage relief walls, grouting of interior drains, and installation of a new sluice gate were completed in 1949 and 1950. The gaging station was relocated in 1957. Stabilizers in that portion of the project main- tained by local interests were repaired in 1951, 1952, 1954, and 1955. Most of the stabilizers throughout the entire project have been capped with concrete. Diversion of water for bed sealing FLOOD CONTROL--WALLA WALLA, WASH., DISTRICT 2007 operations initiated in 1952 is being continued as conditions per- mit. A master plan for development and use of recreation facilities has been submitted and approved. Total costs have been $2,172,915 for new work and $691,295 for maintenance. In addition, cost of new work from contributed funds amounts to $80,000. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.... ...... . .. $33,000 $3,524 1 2$2,198,679 Cost. ............... .......... ...... 3,047 7,713 12,172,915 Maintenance: Appropriated......... $18,900 $20,100 $23,470 23,020 22,000 691,470 Cost .................. 18,828 20,341 23,484 23,073 21,854 691,295 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962......................... $25,764 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 .......... .................... 10,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................... 35,764 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project........................ 163,476 1 In addition $80,000 was expended for new york from contributed funds. 2 Includes $36,524 allotted under code 710, recreation facilities on completed projects. 20. OTHER AUTHORIZED FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS For last full report Cost to Estimated Cost estimate Name of project see June 30, 1962 amount (last date Annual (construction) required to of revision) Report complete for- Arlington, Alkali Canyon, Oreg. 1 2............ 1950 3 $20,112 Blackfoot area, Snake River, Columbia River Basin, 1958 42,796 ........... ( Idaho. Grande Ronde Valley, Columbia River Basin, Oreg. 1 1958 133,458 $8,536,542 $8,670,000 (1960) Heise-Roberts area, Snake River, Idaho............ 1955 1,575,838 .............. (6) Kendrick, Potlatch River, Columbia River Basin, 1960 59,941 .. ...... (s) Idaho. Lewiston-Clarkston levees 7.......................1950 Little Wood River (Carey), Columbia River Basin, 1960 21,334 42,666 64,000 (1958) Idaho.2 Malheur improvement district, Snake River, Oreg.... 1957 55,894 . ... () Malheur River, Columbia River Basin, Oreg., Vale 1961 341,280 .............. () Unit. Malheur River, Columbia River Basin, Oreg., Willow 1961 ............... 269,000 269,000 (1959) Creek Unit. 2 Milton-Freewater, Walla Walla River, Oreg......... 1956 886,956.......... (.) Pendleton, Umatilla River, Oreg. (Flood-control 1939 143,263 .............. () works at Pendleton, Oreg.-Public Law 738, 74th Cong., June 22, 1936). Pendleton, Umatilla River, Oreg., State Hospital 1960 276,848 ......... (5) and city areas (local flood-protection project at Pendleton, Oreg.,-Public Law 516, 81st Cong., May 17,1950). Pendleton, Umatilla River, Oreg., Riverside area 1960 .... 356,000 356,000 (1956) unit (local flood-protection project at Pendleton, Oreg.,-Public Law 516, 81st Cong., May 17, 1950).6 Pilot Rock, Birch Creek, Oreg. ................ 1949 7,800 373, 200 381,000 (1962) Portneuf River and Marsh Creek, Columbia River 1958 103,476 1,316,524 1,420,000 (1960) Basin, Idaho. 2 Pullman, Palouse River, Wash. ........ . . . . . . .... . 1953 53.067 2,096,933 2,150,000 (1962) Shelley area, Snake River, Columbia River Basin, 1958 32,335 ............. (') Idaho. Umatilla River (Echo), Columbia River Basin, 1960 28,145 854,855 883,000 (1959) Oreg. Weiser River, Columbia River Basin, Idaho. 9...... 1960 94,427 436,573 531,000 (1962) 1 Protection to be provided in connection with John Day lock and dam, Coulmbia River, Wash. and Oreg. Footnotes cont'd next page 2008 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 OTHER AUTHORIZED FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS-Continued 2 Inactive. SReported by Portland District prior to 1951. In addition, $3,328 was spent in fiscal year 1960 under authorization of Public Law 685, 84th Congress. See Annual Report for fiscal year 1960, page 1887. s Completed. 6 Deferred for restudy. 7Withdrawn as a local flood-protection project, June 1959. To be included as a feature of Lower Granite lock and dam, Snake River, Washington. 8 Awaiting funds for further study. 9 Awaiting local sponsorship. 21. INSPECTION OF COMPLETED FLOOD CONTROL WORKS Upon completion of construction, projects authorized subject to specified conditions of local cooperation are transferred to responsible local interests for operation and maintenance in ac- cordance with requirements of the authorizing legislation. In- spections are made to determine compliance of local interests with assurances given regarding operation and maintenance and the physical condition of the improvements. Local interests were ad- vised, as necessary, of measures required to maintain these proj- ects in accordance with the standards prescribed by the regulations. This report includes those projects authorized by Congress, and Public Law 685. Operations and results during fiscal year. The number of proj- ects inspected during the fiscal year in various river basins are summarized: River basin Number of projects Little W ood ... ............ ..... ................................ 2 Potlatch ................................ 1 Malheur . ....................................................... 1 Salmon ........................................................... 2 Snake ............................................................. 5 Umatilla .. ..................................................... 2 W alla W alla ................................... .......... . . ..... 3 Total costs during the fiscal year were $5,000. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... $6,200 $10,000 $7,250 $4,000 $4,900 $41,150 Cost.................. 6,101 10,097 7,195 3,955 5,000 41,148 22. FLOOD CONTROL WORK UNDER SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION Snagging and clearing of navigable streams and tributariesin the interests of flood control (Sec. 208 of the 1954 Flood Control Act, Public Law 780, 83d Cong., September 3, 1954). Date of Project Location Date construction Date Federal authorized start completed cost McKay Creek, tributary o f Pendleton, Oreg........... June 26, 1958 ....... $..............105 Umatilla River. 1 Actual cost during fiscal year 1962. 2 Cancelled. FLOOD CONTROL---WALLA WALLA, WASH., DISTRICT 2009 Small flood control projects not specifically authorized by Congress (Public Law 685, 84th Cong., July 11, 1956). Date of Project Location Date construction Date Federal 1 authorized start completed cost Lower Dry Creek, Tribu- tary of Walla Walla Lower Dry Creek, Wash... July 20, 1956 Sept. 1960.... Oct. 1961..... 2$17,911 River, Wash. Mission and Lapwai Creeks. Lapwai, Idaho ............ Feb. 15, 1960 ............................. . 2,424 Yakima River............ West Richland, Wash...... Oct. 1, 1957 ............ .............. 10,135 Zintel Canyon ............ Kennewick, Wash.......... Dec. 3, 1956 .......................... 2,518 Connell, Wash. ........ Connell, Wash.............. Oct. 6, 1961 ........................... 6,998 Greasewood Creek ....... Helix, Oreg.............. Apr. 8, 1960 ......................... .. 316 South Fork, Clearwater Idaho.................. Feb. 19, 1962 ............. ............. 1,015 River. 1Actual cost during fiscal year 1962. 2 Final payment of Union Pacific Railroad contract not yet made. Emergency flood-control activities-repair,flood fighting, and rescue work. (Public Law 99, 84th Cong., 1st session, and antecedent legislation.) Date of * Project Location Date construction Date Federal authorized start completed cost 1 Advance preparation...... Walla Walla District....... Continuing ......... .. ... ...... .. $8,970 Portneuf Riv., Idaho...... Feb. 12, 1962 Feb. 1962.... Mar. 1962... Wood River area Idaho.... do............do..........do..... Flood fight................ Blackfoot River area, Idaho. ..... do............do............do ...... 97,036 Henry's Fork area, Teton River, Idaho....... .... ....do............do.........do . ....do..... 1Actual cost during fiscal year 1962. 23. SCHEDULING OF FLOOD CONTROL OPERATIONS Coordination of functional regulation of reservoirs under section 7 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 was maintained for Jackson Lake Palisades, Little Wood, Arrowrock, and Anderson Ranch Reservoirs. Similar coordination under provisions of the Federal Power Commission license was maintained for Brownlee and Ox- bow projects of Idaho Power Co. Proposed part 208, flood-control regulations, and a reservoir regulation manual for Little Wood River Reservoir, Idaho, were prepared and submitted to higher authority. Preliminary coordi- nation was initiated with the Bureau of Reclamation on a plan of operation for the proposed Bully Creek Reservoir. Total costs during the fiscal year were $9,815. 2010 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 24. SURVEYS Total cost of work during the fiscal year amounted to $109,355, and was spent on the following: Navigation studies Snake River downstream from Weiser, Idaho .................... $8,180 Flood control studies Upper Snake River above Weiser, Idaho .......................... 30,007 Mill Creek, Wash.............................................. 219 Willow Creek, Heppner, Oreg.................................. 11,310 Touchet River, Wash. ......................................... 11,232 Grande Ronde River, Oreg. ................... ................ 21,644 Walla Walla River, W ash...................................... 9,360 Yakima River, Richland, Wash. ............................... 41 Boise River, Idaho ........................ .................... 8,741 Cooperative studies-Soil Conservation Service ................... 2,803 Cooperative studies-Bureau of Reclamation (Public Law 984-84) .. 3,147 Cooperative studies-Bureau of Reclamation (other authorities) .... 2,671 Total flood-control studies .............................. 101,175 The unexpended balance of $13,676, plus an additional sum of* $243,700, can be profitably applied during fiscal year 1963 as indi- cated below: Flood-control studies ....................................... $240,000 Cooperative studies with other agencies .......................... 17,000 257,376 25. COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA Flood plain studies. Cost during the fiscal year for initiation of flood plain studies was $236. The unexpended balance was $764. 26. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Hydrologic studies. Investigations were continued to improve forecasting procedures with respect to floods and seasonal runoff volumes. Cooperation with the University of Idaho was continued for research and development of the radio telemetering of metero- logical and hydrological data. Other general hydrologic studies were continued. Total costs during the fiscal year were $4,872. The unexpended balance was $243. IMPROVEMENT OF RIVERS AND HARBORS IN THE ALASKA DISTRICT* This District consists of the State of Alaska. IMPROVEMENTS Page Page Navigation Navigation-Continued 1. Nome Harbor, Alaska .... 2011 14. Other authorized naviga- 2. Dillingham Harbor, Alaska 2013 tion projects .......... 2025 3. Ninilchik Harbor, Alaska 2014 15. Navigation work under spe- 4. Homer Harbor, Alaska ... 2015 cial authorization ...... 2026 5. Seldovia Harbor, Alaska .. 2016 6. Harbor of refuge, Seward, Flood Control ............... 7. CorAlaska 7. Cordova 20116. Fairbanks flood control, Harbor, Alaska .. 2018 Alaska ............... 2027 8. Valdez Harbor, Alaska ... 2019 17. Gold Creek,Alaska......2028 9. Gastineau Channel, Alaska 2020 18. Salmon River, Alaska .... 2029 11. Douglas Harbor, Alaska .. 2023 tro projects2030 12. Wrangell Narrows, Alaska 2024 13. Navigation projects on General Investigations which reconnaissance and condition surveys 20. Examinations and surveys 2032 only were conducted dur- 21. Collection and study of ing the fiscal year ...... 2025 basic data ............ 2032 1. NOME HARBOR, ALASKA Location. Nome Harbor is situated at the mouth of Snake River on the northerly shore of Norton Sound, an arm of Bering Sea. It is a shallow, open roadstead, 581 nautical miles north of Dutch Harbor and 2,288 nautical miles northwest of Seattle, Wash. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey charts Nos. 9302, 9380, and 9381.) Existing project. This provides for two jetties, the easterly, 951 feet long, and the westerly, not exceeding 676 feet long, at the mouth of the Snake River; a channel 8 feet deep at mean lower low water and 75 feet wide from Norton Sound through Snake River to the mouths of Bourbon and Dry Creeks, in the city of Nome, terminating in a basin of similar depth 250 feet wide and 600 feet long, revetting the banks of the rivers; and protecting all existing waterfront improvements on the easterly beach by means of rock-mound seawall 3,350 feet long extending easterly from the east jetty. The extreme tidal range is 2.8 feet and the range between mean lower low water, and mean higher high water is 1.15 feet, but water levels are influenced more by wind than tide. Levels of 7 feet below mean lower low water have been ob- served during offshore winds, and a level of 14 feet above mean lower low water has been observed during a southerly storm. The actual cost for new work was $1,348,240. The average annual maintenance cost for the past 5 years was $46,376, ex- clusive of the seawall, which is to be maintained by local interests and excluding $2,500 contributed by the city of Nome. Extension of the jetties to authorized lengths is considered to be inactive and is excluded from the foregoing cost estimate. The cost of this 2011 2012 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 portion was revised in 1954 and was estimated to be $852,000 with $20,000 annual maintenance. The existing project was authorized by the following: 1 Acts Work authorized Documents and reports Aug. 8, 1917 For 2 jetties, the easterly 335 feet and the westerly 460 feet H. Doe. 1932, 64th Cong., 2d sess. long, revetment, channel, and basin 200 feet wide and 250 feet long. Aug. 30, 1935 Extension of the jetties and basin ................... .... H. Doc. 404, 71st Cong., 2d seas., and Rivers and Harbors Committee Doe. 38, 73d Cong., 2d sess. June 16, 1948 Seawall .............................................. Report of the Chief of Engineers dated Mar. 8, 1948. 1 Contains latest published maps. SExtension of east jetty about 616 feet and west jetty not more than 216 feet authorized by River and Harbor Act of October 17, 1954 (H. Doc. 332, 76th Cong., 1st sess.) inactive. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Total actual costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the original project authorization dated August 8, 1917, amount to $2,500 annually. Terminal facilities. Cargoes and passengers from ocean vessels are lightered to and from shore a distance of about 2 miles. Traffic enters the dredged channel and is handled over the revetment, where transfer facilities that are open to public use have been installed by a lighterage company. These facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. There was no new work during the fiscal year. Maintenance was performed by Government plant and hired labor, July 1 through October 17, 1961, and June 25 through June 30, 1962, and consisted of dredging 15,800 cubic yards of material from the turning basin and entrance channel, at a cost of $49,363. Government costs of $2,048 were expended for jetty repairs. Total costs for the fiscal year were $48,911 from Federal funds and $2,500 from contributed funds. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the original 335- and 460-foot jetties and the revetments was commenced in 1919 and completed in 1923. Reconstruction of the jetties with concrete to modified lengths of 240 and 400 feet was completed in 1940. Dredging of the channel and the original 200- by 250-foot basin was commenced in 1919 and completed in 1922. Construction of the seawall was commenced in 1949 and completed in June 1951. Dredging of the 400-foot extension of the basin was commenced in 1949 and is complete with the exception of small areas in the northerly portion of the small-boat harbor extension and around the Corps of Engineers marine ways which are not required. Timber revetments have been refaced with sheet-steel piling. A portion of the east jetty was repaired in 1954 with a concrete fill. Portions of both jetties have eroded requiring patching and repair work at three locations on the west jetty and the full length on the east jetty. The costs from Federal funds to June 30, 1962 were $1,348,240 for new work and $1,629,107 for maintenance, a total of $2,977,- 347. The costs from contributed funds were $125 for new work and $100,000 for maintenance, a total of $100,125. RIVERS AND HARBORS - ALASKA, DISTRICT 2013 Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ......... ........... .. ... .... .... .. .. ... . ........... ..... $1,348,240 Cost......... ............ ........................... 1,348,240 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... $39,000 $45,908 $49,739 $51,287 $59,000 1,642,338 Cost.................. 37,532 47,252 43,982 54,205 48,911 1,629,107 CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.. ......... ... .... ...... ..... .. .... $125 $125.......... Cost... .. .... .. ... ....... . ....... ....................... 125 Maintenance: Appropriated........... $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 100,000 Cost.................. 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 100,000 2. DILLINGHAM HARBOR, ALASKA Location. This harbor is located at the head of Nushagak Bay, an arm of Bristol Bay on the right bank of Nushagak River just below its confluence with Wood River, and is about 470 miles northeasterly of Dutch Harbor, Alaska. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 9052.) Existing project. This provides for a small-boat basin 230,000 square feet in area with a depth of 2 feet above mean lower low water along Scandinavian Creek with the entrance channel 1,100 feet long and a bottom width of 40 feet in Scandinavian Creek, and sheet-pile sill across the basin outlet with a top elevation of 7 feet above mean lower low water. During the design stage the project was revised to include a rock sill with adjacent scour- protection blankets and the embankment relocated to include a berm between the basin and the embankment. The range between mean lower low and mean higher high water is 15.4 feet. The extreme range is 27.50 feet. The latest estimate of cost for new work, revised 1962, is $537,000. The existing project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1958 (H.Doc. 390, 84th Cong., 2d sess.). This document contains the latest published map. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Terminal facilities. There are three docks located at the village of Dillingham, all privately owned, two are used for salmon-can- nery operations and one is used as an oil-handling and bunkering terminal. These facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. Now work performed under contract consisted of removal of 120,919 cubic yards of material from the basin and channel area and construction of the rock sill at a cost of $137,211. Total new work costs for the fiscal year, including $13,459 for Government costs, were $150,730. 2014 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Condition at end of fiscal year. Dredging of the basin was per- formed in September and October 1960 and was suspended, due to icing conditions, until January 1961 when excavation work com- menced. Dredging operations were resumed May 1961 and the basin was completed and the rock sill partially complete prior to suspension of work October 1961. Icing conditions during the closure partially removed the rock sill and the basin silted in. Restoration of the rock sill and dredging in the basin and channel commenced May 1962. The project is 97 percent complete. Work remaining to be done is completion of the rock sill. Total costs to June 30, 1962, were $403,503 for new work, of which $6,000 was expended for preauthorization studies. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated......... .. .. .......... $401,000 $31,000 $65,000 $503,000 Cost................. . ........ .......... 23,855 222,918 150,730 403,503 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962............................. $17,805 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963.................. 17,805 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ....................... 34,000 1 Totals include $6,000 preauthorization studies. 3. NINILCHIK HARBOR, ALASKA Location. Ninilchik Harbor is located at the mouth of the Ninilchik River in Cook Inlet about 40 miles upcoast from Homer and 112 miles southwest of Anchorage. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Charts Nos. 8554 and 8531.) Existing project. This provides for a small-boat basin 320 feet long by 150 feet wide dredged to a depth of 2 feet above mean lower low water, with an approach channel 400 feet in length and 50 feet wide dredged to an elevation of 9 feet above mean lower low water, protected by a pile jetty 410 feet long. During the de- sign stage the pile jetty was deleted and the harbor dimensions were revised to a width of 125 feet with a length of 400 feet. The range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 16.9 feet, with an extreme range of 30 feet. The latest estimate of cost for new work, revised October 1962, is $207,000. The existing project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1958 (H. Doc. 34, 85th Congress, 1st sess.). Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Terminal facilities. There are no terminal facilities available at Ninilchik and supplies are usually unloaded on the beach. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work performed under contract consisted of removal of 82,333 cubic yards of ma- terial from the basin and channel cutoff, placement of 2,435 cubic yards of protective rock, and 2,180 cubic yards of gravel on the slopes, at a cost of $156,345. Total new work costs for the fiscal year, including $18,394 for Government costs, were $174,739. Condition at end of fiscal year. Dredging of the basin and haul- RIVERS AND HARBORS - ALASKA, DISTRICT 2015 ing and placement of rock commenced October 1961. All work was completed November 1961 including placement of additional rock for further protection to the westerly slope. The costs to June 30, 1962, were $199,725 for new work. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated................... ........ ....... $20,000 $182,000 $207,000 Cost ................ .. 19,986 174,739 199,725 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ... ........... ...... ....... $7,275 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963.......... ......... 7,275 1 Totals include $5,000 preauthorization studies. 4. HOMER HARBOR, ALASKA Location. Homer Harbor is located in Kachemak Bay 152 miles by water south of Anchorage and 15 miles northeast of Seldovia. The harbor site is on the north end of Homer Spit which extends 41/2 miles in a southeasterly direction from the mainland. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Charts Nos. 8554 and 8531.) Existing project. This provides for a small-boat basin 400 by 300 feet dredged to a depth of 12 feet below mean lower low water and protected by a rubble mound jetty 800 feet long. During the design stage the dimensions of the small-boat basin were revised to a width of 180 feet with a length of 672 feet protected by a rock- mound jetty 840 feet long. The range between mean lower low and mean higher high water is 15.9 feet, with an extreme range of 28.5 feet. The latest estimate of cost for new work, revised 1962, is $623,000. The existing project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1958 (H. Doc. 34, 85th Congress, 1st sess.). Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Terminal facilities. There is one wharf at Homer capable of handling oceangoing vessels which is owned by the State and operated by local interests. It is open to the public as a passenger, general-cargo and oil-handling and bunkering terminal and is con- sidered adequate for existing ocean commerce. Small-boat moor- ings at Homer are inadequate. Operationsand results during fiscal year. New work performed under contract consisted of removal of 110,000 cubic yards of ma- terial from the basin area at a cost of $143,278; placement of 24,488 cubic yards of the material as breakwater core and 18,371 cubic yards of quarry rock was placed on the breakwater at a cost of $133,718. Total new work costs for the fiscal year, including $30,620 for Government costs, were $307,616. Condition at end of fiscal year. Dredging of the basin and place- ment of a portion of the material for breakwater core commenced September 1961 and placement of quarry rock on the breakwater began October 1961. Dredging work was suspended October 1961 and placement of quarry rock ceased November 1961. Heavy seas 2016 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 washed out the unprotected core prior to resuming work in May 1962 requiring replacement of core material and further dredging. All dredging was completed in June 1962. Work remaining to be done is reshaping of the breakwater core and placement of quarry and armor rock. The project is 56 percent complete. Total costs to June 30, 1962, were $351,485 for new work, of which $8,000 was expended for preauthorization studies. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated ........................ ..... ......... $624,000 -$9, 000 $623,000 Cost ................ .......... .. ........ ......... 35,869 307,616 351,485 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962....... .................. $30,706 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 30,706 1 Totals include $8,000 preauthorization studies. 5. SELDOVIA HARBOR, ALASKA Location. This harbor is located in Seldovia Bay, an arm of Cook Inlet indenting the southwestern coastline of the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, 146 miles by water route west of Seward. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart Nos. 8531 and 8589.) Existing project. This provides for removal of obstructions in the entrance channel near Watch Point to a depth of 24 feet, and construction of a small-boat basin 700 feet long, 300 feet wide and 12 feet deep protected by two rock breakwaters 400 and 600 feet long. All depths refer to mean lower low water. The range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 15.42 feet. The extreme range is 29 feet. The latest estimated cost for new work, revised 1962, is $695,000. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents 1 Mar. 2, 1945 Remove obstructions in entrance channel near Watch Point H. Doc. 702, 76th Cong., 1st sess. to a depth of 24 feet. July 3, 1958 A small-boat basin protected by two rock breakwaters..... H. Doc. 34, 85th Cong., 1st sess. 1Contains latest published maps. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Operationsand results during fiscal year. New work performed under contract consisted of removal of 4,956 cubic yards of ledge rock from the entrance channel at a cost of $106,468; removal of 74,200 cubic yards of common material and ledge rock from the small-boat basin area at a cost of $124,252 and placement of 6,846 cubic yards of gravel core and 5,129 cubic yards of rock on the breakwaters at a cost of $65,964. Total new work costs for the fiscal year, including $4,329 Govern- ment costs for the entrance channel and $23,161 for the small-boat basin, were $324,174. Condition at end of fiscal year. Dredging of the basin was accom- plished in October and November 1961 with final quantities being RIVERS AND HARBORS - ALASKA, DISTRICT 2017 removed in April 1962. Suitable material from the basin was utilized for breakwater core. Placement of rock on the north breakwater commenced in October and was suspended December 1961. Placement of quarry-run rock at the outer end of the north breakwater is underway. The breakwaters are considered 22 per- cent complete. Drilling and blasting operations were started in the entrance channel in February and completed in April 1962. Work remaining to be done is reshaping of the core material on the breakwaters and placement of quarry and armor rock. Total costs to June 30, 1962, were $398,262, of which $130,206 was expended for channel work and $268,056 for the basin. Preauthorization study costs are included in the totals and amount to $4,000 for the channel and $20,000 for the basin. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated........... ................. $15,391 $688,211 -$32,602 $695,000 Cost....................... .............. 12,035 38,054 324,174 398,262 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962........................ $22,427 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................... 22,427 1 Total includes $4,000 for preauthorization studies of the channel and $20,000 for the basin. 6. HARBOR OF REFUGE, SEWARD, ALASKA Location. This harbor is located at Seward, Alaska, on the west side of the north end of Resurrection Bay. The harbor is about 130 miles west of Cordova, Alaska. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Charts Nos. 8529 and 8552.) Existing project. This provides for a south breakwater 580 feet long and a north breakwater 950 feet long, dredging a basin about 207,000 square feet in area between the breakwaters to a depth of 121/2 feet at mean lower low water, raising the south breakwater and constructing pile breakwaters as extensions to existing works to partially close the east side of the basin. The range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 8.3 feet with an extreme range of 18.9 feet. The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $13,069. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents 1 July 3, 1930 South breakwater and dredge basin ................ .. H. Doc. 109, 70th Cong., 1st sess. Aug. 30, 1935 North breakwater ..................................... Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. 3, 74th Cong., 1st sess. Sept. 3, 1954 Raise the south breakwater, and construct 2 pile break- H. Doc. 182, 83d Cong., 1st sess. waters on east side of basin. 1Contains latest published maps. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Terminal facilities. Docking facilities at Seward include a float constructed by local interests which will accommodate about 50 2018 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 small boats, one commercial wharf, owned by the Alaska Railroad, which is available to the use of the public on payment of the usual wharfage charges, one wharf owned by the Standard Oil Co., one wharf owned by the U.S. Government and operated by the Alaska Railroad as a general-cargo terminal, and two wharves which are privately owned and used for industrial purposes. These facilities are considered adequate for existing commerce. Operations and results during fiscal year. A condition survey was conducted December 1961 and a contract was awarded March 1962 to restore the basin to project dimensions. Maintenance dredging commenced June 1962 and 12,140 cubic yards of material was removed from the basin area. Total maintenance costs for the fiscal year were $65,347. Condition at end of fiscal year. The south breakwater was con- structed in 1931, the basin dredged in 1932, and the north break- water was constructed in 1937. Maintenance dredging to restore project depth over all navigable portions of the basin was com- pleted in fiscal year 1952 and the north breakwater was restored to project dimensons in fiscal year 1953. Construction of the pile breakwaters on the east side and raising of the south breakwater was accomplished between June and September 1956. Maintenance diedging commenced June 1962 and is 59 percent complete. The costs to June 30, 1962, were $291,287 for new work and $148,307 for maintenance, a total of $439,594. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ... . ............... .............. ............... .... ..... $291,287 Cost.................. .... ............... .. . ......... .......... 291,287 Maintenance: Appropriated ......... .......... .......... .................... $100,000 182,960 Cost ... .................................... 65,347 148,307 7. CORDOVA HARBOR, ALASKA Location. Cordova Harbor is on Orca Inlet, a strait near the eastern entrance to Prince William Sound, Alaska. It is about 1,600 miles northwest of Seattle and 93 miles southeast of Valdez, Alaska. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Charts Nos. 8525 and 8520.) Existing project. This provides for a sheltered harbor for small boats approximately 8.26 acres in area with a depth of 10 feet at mean lower low water, protected by a north breakwater about 1,100 feet long, and a south breakwater about 1,400 feet long. The range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 12.4 feet, with an extreme range of 22 feet. The existing project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1935 (Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. 33, 73d Cong., 2d sess.). This document contains the latest published map. Local cooperation. None required. 'Terminal facilities. There are seven wharves and floats in Cordova Harbor. One privately owned wharf has oil-handling and bunkering facilities, and is open for public use as a passenger RIVERS AND HARBORS - ALASKA, DISTRICT 2019 and general-cargo terminal; 1 wharf and 2 floats are municipally owned and open for public use; and 1 float is owned and used by Fish and Wildlife Service. The remaining wharves are privately owned and used for industrial purposes. Operations and results during fiscal year. A contract was awarded in March 1962 to restore the basin to project dimensions. Total maintenance costs for the fiscal year were $6,731. Condition at end of fiscal year. The existing project was com- pleted October 1938. Maintenance dredging was accomplished in fiscal year 1951. Work remaining to be done is maintenance dredg- ing to restore the basin to project depth. The costs to June 30, 1962, were $253,534 for new work and $99,731 for maintenance, a total of $353,265. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ................. ...... ....... .......................... ...... $253,534 Cost.................. ............ ....... ... .......... ....... ............253,534 Maintenance: Appropriated........................................... $8,000 $141,000 242,000 Cost................ ........... .......... .......... ..... ..... 6,731 99,731 8. VALDEZ HARBOR, ALASKA Location. Valdez Harbor is at the head of Valdez arm, a narrow tidal inlet extending northeastward 26 miles from Prince William Sound in the Gulf of Alaska. It is 170 miles northeast of Seward, Alaska. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Charts Nos. 8519 and 8551.) Existing project. This provides for dredging a small-boat and seaplane basin approximately 3 acres in area and 12 feet deep at mean lower low water in the tide flat area between the wharves, diverting a small creek away from the basin site, and constructing a rock and gravel breakwater about 475 feet long along the south- east side and a pile breakwater about 530 feet long on the south and west side. During the design stage one pile breakwater was extended and the second pile breakwater was deleted, thus provid- ing the same protection as authorized. The range between mean lower low water and mean high water is 11.8 feet. The extreme range is about 22 feet. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents 1 June 20, 1938 Dredge basin and divert creek ........................... H. Doc. 415, 75th Cong., 1st sess. Sept. 3, 1954 Rock and gravel breakwater 475 feet long and 2 pile break- H. Doc. 182, 83d Cong., 1st sess. waters 490 feet long to partially close west side. 1 Contains latest published maps. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Terminal facilities. There are three privately owned wharves for deep-draft vessels, two of which are open to general public use on payment of mooring and wharfage charges. These facili- ties are adequate for existing ocean-steamer commerce. Mooring 2020 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 facilities in the dredged basin consist of one float, an additional float is provided in an inner basin. Operations and results during fiscal year. A condition survey was conducted April 1962 and a contract was awarded March 1962 to restore the basin to project dimensions. Total maintenance costs for the fiscal year were $7,150. Condition at end of fiscal year. The basin was dredged and the creek diverted in 1939. Construction of the breakwater was com- menced in April and completed in October 1957. Maintenance of the southwest breakwater was accomplished between August and October 1960. Controlling depth in the basin is 2 feet in the north corner and 6.1 feet in the basin. Work remaining to be done is maintenance dredging to restore the basin to project depth. The costs to June 30, 1962, were $168,314 for new work and $104,919 for maintenance, a total of $273,233. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.......... -$13,047 ....................... ................. $168,314 Cost................. 10,762 .............................................. .168,314 Maintenance: Appropriated............... ................ 55,000 $5,987 $118,000 221,713 Cost.......... ........ ............ 4,290 50,750 7,150 104,919 9. GASTINEAU CHANNEL, ALASKA Location. Gastineau Channel is a strait in southeastern Alaska, extending in a northwesterly direction from Stephens Pas- sage to Fritz Cove. It is approximately 16 miles long and separates Douglas Island from the mainland. Juneau, the capital of Alaska, is located about midway of its length on the mainland shore. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8235.) Existing project. This provides for a channel from Juneau to Fritz Cove, approximately 41/2 miles long, 75 feet wide, with the bottom at the elevation of mean lower low water. The diurnal tidal range at Juneau is 14 feet, and the extreme range is 26.4 feet. The existing project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945 (H. Doc. 325, 77th Cong., 1st sess.). This docu- ment contains the latest published map. Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Terminal facilities. The terminal facilities at Juneau and Douglas, the only ports on the channel, consist of 18 wharves and floats at Juneau, and 1 wharf at Douglas. At Juneau, one wharf municipally owned and one privately owned, both privately operated, are for public use as general-cargo and passenger ter- minals; one wharf privately owned and operated is open to the public as a cold-storage terminal; a small-boat harbor with a float system capable of accommodating 335 small vessels is available and a municipally owned float system is open for public use for additional small vessels; one wharf and one float are used for industrial purposes. The facilities for ocean-steamer commerce RIVERS AND HARBORS - -ALASKA, DISTRICT 2021 are adequate for existing and prospective needs. A number of floats are maintained for the mooring of small craft, but the avail- able sheltered anchorages are entirely inadequate for the many small fishing and work boats frequenting the vicinity. Operationsand results during fiscal year. New work performed under contract consisted of aerial mapping of the channel in May 1962 and an inspection of the site by the Committee on Tidal Hydraulics, June 1962 at a cost of $23,482. Maintenance per- formed by hired labor consisted of general topographic surveys of the channel at a cost of $59,708. Total costs for the fiscal year were $83,190. Condition at the end of the fiscal year. Dredging of the channel was commenced in August 1959 and completed July 1960 with project depths available over the entire channel. Shoaling has occurred near the mouths of Sweitzer, Jordan, and Lemon Creeks. A solution to prevent similar results from main- tenance dredging is under study by the Committee on Tidal Hydraulics. The costs to June 30, 1962, were $789,461 for new work and $59,708 for maintenance, a total of $849,169. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... $50,000 $585,261 $134,320 $12,000 $7,880 $789,461 Cost ................. 1,260 41,607 637,980 85,132 23,482 789,461 Maintenance: Appropriated................... ....... .......... . . ......... 60,000 60,000 Ccst................. .......... .......... .......... .......... 59,708 59,708 10. JUNEAU HARBOR, ALASKA Location. Juneau Harbor is in Gastineau Channel on the main- land shore in southeastern Alaska about 1,000 miles northwest of Seattle, Wash. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart 8235.) Existing project. This provides for a small-boat basin 111/2 acres in area just north of the Douglas-Juneau Bridge by the construction of two rock-mound breakwaters 430 and 1,540 feet in length, and dredging the protected area to a depth of 12 feet; and an adjacent basin 19 acres in area with depths of 12 and 14 feet, a jetty 530 feet long and a breakwater 1,150 feet long for its protection. The range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 14 feet. The extreme range is 26.4 feet. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents' Aug. 26, 1937 Construct basin at Juneau 112 acres in area with a depth H. Doc. 249, 75th Cong., 1st sess. of 12 feet and two rock-mound breakwaters 430 feet and 1,540 feet in length. July 3, 1958 Adjacent basin at Juneau 19 acres in area with 12-and 14- H. Doc. 286, 84th Cong., 2d sess. foot depths protected by 540-foot jetty and 1,150-foot breakwater. 1 Contains latest published maps. 2022 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 The latest approved estimate of cost of new work, revised 1962 is $1,257,500. Local cooperation. Fully complied with on the original project. In accordance with the provisions of the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1958, local interests are to give assurance satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that the will furnish without cost to the United States all necessary lands, easements, rights-of-way, and spoil-disposal areas for initial work and for subsequent main- tenance when and as required; hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and maintenance of the project; make all necessary alterations in sewer, water supply, drainage, and other utility facilities; construct and maintain and operate at the basin adequate mooring facilities, utilities, and public landings with suitable service and supply facilities open to all on equal terms; provide and maintain all bulkheads necessary to retain dredged material shoreward of the basin as may be desired by local interests. These assurances have been received and approved. Terminal facilities. The terminal facilities at Juneau consist of 10 wharves and floats. One wharf municipally owned and oper- ated and one privately owned and operated are for public use as general-cargo and passenger terminals ; one wharf privately owned and operated is open to the public as a cold-storage terminal, one float is municipally owned and open for public use for accom- modation of small vessels; one wharf and one float are owned and operated by the Government; and the remaining wharves are used for industrial purposes. These facilities for ocean-steamer com- merce are adequate for existing and prospective needs. A number of floats are maintained for the mooring of small craft, but the available sheltered anchorages are entirely inadequate for the many small fishing and work boats frequenting the vicinity. Operations and results during fiscal year. Hydrographic survey and predesign investigations were performed from November 1961 to February 1962, plans and specifications were prepared and a contract awarded June 1962 for construction of basin 2 and the jetty. A condition survey for maintenance of the original basin was performed at a cost of $3,264. Total new work costs for the fiscal year were $84,001. Total maintenance costs for the fiscal year was $3,264. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the original basin and breakwater was completed in 1939. Construction of basin 2 and the jetty is scheduled for fiscal year 1963, but the break- water construction has been deferred pending completion of model studies. Work remaining to be done is construction of basin 2 and main- tenance dredging in the entrance area of the original basin. The costs to June 30, 1962 were $246,717 for new work and $38,194 for maintenance, a total of $284,911. Preauthorization studies are included in the total for new work and amount to $12,000. RIVERS AND HARBORS - ALASKA, DISTRICT 2023 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.. ........... ....... . ...... ..... .......... $485,500 1 $648,216 Cost............................. .... ...................... 84,001 1 '246,717 Maintenance: Appropriated ......... .................... . $6,750 $6,000 18,000 59,214 Cost................. ........ .......... 4,038 2,428 3,264 38,194 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962...................... . $51,499 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963........................ ...... 760,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................... 811,499 1 New work totals include $12,000 for preauthorization study costs. 2 Includes $150,716 for previous project. 11. DOUGLAS HARBOR, ALASKA Location. Douglas Harbor is in Gastineau Channel on the north- easterly side of Douglas Island, 2 miles south of Juneau in south- eastern Alaska about 1,000 miles northwest of Seattle, Wash. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart 8202.) Existing project. This provides for a boat basin 5.2 acres in area with a depth of 12 feet protected by a rock jetty about 90 feet long on the northerly shore of Juneau Isle adjacent to the basin entrance. The range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 16.24 feet. The extreme range is 26.5 feet. The latest approved estimate of cost of new work, revised 1962, is $340,000. The existing project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1958. (H. Doc. 286, 84th Cong., 2d sess.) Local cooperation. Fully complied with. Terminal facilities. The terminal facilities consist of one wharf municipally owned and operated for public use as general-cargo and passenger terminals. These facilities for ocean-steamer com- merce are adequate for existing and prospective needs. A number of floats are maintained for the mooring of small craft, but the available sheltered anchorages are entirely inadequate for the many small fishing and work boats frequenting the vicinity. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work performed under contract consisted of removal of 99,132 cubic yards of com- mon material and 1,000 cubic yards of rock from the basin at a cost of.$120,525; and placement of 2,460 cubic yards of gravel for berm protection and 4,560 cubic yards of rock for the breakwater at a cost of $20,100. Total new work costs for the fiscal year, including $17,675 for Government costs were $158,300. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the breakwater was commenced in January and completed in June 1962. Dredging of the basin started June 1962 and is 49 percent complete. Work remaining to be done is completion of dredging the basin. Total costs to June 30, 1962, were $190,662 for new work, of which $6,000 was expended for preauthorization studies. 2024 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: ......... Appropriated.......... .......... .......... $380,000 -$46,000 $340,000 Cost................. ......... ..... ....... 26,362 158,300 190,662 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 0O, 1962.......................... $27,575 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................ 27,575 1 New work totals include $6,000 for preauthorization study costs. 12. WRANGELL NARROWS, ALASKA Location. Wrangell Narrows lies to the west of Mitkof Island, connects Sumner Strait with Frederick Sound, and forms a part" of the inside water route from Puget Sound to southeastern Alaska. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Charts Nos. 8170 and 8201.) Existing project. This provides for a channel 300 feet wide and 24 feet deep at mean lower low water, with improvement of the alinement of the original 200- by 21-foot channel; an anchorage basin adjacent to the channel in the vicinity of mile 14, 500 yards long, 200 yards wide, and 26 feet deep; a 27-foot depth at Peters- burg bar (shoal 2); easing curves at 4 shoals; removing a rock pinnacle opposite Anchor Point; removing 5 small rock pinnacles in towing channel. The extreme tidal range is about 25 feet at the northern end of the narrows. The range between mean lower low water and mean higher high water is 13.8 feet at the northern end, 14.2 feet mid- way of the narrows, and 13.1 feet at the southern end. The estimate of cost for new work, revised 1962 is $3,640,000. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Mar. 3, 1925 Original channel 21 feet deep and 200 feet wide, with in- H. Doc. 179, 67th Cong., 2d sess. creased depth in rock, 1 and 27 feet deep at shoal 2. Aug. 30, 1935 Enlargement of channel at shoal 1; teasing of curves and H. Doc. 647, 71st Cong., 2d sess. removal of rock pinnacles. Mar. 2, 1945 Channel 300 feet wide and 24 feet deep at mean lower low H. Doc. 260, 76th Cong., 1st sess. s water, with improvement of existing alinement and an anchorage basin 500 yards long, 200 yards wide, and 26 feet deep. 1 Included in the Public Works Administration program, Sept. 6, 1933. 2 Encompassed by 24- by 300-foot channel. 8 Contains latest published map. Local cooperation. None required. Terminal facilities. The terminal facilities at Petersburg, the only port in the narrows, include six wharves and one float. One privately owned and operated wharf, which serves as a passenger, general cargo, and cold-storage terminal is open for public use. A publicly owned float is open for public use for mooring and servicing small craft. All of the other wharves are used for in- dustrial purposes. These facilities are adequate for the vessels benefited by the improvement of Wrangell Narrows. Operations and results during fiscal year. Field surveys and subsurface investigations were completed February 1962, plans RIVERS AND HARBORS - ALASKA, DISTRICT 2025 and specifications were prepared and a contract was awarded June 1962 for construction of the anchorage basin near mile 14. Total new work costs for the fiscal year were $47,313, all Government costs. Condition at end of fiscal year. Dredging of the original channel was completed in 1934. Dredging the channel 300 by 24 feet along an improved alinement was completed June 1951. The work remaining to be done is to dredge the anchorage basin. The costs to June 30, 1962, were $3,244,815 for new work, including $136,737 from public works funds and $249,022 for maintenance, a total of $3,493,837. Preauthorization studies are included in the total for new work and amount to $2,000. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... $443,000 .............................................. '$3,640,502 Cost............... . ......... ............ ....... ......... 47,313 '3,244,815 Maintenance: Appropriated.. ........ .... ......... .. ......... 249,022 Cost ......... ............ ....... 249,022 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................. $75,417 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................... 75,417 1 New work totals include $2,000 for preauthorization study costs and $136,737 from public works funds. 13. NAVIGATION PROJECTS ON WHICH RECONNAISSANCE AND CONDITION SURVEYS ONLY WERE CONDUCTED DURING THE FISCAL YEAR Name of project Cost during Date reconnaissance fiscal year or condition survey conducted 1. Ketchikan Harbor ............................................ $5,090 January-February 1962 2. Wrangell Narrows ............................................... 22,773 March-April 1962. Total cost during fiscal year .................................. 27,863 14. OTHER AUTHORIZED NAVIGATION PROJECTS For last Cost to June 30, 1962 full report Estimated Cost Name of project see amount estimate Annual Operation required to (last date Report Construction and complete of revision) for- maintenance 1. Anchorage Harbor, Alaska.................... '$20,000 .............. $5,310,000 1962 2. Apoon Mouth of the Yukon River 2.. 1920 128,896 $2,154 (3) 3. Craig Harbor, Alaska .............. 1958 377,260 .............. (3) 4. Dry Pass, Alaska ................. 1960 943,351 537 (3) 5. Egegik River, Alaska ............. 1941 4,441 .............. (5) 6. Elfin Cove, Alaska. ................ 1959 154,191 ............. (s) 7. Iliuliuk Harbor, Alaska ........... 1941 66,037 .............. (3) 8. Ketchikan Harbor, Alaska.......... 1961 1,602,417 55,517 1,364,000 1960 9. Kodiak Harbor, Alaska.............. 1959 1,297,049 3,458 (3) 10. Metlakatla Harbor, Alaska......... 1957 5286,470 .............. (3) 11. Meyers Chuck Harbor, Alaska ...... 1945 .......................... 132,000 1955 12. Naknek River, Alaska ............. 1961 22,789 .............. () 13. Neva Strait, Alaska ................ 1960 155,009 ........ .... (3) 14. Nome Harbor, Alaska s............. 1954 ............................ 852,000 1955 See footnotes at end of table. 2026 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 OTHER AUTHORIZED NAVIGATION PROJECTS-Continued For last Cost to June 30, 1962 full report Estimated Cost Name of project see amount estimate Annual Operation required to (last date Report Construction and complete of revision) for- maintenance 15. Pelican Harbor, Alaska............ 1959 $369,683 ............ (3) 16. Petersburg Harbor, Alaska.......... 1957 7251,630 $413 (a) 17. Port Alexander, Alaska ............. 1949 17,000 594 (3) 18. Port Alexande', Alaska 6........... 1949 .............. ............ $97,000 1956 19. Rocky Pass, Alaska .............. 1960 337,668 .............. (3) 20. St. Michael Canal, Alaska 2.......... 1916 377,062 560 (3) 21. Sitka Harbor, Alaska .............. 1952 877,797 4,606 980,000 1962 22. Skagway Harbor, Alaska........... 1960 133,180 .............. (s) 23. Skagway River Alaska(O&M Spec) 1953 .............. 91l,667 (a) 24. Stikine River, A,laska .............. 1959 8,921 (0) 25. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska............ 1957 537,020 7,350 (3) 26. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska a ......... 1957 ................. ......... 6,500 1956 1 Preauthorization study costs. 2 Abandonment recommended in House Document 467, 79th Congress, 1st session. a Completed. 4 No maintenance required at present. 6 In addition, $40,000 has been expended from contributed funds. 6 Inactive In addition, $8,000 has been expended from contributed funds. 1Includes $13,000 preauthorization study costs. 9This amount was used to partly fund a joint civil works and maintenance project for emergency work on Skagway River. 10oAuthorized for maintenance only. 15. NAVIGATION WORK UNDER SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION Small navigation projects not specifically authorized by Congress (Public Law 86-645, 86th Congress, July 14, 1960) Date of Project Location Date construction Date Federal authorized start completed cost Old Harbor............. Sitkalidak Strait, Kodiak Oct. 26, 1961 ............. Reconnais- Report Island, Alaska. sance $4,000 report August 7, 1962.1 1 Scheduled submission date. FLOOD CONTROL-ALASKA DISTRICT 2027 16. FAIRBANKS FLOOD CONTROL, ALASKA Location. The site of this project is on the Chena River 11/4 miles below the mouth of the Chena Slough, about 1 mile above the east boundary of Fort Wainwright, and 5 miles above Fairbanks. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for an earthfill diversion dam 11/2 miles long across the Chena River near mile 20, a diversion channel about 5.2 miles long from the Chena River to the Tanana River, a levee 12 miles long parallel to the north bank of the Tanana River and necessary drainage facilities to protect Fairbanks and Fort Wainwright from recurring flood damage from the Chena and Tanana Rivers. The estimated cost for new work, revised in 1961, is $11,830,000, including $430,000 from local contribution. The existing project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved July 3, 1958 (H. Doc. 137, 84th Cong., 1st sess.) This document contains the latest published map of the locality. Local cooperation. Local interests are required to provide with- out cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of- way necessary for construction of the project and for subsequent maintenance when and as required; hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction, maintenance, and operation of the project; contribute $30,000 annually toward maintenance and operation, in accordance with rules and regula- tions prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; and contribute in cash 3.5 percent of the total cost of the project. No formal action has been taken toward securing assurances of local cooperation. Operations and results during fiscal year. Topographic and sub- surface surveys of the levee and two damsites on both the Chena and the Little Chena Rivers were completed, a letter report was forwarded December 1961 and a revised plan of study prepared. Total new work costs for the fiscal year, all Government, were $135,394. Condition at end of fiscal year. Preliminary field surveys began May 1961. Hydrology and hydraulics studies are 60 percent com- plete. The proposed control structures are within an area that has since developed so that the proposed plan is no longer feasible from an economic standpoint. The authorization is under review to relocate the proposed structures and increase the scope of the project to protect a greater area. Total cost to June 30, 1962, for new work is $241,720, including $60,000 for preauthorization studies. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 19Z9 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: Appropriated ......... ..... .... ........... .......... $100,000 $150,000 $310,000 Cost ................. .............. .... .............. 46,326 135,394 241,720 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962......................... $68,280 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963................................ 60,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................. 128,280 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project.................... 11,030,000 1 Totals include $60,000 for preauthorization studies, 2028 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 17. GOLD CREEK, ALASKA Location. Gold Creek rises in the coastal mountains approxi- mately 4 miles east of Juneau and flows through the western section of the city of Juneau and empties into Gastineau Channel. Its total length is about 5 miles and it drains an area of about 10.2 square miles. (See U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8235.) Previous projects. In 1934 and 1935 the Work Projects Ad- ministration constructed a cemented rubble channel at a cost of approximately $84,000. In addition, the city of Juneau has ex- pended about $51,910 for emergency channel repairs since 1946. For emergency work performed prior to the authorization of the existing project see Annual Report for 1953. Existing project. The plan of improvement provides for a reinforced-concrete channel lining 1,717 feet in length for that portion of Gold Creek passing through the city of Juneau together with the necessary intake and downstream energy dissipating structures. The project will provide protection to the city of Juneau from a project flood of 4,800 cubic feet per second. The latest approved estimate of cost for new work, revised 1962, is $565,000 exclusive of amounts expended on previous projects and $25,000 local contribution. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved September 3, 1954 (H. Doc. 54, 82d Cong., 1st sess.). This docu- ment contains the latest map of the locality. Local cooperation. Assurances of cooperation for the original project were received and approved; however, the project was not maintained in conformance with the requirements and rehabilitation of the channel was needed to prevent failure and loss of the existing channel. In addition to the assurances agreed upon for the original project, local interests are required to budget $5,000 annually for maintenance until a basis is established for another amount. Assurances have been received that this amount will be met and future maintenance performed as needed. Operations and results during fiscal year. Topographic surveys and subsurface explorations were completed in October 1961. Plans and specifications were prepared and a contract awarded March 1962. New work performed under contract consisted of repair of the concrete lining to the present channel, and removal of 1,540 cubic yards of material to form a catch basin, placement of 56 cubic yards of concrete to form a weir or check dam and placement of 290 cubic yards of derrick stone for channel protection at the head of the channel at a cost of $77,400. Total new work costs for the fiscal ye-r -, -ere $103,004, including $25,604 for Government costs. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the reinforced- concrete-lined channel was commenced in April 1957 and com- pleted in March 1958. Establishment of staff gages in the structure for engineering research purposes was accomplished in fiscal year 1960. Rehabilitation of the channel lining and construction of a stilling basin was commenced in March and completed in June 1962. Four test areas in the channel, each 25 feet in length, were FLOOD CONTROL--ALASKA DISTRICT 2029 included to test materials for cohesion and resistance to abrasion. The costs from Federal funds to June 30, 1962, were $559,688 for new work. In addition, the costs from contributed funds were $25,000 for new work. Cost and financial statement to Total Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 19621 New work: ...... Appropriated......... ..... ...... -$1,534 $108,316 $565,000 Cost.................$.351,219 313 415 . ..... 103,004 559,688 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962................... $3,712 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963.................... 83,712 1In addition, $25,000 was expended from contributed funds. 18. SALMON RIVER, ALASKA Location. Salmon River orginates in the glaciers along the Alaska Canadian border and flows 25 miles in a southerly direction to Portland Canal at the town of Hyder. Previous projects. Prior to adoption of the existing project, approximately $8,000 was expended by the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads for a rock dike, and $26,350 by territorial and local interests for dikes, revetment, and dredging for flood protection. Existing project. This provides for a rock-faced earth dike on the left limit of the river near the mouth, 4,334 feet in length with an average height of 5 feet and an extension 1,000 feet in length on the downstream limit. The project protects the town of Hyder, Alaska, from floods and deflects the silt deposit away from the harbor area. Estimated flood stage of 6 feet above low water, about every 3 years with higher floods about every 15 years is caused by melting of glaciers following prolonged warm rains. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents June 18, 1934 Rock-faced earth dike, 4,334 feet in length along left bank H. Doec. 228,72d Cong., 1st sess.1 of river. July 11, 1956 Levee extension 1,000feet in length ................... .. Public Law 685, 84th Cong. 1 Contains latest published maps. Local cooperation. In accordance with the provisions of the River and Harbor Act of June 18, 1934, local interests were re- quired to contribute $7,000 toward the first cost of the work and $200 annually for maintenance. An appropriation of $7,000 was made by territorial legislature in 1933 and annual contributions made as required until 1948. Responsibility for operation and main- tenance was transferred to the Territory of Alaska, September 1954. Authorization for the dike rehabilitation and extension required that local interests will give assurances that they will provide without cost to the United States, all lands, easements and rights- of-way necessary for construction of the project; hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction of 2030 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 the works; maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with prescribed regulations and contribute $25,000 toward the rehabilitation of the present dike. Local cooperation for the levee extension is not yet determined. Operation and results during fiscal year. A preliminary investi- gation of the required rehabilitation of the dike was made and a letter report submitted May 1962. Total maintenance costs for the fiscal year were $2,722, all Government costs. Condition at end of fiscal year. The original dike was completed in 1935. In December 1961, Summit Lake drained beneath Summit Glacier into the Salmon River resulting in unusual flood conditions washing out 1,500 feet of the dike and damaging the remainder. Work to be done is rehabilitation of the entire dike and construction of an extension 1,000 feet long at the down-river limit. The total costs to June 30, 1962, were $34,231 for new work and $23,968 for maintenance, a total of $58,199. In addition, $7,000 was expended from contributed funds for new work and $2,400 for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated ........ ......... .. .................................. 34,231 Cost.............. ............ .......... .......... .......... ......... .34,231 Maintenance: Appropriated ......... . ......... .......... ........ ........... $142,000 2163,246 Cost... ..... .. ......... ......... .................. 2,722 223,968 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ......................... $139,278 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 ................. 139,278 1 In addition, $7,000 was expended from contributed funds. SIn addition, $2,400 was expended from contributed funds. 19. OTHER AUTHORIZED FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS For last Cost to June 30, 1962 full report Estimated Cost Name of project see amount estimate Annual Operation required to (last date Report Construction and complete of revision) for- maintenance 1. Fairbanks, Tanana River and Chena Slough, Alaska................. 1945 $557,000 .............. (1) 2. Lowel Creek, Alaska ...... ..... 1946 '416,382 $30,771 (') 3. Skagway, Skagway River, Alaska ... 1953 '23,385 .............. $1,048,000 1961 4. Talkeetna River, Alaska '.......... ........ 54,000 .............. .. 78,000 1960 5. Emergency bank-protection work un- der authority of section 14 of the Flood Control Act approved July 24, 1946............ 1952 24,898 .............. (6) 6. Emergency flood-control work under authority of section 5 of the Flood Control Act approved August 18, 1941 as amended' 7............... 1950 ............... .46,831 (1) 7. Emergency flood-control work under authority of Public Law 138, 78th Congress and Public Laws 102 and 858, 80th Congress .............. 1953 ................. '72,361 8. Emergency flood-control work under authority of section 208 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, 80th Congress, 2d session, and public Law 371 ap- proved June 4, 1952, 82d Congress, 2d session ..................... 1953 '151,721 Footnotes on following page FLOOD CONTROL--ALASKA DISTRICT 2031 OTHER AUTHORIZED FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS-Continued 1 Completed and transferred to local interests for maintenance. 2In addition, $25,000 has been expended from contributed funds. 8 Includes $2,000 preauthorization studies. 4 Inactive. 5 Preauthorization study costs. E Emergency bank protection of Talkeetna River at Talkeetna, Alaska. 7Emergency flood-control work, Gold Creek, Alaska. 8 Consists of emergency dike repair Skagway River $47,361, and channel revetment repairs of Gold Creek, Juneau, $25,000. 9 Consists of emergency repairs Skagway River $44,299, and emergency flood-control work Gold Creek, Juneau, $107,421. Does not include $11,667 which was used to partly fund a joint civil works-military project for emergency work on Skagway River. Included in "Other authorized navigation projects" table. In addition, the city of Juneau expended $64,159 in emergency repair work of Gold Creek prior to authorization. 2032 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 20. EXAMINATIONS AND SURVEYS The cost of work during the fiscal year amounted to $572,916 for surveys and includes $54,509 for flood-control studies, $85,085 for navigation studies, and $433,322 for special study of Rampart Canyon hydroelectric project. The funds unexpended June 30, 1962, $101,685, together with an anticipated allotment of $355,400, $112,500 for flood control, $46,900 for navigation and $196,000 for the Rampart Canyon project, will be applied as needed during fiscal year 1963 for the continued review of interim report 2, Cook Inlet and tributaries, Knik River flood control project and the engineering and economic study of the Rampart Canyon project; the study of the Wrangell and Harbor of Refuge, Seward harbors; the Kodiak, Valdez and Tanana River at Nenana flood control projects, and the Knik River and Turnagain Arm Causeways. 21. COLLECTION AND STUDY OF BASIC DATA Funds in the amount of $55,500 were transferred to the U.S. Geological Survey to maintain gages for hydrologic studies at Crooked Creek on the Kuskokwim River; near Ruby on the Melozitna River, near Aleknagik on the Wood River; at Bradley Lake; at Eagle, Rampart, Kaltag and Ruby on the Yukon River; Grant Lake near Dillingham; near Windy on the Nenana River; at Nenana on the Tanana River; Koyukuk River at Hughes; the Knik River near Palmer; Nellie Juan River near Kings Bay; Terror River and Spiridon Lake on Kodiak Island; and the Snow River near Kenai Lake. Funds in the amount of $165,000 were transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the continued study of fish and game in the reservoir and downstream areas of the Rampart Canyon project and $40,000 was transferred to the U.S. Bureau of Mines for mineral studies in the Rampart Canyon reservoir area. THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBOR The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors is a continuing body created by section 3 of the River and Harbor Act approved June 13, 1902. The Board comprises seven senior engineer officers: The Chair- man is the Deputy Chief of Engineers for Construction; five mem- bers are division engineers (rotative basis) from continental U.S. divisions; the seventh officer is assigned full time as Resident Mem- ber and directs the staff. Appointments are made by the Chief of Engineers for unspecified periods. The Board meets on call of the Chairman. The statutory duties of the Board as set forth in the act of June 13, 1902, and subsequent acts and amendments are: (a) To con- duct an independent review of survey reports covering projects for river and harbor, flood control, and multiple-purpose improve- ments prepared by the Corps of Engineers in response to an act of Congress or a resolution of the Public Works Committees of the Senate or the House of Representatives; and to report its con- clusions and recommendations thereon to the Chief of Engineers, who forwards the reports with his conclusions and recommenda- tions to the Secretary of the Army for transmission to Congress. (b) To conduct an independent review of all special reports ordered by Congress and report thereon in the same manner as for survey reports when directed by the Chief of Engineers. (c) To consider and approve general plans for major modifica- tion and reconstruction of any lock, canal, canalized river or other work for use and benefit of navigation. Additional statutory duties have been assigned to the Board under the terms of the Merchant Marine Act and various River and Harbor Acts, particularly that of September 22, 1922. Under these acts the Board: (a) In cooperation with the U.S. Maritime Ad- ministration; collects, compiles, and publishes information on the characteristics of U.S. ports: Physical characteristics of the ports are the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers, and administra- tive characteristics are the responsibility of the Maritime Adminis- tration. (b) Provides staff supervision over the collection and compilation of statistics revealing the volume and nature of commerce on inland waterways, which include entrance channels for ocean ports of the United States and its territories. The statistics are published annually in two categories: Waterborne commerce of the United States in five parts (six volumes), showing the nature and amount of commodity, passenger, and vessel movements; and transporta- tion series in three volumes, listing the characteristics of registered and unregistered vessels comprising the respective U.S. flag ship- ping fleets. In addition to its statutory duties, the following duties are the more significant among those assigned by the Chief of Engineers: Review of Corps of Engineers' policies and procedures as directed; review of reports of other Federal agencies pertaining to water re- 2033 2034 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 sources development; conduct of investigations and studies of the economics of ports and waterways; guidance to the Division and District offices of the Corps of Engineers in the field of waterway economics; and the preparation of port briefs and special studies on foreign ports. Also, the Resident Member acted as alternate for the Chief of Engineers as ex officio member of the National Capital Planning Commission, and as alternate for the Secretary of the Army on the Foreign-Trade Zones Board. The Resident Member was ex officio secretary of the American Section, Permanent Inter- national Association of Navigation Congresses, a quasi-official organization, and the Board staff provided active support in plan- ning for the quardennial International Congress. (See separate section on PIANC.) On June 30, 1962, the Board was composed of the following mem- bers: Major General William F. Cassidy, Deputy Chief of Engi- neers for Construction, Chairman; Major General William W. Lapsley, Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Division, North Pacific; Brigadier General Howard A. Morris, Division Engineer, U. S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic; Brigadier General Seymour A. Potter, Jr., Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England; Brigadier General Jackson Graham, Di- vision Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Division, Ohio River; Briga- dier General Arthur H. Frye, Jr.; Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Pacific; and Colonel Carl H. Bronn, Resident Member. In addition to the foregoing, the following officers were also as- signed for various periods during the year to membership on the Board: Major General Keith R. Barney, former Chairman; Major General Alfred D. Starbird, Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engi- neer Division, North Pacific; Major General Robert J. Fleming, Jr., Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Division, Southwest- ern; Brigadier General William R. Shuler, Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Division, Missouri River; Brigadier General Thomas H. Lipscomb, Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Di- vision, North Atlantic; Brig. Gen. Thomas DeF. Rogers, Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Division, North Central; and Brig. Gen. Robert G. MacDonnell, Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engi- neer Division, South Pacific. A summary of the investigations authorized by Congress from establishment of the Board in 1902 to the close of fiscal year 1962, authorizations completed, the number of authorizations remaining to be reported on, and the number of reports submitted under continuing, multiple and special authorizations is given in the table on page 2035. During the year the Board held six meetings of 1 to 3 days' duration and held three public hearings. The Board considered 197 reports, acted favorably on 148, unfavorably on 43, deferred action on 1, and returned 5. The Board recommended construc- tion of projects totaling $3,489,895,900, of which $2,550,651,600 was the estimated cost to the United States, and $939,244,300 the cost to local interests for work and cash contributions. THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS 2035 RPeports suumitted Authority Authorities Authorities Authorities Authorities Authorities during for received received completed completed remaining to fiscal year investigation prior to during prior to during be 1962 (under July 1, fiscal year July 1, fiscal year reported on continuing, 1961 1962 1961 1962 multiple and special authority) Flood Control and River and Harbors Acts, exclusive of 1909 River and Harbor Act......... 5,080 1 4,719 41 321 ........... River and Harbor Act of 1909- continuing authority for ma- jor modification ............. 1.... ..................... 1 1 Congressional Resolutions exclu- sive of Great Lakes Harbors. 3,638 150 2,494 155 1,139 ............ Congressional Resolutions Mul- tiple Great Lakes Harbors studies.. ..................... 2 ....... .2 13 Public Law 71-84-1 Authority for multiple hurricane studies.. 1 ........ ............ 1 14 Appropriation Act of 1957-Re- study of Tennessee-Tombigbee Rivers ..... 1 ................... ........... 1 .......... .. 1 Total ............... ...... 8,723 151 7,213 197 1,464 29 Of the 43 unfavorable reports acted on by the Board, 21 involved construction costs estimated at $118,242,000, consisting of $99,- 124,500, Federal, and $19,117,500, non-Federal. The remaining 22 reports contained no cost estimates as they dealt with improve- men;_ that were obviously unfavorable or no longer necessary. In addition to its review of surveys, the Board submitted reports or comments on reports as follows: Six reports by another Federal agency on water resource development. Thirty special reports on civil works and assistance to district engineers. Twenty-three engineer intelligence studies covering 26 ports. Sixty-two special planning studies on ports. Studies prescribed by various River and Harbor Acts and by section 8 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 were continued and the results published in three series of reports titled Port Series, Transportation Series, and Waterborne Commerce of the United States. The following reports were published during the year: No. 12-The Port of Wilmington, N.C. No. 13-The Port of Charleston, S.C. No. 18-The Port of Mobile, Ala. No. 41-The Port of Buffalo, N.Y. No. 42-The Ports of Erie, Pa., and Conneaut, Ashtabula, Fair- port, Lorain, Huron, and Sandusky, Ohio No. 43-The Port of Cleveland, Ohio No. 44-The Port of Toledo, Ohio No. 45-The Port of Detroit and Ports on the Saginaw River, Mich. 2036 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Transportation Series No. 3-Transportatidn Lines on the Great Lakes System, 1962 No. 4-Transportation Lines on the Mississippi River System and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, 1961 No. 5-Transportation Lines on the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific Coasts, 1961 Waterborne Commerce Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part 5, National Summaries, 1960 At the close of the year the following reports were completed and in the process of being printed: Port Series No. 46--The Port of Chicago, Ill. No. 47-The Port of Milwaukee, Wis. Waterborne Commerce Supplement to Part 5, 1960, Domestic Inland Traffic, Areas of Origin and Destination of Principal Commodities. At the close of the year the following reports were in progress: Port Series No. 30-The Ports of San Francisco and Redwood City, Calif. No. 48-The Ports of Indiana Harbor, Ind., Muskegon and Esca- naba, Mich., and Manitowoc and Green Bay, Wis. No. 49-The Ports of Duluth-Superior, Minn. and Wis., Two Har- bors, Minn. and Ashland, Wis. TransportationSeries No. 4-Transportation Lines on the Mississippi River System and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, 1962 No. 5--Transportation Lines on the Atlantic, Gulf, and the Pacific Coasts, 1962 MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION The Mississippi River Commission consisting of three officers of the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, one from the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, and three members from civil life, two of whom are civil engineers, was created by an act of Congress approved June 28, 1879. All members are appointed by the Presi- dent with the advice and consent of the Senate. During the fiscal year the Commissioners were: Maj. Gen. T. A. Lane, U.S. Army, president; Mr. DeWitt L. Pyburn, civil engineer; Mr. Eugene F. Salisbury, civil engineer; Rear Adm. H. Arnold Karo, director, United States Coast and Geodetic Survey; Mr. Harry L. Bolen until September 19, 1961; Brig. Gen. Jackson Graham, U.S. Army; Mr. Harold T. Council beginning September 21, 1961; Brig. Gen. William R. Shuler, U. S. Army, until May 7, 1962; and Brig. Gen. C. H. Dunn, U.S. Army, beginning May 7, 1962. The officer of the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, designated as the president of the Commission, serves as its executive officer. An officer of the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, is assigned to serve as secretary of the Commission in the office of its president. Col. E. B. Downing served as secretary. Headquarters of the Com- mission are in the Mississippi River Commission Building, Vicks- burg, Miss. The Mississippi River Commission is charged, under the direc- tion of the Secretary of the Army and supervision of the Chief of Engineers, with prosecution of improvements for flood control of the Mississippi River and of its tributaries and outlets in its alluvial valley, so far as they are affected by Mississippi River backwater, between Head of Passes, La. (mile 0), and Cape Girardeau, Mo. (mile 1,016), and with prosecution of improve- ments in the interests of navigation between Cario, Ill. (mile 964), and Baton Rouge, La. (mile 232). It also is charged with prose- cution of certain flood-control works on the Mississippi River and on tributaries so far as they are affected by backwater, between Cape Girardeau and Rock Island, Ill. (mile 1,446), and with prosecution of improvements on designated tributaries and out- lets below Cape Girardeau for flood control, major drainage, and related water uses such as navigation and water supply for agricul- tural use. Authorized operations of the Commission below Cape Girardeau are conducted by the district engineers of the United States Army Engineer Districts, New Orleans, Vicksburg, and Memphis, within the areas described below, in accordance with approved directives and programs and congressional appropriations therefor. New Orleans District: Mississippi River project levees and river channel stabilization as required from Head of Passes, mile 0, to mile 320, including south bank levee of Red River to Hotwells, La.; Bonnet Carre and Morganza floodways; maintenance and improvement of the Mississippi River navigation channel from Baton Rouge, La. (mile 232) up to mile 320; Baton Rouge Harbor (Devils Swamp); navigation improvement of the Atchafalaya 2037 2038 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 and Old Rivers from the Mississippi River to Morgan City; control of Old and Atchafalaya Rivers; Lake Ponchartrain protection levees, Jefferson Parish, La. ; Atchafalaya Basin floodways; and flood-control and drainage improvements in Bayou Cocodrie and tributaries, and in Bayou des Glaises. Vicksburg District: Mississippi River project levees and river channel stabilization as required from the upper limits of the New Orleans District (mile 320) in the vicinity of Black Hawk, La., to the Coahoma-Bolivar County line, Miss. (mile 615) on the left bank, and to the vicinity of the mouth of the White River, Ark. (mile 590.5) on the right bank including the south bank Arkansas River levee to the vicinity of Pine Bluff, Ark., and the north bank levee to the vicinity of Tucker on the left bank of Plum Bayou, Ark.; maintenance and improvement of the Missis- sippi River navigation channel between miles 320 and 590.5, and the Vicksburg and Greenville Harbors; flood control and drainage improvements in the Red River backwater area including the leveed portion east of Black River within district limits; Jonesville, La., Boeuf and Tensas River and Bayou Macon Basins, and tributaries, Ark. and La., and Bayou La Fourche, La.; Yazoo River Basin, Miss., including the backwater area; Big and Little Sunflower Rivers, Deer Creek, and Steele Bayou, Miss., and the Grand Prairie region, and Bayou Meto Basin, Ark., including provision for agri- cultural water supply. Memphis District: Mississippi River project levees and river channel stabilization as required, from the upper limits of the Vicksburg District in the vicinity of the mouth of White River (mile 590.5), to the north bank of Little River diversion channel, Mo. (mile 1,013), a few miles below Cape Girardeau, Mo., on the right bank, and to the Cache River diversion channel above Cairo, Ill. (mile 977), on the left bank, including levees and revetment on the right bank of the Ohio River to mile 12 near Mounds, Ill. Operations above Cairo, Ill. are restricted to levee work. Mainte- nance and improvement of the Mississippi River navigation chan- nel between miles 590.5 and 964 and of Memphis Harbor, Tenn.; levees in the White River backwater area up to the vicinity of Augusta, Ark., and a pumping plant near the mouth of White River; levees and pumping plants at De Valls Bluff and Des Arc, Ark.; channel improvements in Cache River Basin, Ark.; improve- ment works in the St. Francis River Basin, Mo. and Ark.; including backwater area, Little River diversion channel, Mo. and L'Anguille River, Ark.; Wolf River Basin, Tenn.; Obion and Forked Deer River Basins, Tenn.; Reelfoot Lake area, Tenn. and Ky.; and Cairo-Mounds-Mound City area, Ill. Field operations of the Commission restricted to levee construc- tion under section 6 of the 1928 Flood Control Act (local interests contributing one-third of costs and furnishing rights-of-way), are conducted within the following limits by four U.S. Army Engineer Districts which report direct to the Commission on matters within its jurisdiction: St. Louis District: (Lower Mississippi Valley Division) Mis- sissippi River (sec. 6) levees from the upper limits of the Memphis District to Clemens Station, Mo. (mile 1,264), on the right bank MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2039 and Hamburg Bay, Ill. (mile 1,225), on the left bank including the Illinois River to mile 20, near Havana, Ill. Rock Island District: (North Central Division) -Mississippi River (sec. 6) levees from upper limits of the St. Louis District to Rock Island, Ill. (mile 1,448). Louisville District: (Ohio River Division) -Ohio River (sec. 6) levees to Shawneetown, Ill. (backwater limits). Kansas City District: (Missouri River Division) -Missouri River (sec. 6) levees to St. Charles Mo. (backwater limit). MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ALLUVIAL VALLEY BELOW CAPE GIRARDEAU, MO. Location and description: The Mississippi River rises in Lake Itasca, Minn., and flows in a general southerly direction for 2,350 miles through the central portion of the United States to empty into the Gulf of Mexico about 115 miles below New Orleans. It is improved for barge navigation for about 1,837 miles to Minneapo- lis, Minn. The major tributaries are the Missouri, Ohio, St. Francis, White, Arkansas, Yazoo, and Red Rivers which drain 1,245,000 square miles in all or part of 31 States between the Rocky and Appalachian Mountains and part of two Canadian Provinces. Below Cape Girardeau, Mo., 53 miles above the Ohio River, the river bottom lands widen abruptly into the alluvial valley of about 35,460 square miles which was originally subject to flood overflow. For descriptive purposes, this area has been subdivided into the St. Francis, White, Tensas, Atchafalaya, and Lafourche Basins west of the river, and the Yazoo and Pontchar- train Basins east of the river. A major part of the alluvial valley has been protected from floods by levees which confine flood flows within a flood plain having an average width of about 5 miles. (See map of the alluvial valley of the Mississippi River, scale 1:500,000.) Observations made by the Mississippi River Commission to June 30 show approximate maximum and minimum discharges between the levees as follows: Cairo to White River, 2 million and 70,000 cubic feet per second; thence to Red River, 2,150,000 and 90,000 cubic feet per second; thence to the Gulf of Mexico, 1,500,000 and 80,000 cubic feet per second in the Mississippi River and about 650,000 and 12,000 cubic feet per second in the Atchafalaya River. As the 1927 floodflow was not confined between the levees, maximum discharges recorded do not include the entire flow of the 1927 flood, the maximum of record below White River. Low-water stages, generally, obtain from August to December. High water and flood stages usually occur in the late winter or early spring, but great floods such as that of 1937 have occurred as early as January in the upper reaches of the lower river. Extreme ranges in stages recorded at representative gages are about 60 feet at Cairo; 55 feet at Memphis; 58 feet at Red River Landing; and 23 feet at New Orleans (Carrollton). The river is nontidal above the mouth of Red River, where ampli- tude of the tide rarely exceeds 0.1 foot during extreme low water. PREVIOUS PROJECTS The project outlined in a report by the Commission dated Feb- 2040 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 ruary 17, 1880, contemplated improvement of the channel to secure a least depth of 10 feet at extreme low water by contraction of the low water channel, protection of banks against caving, and control of floodwater by levees. For further details, see page 1944, Annual Report for 1932, and page 1682, Annual Report for 1937. Flood-control-general projects previously authorized, which have been incorporated as features of the project, are listed below. For last full report, see Act of Authorizing Description Annual Report of the incorporation acts Chief of Engineers July 24, 1946.. June 22, 1936 Tiptonville-Obion levee and drainage improvements, P. 943, fiscal year 1941. Tenn. Do......... do....... Bayou des Glaises diversion ditch, La............ P. 1029, fiscal year 1946. Do......... do...... From North Little Rock, Ark. to Gillett, Ark. on the P. 1053, fiscal year 1946. north bank of Arkansas River (portion below Plum Bayou). Do.......... Aug. 18, 1941 White River levees Augusta to Clarendon and De P. 1083, fiscal year 1946. Valls Bluff, Ark. Do.......... Dec. 22, 1944 Boeuf and Tensas Rivers and Bayou Macon, La..... P. 982, fiscal year 1945. Do.......... do....... Big Sunflower River, etc............... ....... P. 1061, fiscal year 1946. June 30, 1948.. July 24, 1946 Devils Swamp barge channel at Baton Rouge, La. P. 1059, fiscal year 1948. (Baton Rouge, Harbor). May 17, 1950.. June 22, 1936 Jonesville, La.. ... .P. 773, fiscal year 1953. Do......... July 24, 1946 Lake Pontchartrain-Jefferson Parish, La ........... . P. 737, fiscal year 1953. EXISTING PROJECT The existing project for the Mississippi River and tributaries in the alluvial valley between the Head of Passes, La. and Cape Girardeau, Mo. provides for the protection thereof from floods by means of levees, floodwalls, floodways, reservoirs (in the Yazoo and St. Francis Basins), bank stabilization, and channel improve- ments in and along the river and its tributaries and outlets insofar as affected by backwater of the Mississippi River, including levee work on the main stem between Cape Girardeau and Rock Island. The project also provides for channel realinement and improve- ment including bank stabilization and dikes to reduce flood heights; control the natural tendency of the river to lengthen by meandering, protect the levees from being destroyed by caving banks; and provide a 12- by 300-foot navigation channel between Baton Rouge, La. and Cairo, Ill. The locations of major Mississippi River project improvements for flood control and navigation, including main stem levees and appurtenant drainage structures and spillways, channel realinement and dredging, bank revetment, and dikes are listed in table A. The locations of levee work accomplished under the provisions of section 6 of the Flood Control Act approved May 15, 1928, are shown on table E-4. The project provides for harbor improvements on the main stem at Baton Rouge (Devils Swamp), La., Vicksburg, Miss., Greenville, Miss., and Memphis, Tenn. The locations of these improvements are shown on table A. The locations of project improvements on tributaries and outlets in designated basins in the alluvial valley below Cape Girardeau are listed in table B. Table C contains data pertinent to dams and reservoirs. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2041 Table A. Mississippi River Improvements Location Mileage Improvement Remarks above Head Locality of Passes 230-966 Baton Rouge-Cairo ............... Dredging where required .......... 10-966 Venice, La.-Cairo. ............... Revetment, contraction work....... 11-25 Baptiste Collette Bayou-Ostrica, La.. Main line levee setback, left bank.. 44-91 Bohemia, La.-New Orleans......... Main line levee and floodwall, left bank. 91-104 New Orleans ..................... .....do.......................... Authorized by Public Law 516, 81st Cong. 104-230 New Orleans-Baton Rouge.......... .. do................... 234 Baton Rouge Harbor .............. Devils Swamp barge channel........ Authorized by Public Law 858, 80th Cong. 432 Vicksburg Harbor ................ Harbor extension and industrial fill... Authorized by Public Law 391, 70th Cong., as modified by Public Law 526, 79th Cong., and 780, 83d Cong. 529 1Greenville Harbor ................. Harbor improvements............. Authorized by Public Law 85-500, July 3, 1958. 432-718 Vicksburg-Lake View, Miss......... Main line levee, left bank.......... 718-731 Memphis Harbor ................. Closure, Tennessee Chute; industrial Authorized by Public fill, levee; harbor channels, etc. Law 526, 79th Cong. 807-878 Tiptonville-Obion River............ Main line levee, left bank, levee ex- Do. tension and diversion of Obion River. 906-931 Slough Bend-Hickman, Ky.......... Main line levee, left bank........... 10-81 The Jump-New Orleans............ Main levee right bank............. 81-96 New Orleans .................... .....do........................... Authorized by Public Law 516, 81st Cong. 96-277 New Orleans-Morganza ............ .....do...... ................... 285-301 Morganza-Old River ............... .....do........................... Extends up south bank of Old River to Barbre Landing. 301-312 Old River, La., control............. Levee closure and enlargement, low Authorized by Public and high level spillway structures, Law 780, 83d Cong. navigation lock, and approach channels. 304-564 Old River-Cypress Creek, Ark....... Main line levee, right bank......... Joins Arkansas River south bank levee. 600-660 Henrico-Helena, Ark............... .... do..... .................... 671-1,001 St. Francis River-Commerce, Mo.. ..... do..... ............... 1,008-1,446 Thebes, Ill.-Rock Island............ Levees, both banks ................ Intermittent. 127-129 Bonnet Carre, La., floodway ....... Regulating spillway, left bank....... 277-285 Morganza, La., floodway ........... Regulating spillway, right bank .... 895 St. Johns Bayou, Mo............... Drainage floodgate ................ Authorized by Public Law 780, 83d Cong. 895 New Madrid floodway, Mo.......... ..... do....... ............. 932 Hickman, Ky............ .. Floodwall, left bank............... 895-964 New Madrid-Birds Point,Mo....... Floodway, right bank.............. 966 Cairo, Cairo drainage district ....... Floodwalls and levees.......... 966 Cairo, Cairo drainage district, Floodwalls, levees, and pumping Mounds, Mound City and vicinity. plant. Cape Girardeau to Rock Island ..... Levees................ ........... Intermittent (sec. 6). Table B. Mississippi River Tributary and Outlet Improvements Location Mileage Improvement Remarks above Locality mouth ATCHAFALAYABASIN, LA. Atchafalaya Basin, Morganza, and West Atchafalaya floodways 18-81 Atchafalaya Basin floodway between Floodway .. ................ Morgan City and Alabama Bayou. 81-115 Morganza floodway between Ala- ..... do......................... bama Bayou and Mississippi River. 81-138 West Atchafalaya floodway between ..... do................... ...... Alabama Bayou and Red River. See footnote at end of table. 2042 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Table B. Mississippi River Tributary aud Outlet Improvements-Continued Location Mileage Improvement Remarks above Locality mouth East protection levee (Morganza and Atchafalaya floodways) 6 Below Morgan City .............. Channel relocation ................ By-pass route for Gulf In- tracoastal Waterway traffic. 6-18 .....do. .......................... Levees, floodwall ............. East of lower river. 18 Morgan City .................... Lock in Bayou Boeuf ............. Gulf Intracoastal Wa- terway. 18-115 Morgan City Morganza............ Levee and Morgan City floodwall... Including lower Morganza floodway guide levee. 18-54 Morgan City-Bayou Sorrel Lock .... Alternate navigation channel Gulf Gulf Intracoastal Water- Intracoastal Waterway to Pla- way utilizes levee west quemine and Port Allen. side borrow pit chan- nel. Alternate route on east side of levee. 54 Bayou Sorrel ...... ............... I Lock.. . .................... Alternate route Gulf In- tracoastal Waterway Morgan City to Pla- quemine and extension to Port Allen. 84-106 Ramah-Bayou Fordoche .......... Drainage channel.................. Levee landside borrow pit. 108-116 Lacour-Red Cross ................. Levee, upper Morganza guide..... 109 Bayou Latenache ................. Drainage structure, Pointe Coupee Through upper Morganza and channel enlargement. guide levee and en- largement of outlet channel. Atchafalaya Basin floodway lower protection levee 6-18 Below Morgan City........... Levees, floodwall, drainage struc- Inclosed area between tures, and pumping plants. Berwick and Wax Lake Outlet. 20 Berwick ................ .... Lock............................. Lower Atchafalaya River. 26 Patterson........................ Water system ..................... Adjustment to provide fresh water. 32 Calumet ......................... Floodgate, east........................ Bayou Teche Wax Lake Outlet. West protection levee (Alcha- falaya Basin and West Atchafalaya flood ways) Wax Lake Outlet to Mansura...... Protection levee ....... ....... Coulee des Grues .................. Levee enlargement and floodgate extension. 133 Simmesport-Hamburg ............. Levee fuse plug ................... West Atchafalaya flood- way. 32 Calumet......................... Floodgate, west ................ Bayou Teche and Wax Lake Outlet. 50 Charenton....................... Floodgate and approach channels. Borrow pit channel to Grand Lake through West Atchafalaya pro- tection levee. 96 Bayou Courtableau ............... Gated drainage control structures and channels. 97 Bayou Darbonne................ Gated drainage structures .......... Through West Atcha- falaya protection levee. 50 Jaws-Lake Fausse Pointe........... Outlet, Charenton drainage canal Restoration of drainage protection levee. west of West Atcha- falaya Basin protection levee. 32 Wax Lake Outlet. ... ....... Bridges, railway, and highway...... 95 West Atchafalaya floodway......... ..... do......................... 95 Morganza floodway ............... .... do......................... 107 .....do.......................... ..... do...................... 115 .....do...... .................... .... do......................... Atchafalaya River 0-88 1 Below Alabama Bayou............. Dredging of floodway channels..... Improved channel capac- ities and decrease flood heights. 18-133 Morgan City-Mississippi River...... 12 by 125-foot navigation channel... Through Grand and Six Mile Lake. 32 Atchafalaya Bay-Six Mile Lake..... Outlet, Wax Lake ................. See footnote at end of table. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2043 Table B. Mississippi River Tributary aud Outlet Improvements-Continued Location Mileage Improvement Remarks above Locality mouth I I ATCHAFALAYABASIN, LA.- Continued 81-138 Alabama Bayou-Barbre Landing.... Levee, east bank ................. 61-133 Bayou Garofier-Simmesport......... West bank, levee .................. 96 Krotz Springs ..................... Levee, ring .................... 107-108 M elville.. ........................ ..... do.... ................ 133 Simmesport ...................... Levee, ring and drainage structure. COURTABLEAU BASIN, LA. AND OUTLETS 0-8 Charenton Canal................ Drainage channel .............. Outlet to Gulf. 50-133 West Atchafalaya protection levee .....d o .......................... Intercepting drainage borrow pit channel. channel. 96 Bayou Courtableau spillway........ Drainage control structure.......... 133 Bayou des Glaises ................. Diversion channel ............... Bayou Cocodrie and tributaries 0-17 Bayou Cocodrie ................... Enlargement and realinement....... 17-40 Bayou Cocodrie-Boeuf diversion..... New channel ................... 40-51 Bayou Boeuf. ..................... ..... do........................... 51-60 Bayous Boeuf-Rapides diversion..... .... do............ .... ...... 17-42 Upper Cocodrie ................ Enlargement, clearing, and snagging. Bayou Boeuf 87-107 Bayou Lamourie to Kincaid ........ Enlargement, realinement, clearing, and snagging. 40 Lecompte control structure......... Fixed elevation weir............... 60 Bayou Rapides control structure ... Gated drainage structure.......... 87 Bayou Lamourie control structure... ..... do.............. ...... Various .......................... Railway, highway, and local road bridges, and pipeline crossing. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN,LA. Lake Pontchartrain, Jefferson Par- Flood protection ............... Authorized by Public Law ish, La. 516, 81st Cong. AMITE RIVER, LA. Amite River, La. ................. Bank protection................... Do. LOWER BED RIVER, LA. 82-145 Moncla-Hotwells ............ Levee, south bank ................ Red River-Moncla to Lake Long.... Levees.......................... Intermittent (sec. 6). TENSAS BASIN, ARK. AND LA. Red River backwater area Tensas-Cocodrie area ............. Levees, drainage channels, and struc- tures. 56 Jonesville, La ................... . Levees, floodwall, pumping plant, Portion of levee built and interior drainage. under sec. 6. Ouachita River ................... .....d o.......................... Monroe to Sandy Bayou and Bawcomville (sec. 6). Now incorporated in Ouachita River and tributaries project for flood control. Boeuf and Tensas Rivers and tributaries,La. and Ark. Boeuf River, La. and Ark. 0-32 Below Bayou La Fourche........... Clearing......................... Public Law 516, 81st Cong., modifies require- ments of local coop- eration. 151-235 1Above Bayou La Fourche.......... Enlargement and realinement...... See footnote at end of table. 2044 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Table B. Mississippi River Tributary aud Outlet Improvements--Continued Location Mileage Improvement Remarks above Lo ality mouth TENSAS BASIN ARK. AND LA.- Continued Canals 18, 19, 43, and 81, Big Bayou, Channel improvement............. Extensions authorized by Black Pond Slough, Kirsch Lake Public Law 85-500, July Canal, Fleschmans Bayou, and 3, 1958. Caney Bayou. Bayou La Fourche, La. 0-57 Boeuf River (mile 32) to and through Channel improvement and realine- Public Law 516, 81st Bayou La Fourche to Boeuf River ment. Cong., modifies require- (mile 151). ments of local coop- eration. Big and Colew,a Creeks, La. 0-26 Big and Colewa Creeks............. Clearing, snagging, and realinement.. 26-89 .....do..... .................... Enlargement and realinement. Tensas River, La. 0-160 Tensas River .................. Channel improvement ............ Do. Bayou Macon, Ark. and La. 0-170 To mouth of Ditch Bayou.......... Clearing and snagging ............. 123 Upper end Sandy Lake............. Levee......................... 120 Small outlet, right bank............ Closure.......................... 127 . ....do........................... ..... do......................... 158 Rush Bayou ..................... Clearing.......................... Authorized by Public Law 85-500, July 3, 1958. Structures Various.......................... Railway and highway bridges and pipeline crossings. Grant's Canal, La. 0-0.2 Grant's Canal at Lake Providence.. Filling canal ..................... Authorized by Piblic Law 516, 81st Cong LOWER ARKANSAS RIVER, ARK. 23-98 Yancopin-Pine Bluff .......... Levee, south bank ............ 35-98 Fletcher Bend, Ark. to Pine Bluff... Revetment ... .............. 48-102 North Little Rock to Gillett (below Levee, north bank............... Plum Bayou). Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Water supply and drainage improve- Do. Meto Basin, Ark. ments. YAZOOBASIN, MISS. 0-75 Yazoo backwater area.............. Levees and pumping plants......... 0-381 Yazoo River below Arkabutla Dam. Channel improvement ............. Including Tallahatchie and Coldwater Rivers. 75-366 Yazoo River between Yazoo City Levees, right bank ................ Intermittent. and Prichard. 75-345 Yazoo River between Yazoo City Levees left bank .................. Do. and Askew. 45-109Lower auxiliary channel........... New floodway channel ............. 75 Yazoo City protection ............. Levee, drainage structure, and pumping plant. 127 Belszoni protection ... ........ Levee and floodwall........... 185 Greenwood protection ............. Levees, channel improvement, drain- age structures, and pumping plants. 381 Arkabutla Reservoir ............... Flood detention and conservation.... See table C. 0-64 Yalobusha River below Grenada Channel improvement ............. Reservoir. 64 Grenada Reservoir ........... Flood detention and conservation.... Do. 0-24 Tallahatchie River-Little Talla- Levees, Panola-Quitman floodway... hatchie River. 0-26 Little Tallahatchie River below Channel improvement ............. Sardis Reservoir. 26 Sardis Reservoir ................. Flood detention and conservation.... Do. 0-13 Yocona River below Enid Reservoir. Channel improvement.............. 13 Enid Reservoir ................. Flood detention and conservation.... Do. See footnotes at end of table. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2045 Table B. Mississippi River Tributary aud Outlet Improvements-Continued Location Mileage Improvement Remarks above Locality mouth YAZOOBASIN,MIss.-Continued 0-88 Cassidy Bayou, below Old Cold- Channel improvement .............. Including Moores Bayou, water River. Cutoff Bayou, Whiting Lake and outlet. 75-381 Area between main stem and the Levees and channel improvement.... Authorized by Public Law hills including Bobo Bayou. 526, 79th Cong. McKinney Bayou ................. Channel improvement or enlarge- Do. ment of pumping plant. Big Sunflower River, etc. 0-204 Big Sunflower River .... ...... Channel improvement ............. Authorized by Public Law 0-8 Hull Brake-Mill Creek Canal...... ..... do........................... 526, 79th Cong.; Public 0-28 Hushpuckena River .............. ....do........................... Law 516, 81st Cong., 0-60 Quiver River ................... ..... do........................... modifies requirements 0-43 BoguePhalia............... ....... ..... do........................... of local cooperation. 60-79 0-4 Ditchlow Bayou.................. .... do......................... 0-27 Little Sunflower River ............. ..... do........................... 154-160 Deer Creek ...................... ..... do........................ 0-66 Steele Bayou. .................... ..... do.......d................... LOWER WHITE RIVER AND BASIN, ARK. 18-50 Laconia Circle-Old Town Lake...... Levee, backwater including outlet Mile 600-740 Mississippi structures. River. Pumping plant .................. Authorized by Public Law 85-500. July 3. 1958. 100-220 Augusta to Clarendon ............. Levees, outlet structures .......... 125 De Valls Bluff .................. . Levee, outlet structure, and pump- ing station. 147 Des Arc, Ark ................ .....do.......................... Authorized by Public Law 516, 81st Cong. 0-196 Cache River, Ark ................. Channel improvement and struc- Do. tures. 0-90 Bayou DeView, Ark................ .....do ................... ....... Do. ST. FRANCIS RIVER AND BASIN, ARK. AND MO. 0-305 Mouth of St. Francis River-Wap- Floodway, levees, drainage chan- papello Dam. nels, and structures. 305 Wappapello Reservoir .............. Flood detention and conservation.... See table C. 0-105 Little River Basin ................. Floodway, levees, drainage chan- nels, and structures. 15-36 Tyronza River ............... Channel improvement. 155 Marked Tree, Ark ................. Marked Tree Siphon.......... 0-29 Big Slough Ditch. ................ Channel improvement ............ 0-17 Mayo Ditch ... .......... .... do................ 0-12 Cross Country Ditch .............. ..... do.......................... L'Anguille River, Ark. 0-60 ............ .................. do.......................... Authorized by Public Law 858, 80th Cong. WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES 0-38 Wolf River and tributaries, Tenn.........do ............ .............. Authorized by Public Law 85-500, July 3, 1958. 0-81 Obion River and tributary North, .....do .............. ..... . Do. South, Middle, and Rutherford Forks. 0-75 Forked Deer River and tributary, Do. North, Middle, and South Forks. REELFOOT LAKEAREA,KY. ANDTENN. 0-20 Running Reelfoot Bayou, Tenn...... .....do.............. ..... ...... Authorized by Public Law 780, 83d Cong. 0-16 Bayou du Chien, Ky. and Tenn..... ... d..do.................... Do. ST. JOHNS BAYOU, MO. 0-11 1New Madrid-Sikeston Ridge........j Levee and floodgate .............. Mile River. 895, Mississippi See footnotes at end of table. 2046 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Table B. Mississippi River Tributary and Outlet Improvements-Continued Location Mileage Improvement Remarks above Locality mouth LITTLE RIVER DIVERSION CHANNEL, MO. Delta to Ancell, Mo................ Levees .......................... Mile 50 above Cairo. MISSOURI RIVER, MO. 0-28 Mouth to St. Charles, Mo ............ do........................ Authority-(sec. 6). ILLINOIS RIVER, ILL. 0-120 Mouth to Havana, Ill.............. .... do .......................... Intermittent-(sec. 6). OHIO RIVER, ILL. AND KY. 0-12 Cairo to Mound City and Mounds, Floodwall, levee, revetment, and Ill. pumping plant. 1 General data concerning the Bayou Boeuf, Bayou Sorrel, and Berwick locks where the Atchafalaya Basin protection levees cross the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, the alternate route to Plaquemine, La., and the lower Atchafalaya River (extension of Bayou Teche Waterway) respectively, are given in the report on improvement of Rivers and Harbors in the New Orleans District. Table C. MississippiRiver Tributary Dams and Reservoirs Sardis Name 1.............................. Grenada Enid Little Tal- Arkabutla Wappapello River ................................ Yalobusha Yocona lahatchie 2 Coldwater 2 St. Francis 2 Nearest town to damsite ................ Grenada Enid Sardis Arkabutla Wappapello Drainage area............. square miles.. 1,320 560 1,545 1,000 1,310 Conservation pool: Area............. .thousand acres.. 10 6 10 5 5 Volume.........thousand acre-feet.. 86 58 92 31 39 Elevation... .feet, mean sea level 193 230 235 210 355 Flood control pool: Area.............. thousand acres.. 65 28 58 33 23 Volume......... thousand acre-feet.. 1,252 602 1,478 494 586 Runoff.....................inches.. 17.8 20.2 18.0 9.3 8.4 Outlet gates: Number........................... 3 2 4 3 3 Size......................feet.. 7.5 x 14 8 x 16 6 x 12 8.5 x 19 10 x 20 Capacity, thousand cubic feet per second......................... 10 9.4 10 10 18 Spillway: Type, uncontrolled................. Chute Chute Chute Chute Gravity Length.....................feet.. 200 200 400 300 740 Elevation-crest, feet, mean sea level .............. 231 268 282 239 395 Discharge capacity, thousand cubic feet per second .................. 52 50 132 89 156 Surcharge pool: Area............. .thousand acres.. 106 41 90 63 32 Volume.........thousand acre-feet.. 1,385 554 1,447 858 521 Runoff.....................inches.. 19.7 1875 17.6 16.1 7.5 Elevation... .feet, mean sea level.. 247.5 284 301.6 257 414 Dam: Type, earthfill ....................... Rolled Rolled Hydraulic Rolled Rolled Length ........... thousand feet.. 13.9 8.4 15.3 10 2.7 Elevation-crest, feet, mean sea level..... 256 293 312 265 420 1 Grenada, Enid, Sardis, and Arkabutla Reservoirs are in Yazoo River Basin, Miss.; Wap- papello Reservoir is in St. Francis River Basin, Mo 2 Subtract 0.6 from elevations for Sardis, 0.3 for Wappapello, and 0.7 for Arkabutla to cor- rect for 1941 and 1944 adjustments. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2047 Project cost. The total authorized cost, including the modifica- tions authorized by the act of July 14, 1960, is $1,448,877,100, including maintenance charges through August 18, 1941. The total allotted under the authorization to June 30, 1962, was $1,216,670,- 652.' (See table H-1.) A summary of the presently estimated first cost of the authorized improvements follows: Project title Estimated cost I Completed features 2 ................................................................... $128,932,200 Mississippi River levees. ....................................................... 233,000,000 Section 6 Flood Control Act 1928 ..................................... ..................... 4,000,000 Channel improvement. ................. ............................................... 683,000,000 Baton Rouge Harbor, La ................... .............................................. 3,080,000 Vicksburg Harbor, Miss ................... ............................................... 4,697,000 Greenville Harbor, Miss ................... ............................................... 2,750,000 Memphis Harbor, Tenn .... .................... .................................... 18,300,000 Lake Pontchartrain, La..... .................... .. .......................... 6,510,000 Amite River, La. (recommended for deauthorization) ........... .................... 0 Atchafalaya Basin, La............... ............................................... 180,000,000 Bayou Cocodrie and tributaries, La..................................... ................... 5,660,000 Old River, La. .. ................................................ ......... 67,700,000 Lower Red River, La ..................................................................... 8,990,000 Jonesville, La ................................................................. 266,000 Tensas Basin, La., and Ark ................... ............................................. 50,100,000 Lower Arkansas River, Ark .............. .......................................... 25,200,000 Grand Prairie-Bayou M eto, Ark ...................................... ...................... 39,100,000 Yazoo Basin, Miss ............... ........................................... 200,000,000 Lower White River, Ark .......................................... ...................... 12,900,000 Cache Basin, Ark. ................ ............................................. 25,300,000 St. Francis Basin, Ark., and Mo.................... ...................................... 105,000,000 L'Anguille Basin, Ark ... ........... ........................................... 5,590,000 Wolf River and tributaries, Tenn ................ .................................. 1,500,000 W est Tennessee tributaries, Tenn........................................................... 9,390,000 Reelfoot Lake, Tenn., and Ky.............................................................. 560,000 Total................................................... ........ 1,821,525,200 The estimated cost of annual maintenance is $18,500,000. 1 Excludes $459,200 preauthorization studies cost not chargeable against the appropriation. 2 Includes Bonnet Carre, Morganza, and New Madrid floodways, roads on main stem levees, channel construction works, Atchafalaya River levees and navigation, Wax Lake Outlet and Charenton Canal, Bayou des Glaises diversion channel, Boeuf Basin levees, De Valls Bluff and Des Are protection. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Authorization Documents May 15, 1928 Flood protection in the alluvial valley of the Mississippi H. Doc. 90, 70th Cong., 1st sess. June 19, 1930 River, revetment and contraction works and dredging to Feb. 15, 1933 provide least channel depth of 9 feet and width of 300 Apr. 23, 1934 feet below Cairo. June 15, 1936 White River backwater. ........... ... ........... Unpublished report April 2, 1925. Do. . Morganza floodway, outlet west of Berwick, Atchafalaya House Committee on Flood Control Aug. 28, 1937 Basin; control of headwater floods, St. Francis and Yazoo Doc. 1, 74th Cong., 1st sess.; House June 28, 1938 Basins; Mounds to Mound City levee; flood-control Committee on Flood Control Doc. works along Cache River, Ill., roads on levees and drain- 1, 75th Cong., 1st sess. age adjustments incident to floodway levees. Aug. 18, 1941 Enlargement of main line levees to offset abandonment of H. Doc. 359, 77th Cong., 1st sees. floodways between Arkansas and Red Rivers, flood- control works in backwater areas of Yazoo and Red Rivers, and in Bayous Rapides, Boeuf, and Cocodrie, La. Dec. 22, 1944 Navigation channel 12 feet deep and 300 feet wide between H. Doc. 509, 78th Cong., 2d sess. Baton Rouge and Cairo; execution of channel improve- ment and stabilization program-$200 million, and flood protection of Yazoo River backwater area in vicinity of Satartia. July 24, 1946 Improvement of Boeuf and Tensas Rivers and Bayou S. Doc. 151, 78th Cong., 2d sess. Macon. Improvement of Bayou La Fourche................ ... S. Doe. 191, 79th Cong., 2d sess. Improvement of Yazoo River tributaries and extension of H. Doc. 516, 78th Cong., 2d sess. Yazoo headwater project. North bank Arkansas River levees (below Plum Bayou)... H. Doe. 308, 74th Cong., 1st sess. Levees on White River (Augusta to Clarendon) .......... H. Doc. 98, 76th Cong., 1st sess. Bayou des Glaises diversion channel ...... ........ H. Doc. 602, 79th Cong., 2d sess. Modification of requirements for local cooperation in St. PL 526, 79th Cong., 2d sess. Francis and Yazoo Basins. Tiptonville-Obion levee and drainage improvements........ H. Doe. 757, 79th Cong., 2d sess. 2048 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Acts Work authorized Documents Improvement of St. Johns Bayou, Mo .................. H. Doc. 138, 80th Cong., 1st sees. Tennessee Chute (Memphis Harbor) ................... S. Doc. 51, 80th Cong., 1st sess. Execution of the project for flood control and channel im- provement-$100 million. June 30, 1948 Improvement of the Mississippi River below Cape Girar- H. Doc. 627, 80th Cong., 2d sess. deau, Mo., with respect to West Tennessee tributaries. Improvement of L'Anguille River, Ark ................ H. Doe. 651, 80th Cong., 2d sess. Barge channel 12 feet deep and 300 feet wide from Mis- H. Doc. 321, 80th Cong., 1st sess. sissippi River mile 234.5 through Devils Swamp, La. May 17, 1950 Flood protection at Des Arc, Ark .... ................ H. Doc. 485, 81st Cong., 2d sess. Improvement of St. Francis River and Basin, Ark. and Mo.. H. Doc. 132, 81st Cong., 1st sess. Improvement of Cache River and Bayou DeView, Ark. and S. Doc. 88, 81st Cong., 1st sees. Mo. Improvement of Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto H. Doc. 255, 81st Cong., 1st sess. Basin, Ark. Flood protection, Lake Pontchartrain, Jefferson Parish, La.. S. Doc. 139, 81st Cong., 2d sess. Filling Grant's Canal, Lake Providence, La., additional protection to Red River backwater area; extending Federal jurisdiction to cover levees in Orleans Parish, La.; and bank protection, Amite River, La. Jonesville, La. levee, retaining wall, and drainage structure. S. Doc. 117, 81st Cong., 1st sess. Oct. 30, 1951 Modification of requirements for local cooperation in the PL 237, 82d Cong., 1st sess. White River backwater area, Ark. Sept. 3, 1954 Navigation improvement of the Atchafalaya from the Mis- S. Doe. 53, 82d Cong., 1st sess. sissippi River to Morgan City. Modification of project for Vicksburg-Yazoo area, Mis- H. Doc. 85, 83d Cong., 1st sess. sissippi. Improvement in New Madrid floodway, Mo.............. H. Doc. 183, 83d Cong., 1st sess. Control of Old and Atchafalaya Rivers and a lock for navi- H. Doc. 478, 83d Cong., 2d sess. gation. Improvement in Reelfoot Lake area, Ky. and Tenn........ S. Doec. 160, 83d Cong., 2d sess. July 3, 1958 Improvement of Greenville Harbor, Miss. ................ S. Doc. 15, 86th Cong., Ist sess. Extensions to project for Boeuf and Tensas Rivers and S. Doc. 108, 85th Cong., 1st sess. Bayou Macon in Ark. White River backwater area-pumping plant .............. S. Doc. 26, 85th Cong., 1st sess. Wolf River and tributaries for flood protection............ H. Doc. 76, 85th Cong., 1st sess. July 14, 1960 Execution of the project for continuation of channel im- provement-$50 million. References to published articles not previously reported. 1. Military Engineer, November-December 1961, "1961 Flood on the Lower Mississippi," by Maj. Gen. T. A. Lane, President, MRC. 2. Military Engineer, May-June 1962, "Chain of Rocks Across the Mississippi," by Col. Alfred J. D'Arezzo, District Engineer, U. S. Army Engineer District, St. Louis. 3. Interstate Port Handbook, June 1962, "Highlights of Civil Works Construction in the Lower Mississippi River Valley," by Maj. Gen. T. A. Lane, President, MRC. Local cooperation. Section 2 of the Flood Control Act approved May 15, 1928, stated that, in view of the great expenditure, esti- mated at approximately $292 million, heretofore made by the local interests in the alluvial valley of the Mississippi for protection against the floods of that river; in view of the extent of national concern in the control of these floods in the interest of national prosperity, the flow of interstate commerce, and the movement of the U.S. mails; and in view of the gigantic scale of the project involving floodwaters of a volume and flowing from a drainage area largely outside the States most affected and far exceeding those of any other river in the United States; no local con- tribution to the construction cost of the project is required. Requirements of local cooperation stipulated in section 3 of the act of May 15, 1928, cover: (a) The maintenance of completed flood-control works; (b) acceptance of ownership of lands acquired by the United States and turned over to local interests under the MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2049 provisions of section 4 of the act; (c) provision without cost to the United States of all rights-of-way for main stem levees; and (d) holding the United States free from damages by floods. Subse- quent amendments to the 1928 act have provided for varied modi- fications and additions to these requirements to meet the special local conditions applicable to off-main stem features of the project. Such requirements have in general been complied with by local interests as construction of the project has advanced. Terminal facilities. See volume 1 of the 4-volume report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, entitled "Survey of Terminals and Landings on the Inland Waterways of the United States," 1942; volume 1 of 2-volume Port Series 19, 1957, "Ports on the Gulf Coast of the United States," for Baton Rouge, La., and Lake Charles, La.; Port Series 20, 1958, for New Orleans, La.; also folio of Flood Control and Navigation Maps of the Mississippi River, Cario, Ill., to the Gulf of Mexico (29th edition), 1961. OPERATIONS AND RESULTS DURING FISCAL YEAR Commission activities. The 263d session of the Commission was held on board the U.S. motor vessel Mississippi en route on the Mississippi River from Cape Girardeau, Mo., to the mouth of Old River, Old River from its mouth to Three Rivers, and the Atchafalaya River from Three Rivers to Morgan City, La., Sep- tember 25-30, 1961. The 264th session was held on board the U.S. motor vessel Mississippi en route on the Mississippi River from Cairo, Ill. to New Orleans, La., May 7-11, 1962. On the river trips, major features of the project were inspected, including bank-protection works, levees, and general channel conditions; and public hearings were held at which representatives of local government agencies, navigation, levee, commercial, and other interests presented problems pertaining to flood control and navi- gation. During the 263d session, inspections were made of revet- ment construction at Cedar Point-Densford and the progress of work at the Old River lock. Two members with the Secretary inspected the East Atchafalaya Basin protection levee from Krotz Springs to Morgan City, La. During the 264th session the Com- missioners made an inspection of the access channel to the Baton Rouge Harbor project, observed the Port Allen lock, and looked at the construction in progress at the Old River lock. The President, Mississippi River Commission, and his engineer- ing assistants made periodic inspections of flood control, naviga- tion, and related works under the existing project along the Mississippi River and tributaries in the alluvial valley from Cape Girardeau, Mo., to the Gulf of Mexico. Flood fight planning con- ferences were held with local interests by the New Orleans, Vicks- burg, and Memphis District Engineers. Surveys, gages, and observations. Routine hydrographic sur- veys of the river between Head of Passes and Cairo, construction surveys, and special surveys and inspections were made as re- quired. Gages were maintained and discharge observations made. Results thereof are presented in detail in annual pamphlets issued by the Mississippi River Commission. Alluvial valley mapping: Preparation and publication of con- 2050 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 toured maps of the alluvial valley and quadrangle maps (scale 1: 62,500) were continued. Work on the Alluvial Valley map (scale 1:250,000) showing the navigation and flood-control project fea- tures and important topographic and cultural features in 28 sheets has been published using the base materials of AMS V-501 and V-502 map series of the United States. The 1961 (29th) edition of the folio of flood control and navigation maps, scale 1:62,500, covering the Mississippi River from Cairo, Ill. to Gulf of Mexico was compiled and printed. Some 5,735 flight line miles of aerial photographs (various scales) were flown along the Mississippi River and tributaries and other areas in the New Orleans, Vicks- burg, and Memphis Districts. Aerial mosaic maps covering the Mississippi River from Baton Rouge, La. to Head of Passes, South and Southwest Pass, and subtributary Pecan Bayou, and the Hillside Floodway (Yazoo Basin) are complete. Work accomplished in the districtsfollows: New Orleans District. Two remapped quadrangle maps, Empire and Fort Livingston were published to scale 1:62,500. The re- mapping of Grosse Tete, Barataria, Pointe-a-la-Hache, and Black Bay quadrangle maps are in progress and these maps will be ready for publication in fiscal year 1963. Three sheets of the alluvial valley map (AMS V-501 and V-502) Alexandria, Shreveport, and Texarkana were published to scale 1:250,000. Vicksburg District. Two remapped quadrangles, Mossy Lake and Schlater, Miss., were published to scale 1: 62,500. Remapping of Crowder and Sumner, Miss. quadrangles is nearing completion. Remapping of Lorenzen, Onward, and Mechanicsburg quadrangles in Mississippi is 50 percent complete, and the Crenshaw and Sledge, Miss. quadrangles were started. Memphis District. Six remapped quadrangles, Bartlett, Milling- ton, Horn Lake, Rialto, Hales Point, and Jericho, and one revised quadrangle, Horseshoe Lake, were published. Remapping of the Mellwood quadrangle is complete. Series conversion of Halls and Dyersburg quadrangles is complete, from eight 71/2 minute U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles, scale 1:24,000. Compilation on six remapped quadrangles, Princedale, Whitmore, Park Place, Latour, Modoc, and Osceola, is complete and color separations are under- way. Compilation of Mississippi River and levees maps, scale 1:48,000 is 75 percent complete. A controlled photomap of the U.S. Highway 70-Bayou DeView area, scale 1:10,000 contour interval, 5 feet, is complete. MISSISSIPPI RIVER-LEVEES Levees. Work included construction of 3.9 miles of new levee and the enlargement of 12 miles of existing levee to approved grade and section, the construction of 14.5 miles of artificial berms, the enlargement of levee dike, and the restoration of eroded por- tions of existing levees. Road embankments aggregating 9.4 miles in length were constructed on levees and gravel surfacing was placed on 62 miles of levee roads. Along the lower Mississippi River below Baton Rouge 1.1 miles of new wave-wash protection work was constructed to protect the levees from erosion by wash MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2051 caused by passage of ocean vessels. The earthwork described was placed at the following locations along the Mississippi River: In 1,000 cubic yards Location, State, and levee district New work Levees Berms Restoration NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT Lower Tensas, La ........................................ 61 Barataria, La............... ......................................... 6 Lake Borgne, La............................... .......................... 10 Orleans Parish, La ..... ............................... ............... .............. 3 VICKSBURG DISTRICT Lower Yazoo, Miss ....................................... 436 1,414 32 Upper Tensas, Ark................................... ................ 320 Upper Tensas, La.................................... ................ 540 20 Lower Tensas, La ........................ ........................................... 13 MEMPHIS DISTRICT Upper Yazoo, Miss.. ............. ............ 55 220 25 Tiptonville-Obion River, Tenn.............................. 1,358 9 11 White River backwater, Ark....................... .......... .............. 12 W hite River, Ark...... .......................... ...... 52 . 15 Reelfoot, Tenn. ................................... .... 94 Lower St. Francis, Ark................................... 430 61 27 Thebes to Cairo, Ill ..................... ................. ..... ..... .. 3 Memphis Harbor, Tenn ................................ 257 ................ 39 Total .......................... ............. 2,743 2,564 216 For further details of the above levee work, see tables E-1 through E-3 and E-5. Costs for this work are given in table G. Bonnet Carre spillway. (See pp. 2089-2091, Annual Report for 1938.) Flood stages did not necessitate operation of the spillway. Maintenance work by hired labor forces consisted of clearing pre- viously cleared areas by cutting regrowth of sapling trees and brush, and spraying stumps and weeds to prevent new growth. The spillway structure and guide levees were maintained as re- quired. Flood control work under section 6, May 15, 1928 Act. No work this fiscal year. See table E-4 for data concerning work accom- plished under section 6 in prior years. MISSISSIPPI RIVER-CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS Bank revetment and dikes. Work during the fiscal year included the placement, by hired labor, of 16.6 miles of new bank revetment at the following locations on the Mississippi River: Construction Location (miles above Head of Passes) --- --- Maintenance New work Reinforcement (existing) Linearfeet Linearfeet Squares NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT 25-319..................................... 14,383 150 38,227 VICKSBURG DISTRICT 320-593........................ ................. 49,718 11,221 82,239 MEMPHIS DISTRICT 598-963 ............................................. 28,620 25,655 172,327 Total............. .. ....... ............. 92,721 37,026 192,803 1 Includes 23,544 squares placed by contract. 2052 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 In the New Orleans District, additional construction work con- sisted of a loading dock built at the St. Francisville casting field by contract between July 18 and September 8, 1961, and casting of 147,053 squares of articulated concrete mattress under two supply contracts. Fabric used for mattresses was procured by supply contracts under the Memphis District. Construction of the casting field, by hired-labor forces, was com- menced on November 3, 1960, and completed on June 14, 1962. During the current fiscal year, the following work was accom- plished: Seepage water and rain water were removed by excavat- ing ditches and pumping, culverts were installed under ramps and roadways, dikes and contractor's work area were raised and dressed, gravel was placed on roads, and other miscellaneous work was done. Additional maintenance, by contract, consisted of placing 1,092 tons of crushed stone, 12,020 tons of riprap, and 294 tons of cold mix asphalt, intermittently at existing revetments between Gibson Landing, mile 370*, and White Castle, mile 190*; and of placing 14,001 tons of riprap upper bank paving, 2,463 tons of riprap groins, and 5,608 tons of crushed stone at Carr Point, mile 301.2*. Hired-labor forces removed growth from revetments and borrow pit drainage ditches from Grand Bay upstream to the district boundary. In the Vicksburg District, 14,370 linear feet of permeable pile dikes were under construction by contract at miles 601.6 and 514*, respectively. In the Memphis District, 11,665 linear feet of permeable pile dikes were constructed at nine locations (50 feet of which were constructed with maintenance funds). Work was initiated and completed at miles 626, 831, 834, and 877*. Construction initiated on dikes at miles 708, 721, 737, 744, and 823* was suspended due to high river stages. Contracts were awarded for construction of 17,270 linear feet of dikes at one new location, mile 795*, and addi- tional dikes at miles 721 and 858*. Further data concerning this work are shown by districts in tables D-1 through D-3. Dredging. Work during the fiscal year included the dredging of 56,353,000 cubic yards of material for channel and harbor maintenance and channel construction and revetment. Minimum depth channel of 9 feet was maintained except for May 27-30, 1962, at Grand Lake (mile 504) when controlling depth was 8 feet. Dredging shown below was accomplished with the following plant: New Orleans District. Two leased cutterhead dredges. Vicksburg District. One Government-owned dustpan dredge and two leased cutterhead dredges. Memphis District. Four Government-owned dredges and three leased cutterhead dredges. . *Above Head of Passes. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2053 Location Dredging in 1,000 cubic yards Mileage Channel Revetment District above Head construction construction Maintenance Total of Passes NEW ORLEANS Baton Rouge Harbor ................. 234 . .......... ...... ....... 198 198 VICKSBURG Main-stem channel ................... 320-590.5 10,879 6,780 17,659 Greenville Harbor .................... 529 ......................... .... 722 722 MEMPHIS Main-stem channel .................... 593-964 9,334 248 26,764 36,346 Memphis Harbor ............... .... 722 1,118 1,118 New Madrid Harbor .................. 895 ............................ 310 310 Total ............................ 20,213 248 35,892 56,353 Other work performed in the interest of navigation, supple- menting maintenance dredging on the Mississippi River between Cairo, Ill. and Baton Rouge, La. included: (a) Removal of snags, wrecks, and obstructions; (b) weekly channel patrols during low-water season and periodic channel patrols during high-water season; (c) issuance of navigation bulletins by the Memphis, Vicksburg, and New Orleans Districts, providing steering direc- tions, information on available channel depths and high-water velocities at selected locations; (d) buoyage of crossings during low water for U.S. Coast Guard on a reimbursable basis; (e) placing and maintaining dike and high-water buoys during the high-water season; (f) maintaining bulletin boards showing daily gage readings at regular MRC gages; and (g) contact pilot serv- ice furnishing navigation with the latest information and advice on channel conditions and obtaining their views as to needs of navigation. The cost of this work is given in table G. NAVIGATION HARBORS Baton Rouge Harbor (Devils Swamp), La. (New Orleans Dis- trict). The retaining dikes requiring repair were cleared, the front dike and transverse dike were topped with a 3-foot lift where re- quired, scour holes at discharge end of spillbox were filled with sandbags, and the floor of spillbox was extended 10 feet by hired- labor forces. This work was accomplished between August 22 to 30, 1961; October 30, 1961, to January 19, 1962; and May 21 to 25, 1962. Land acquisition. Local interests are required to: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, rights-of- way, and spoil-disposal areas necessary for the construction and subsequent maintenance of the project; (b) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and subsequent maintenance of the project; and (c) provide, maintain, and operate adequate terminal facilities which shall be open to all on equal terms. Assurances have been furnished by the local agency and approved and accepted on behalf of the United States. Rights-of-way have been acquired by the local agency by deeds from the record owners, and placed on record, The deeds still 2054 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 contain a clause to which the United States has objected. Curative work is now being done to clear title. As soon as it is completed, the deeds will be accepted and final papers submitted. Vicksburg Harbor, Miss. (Vicksburg District). Hired-labor forces accomplished minor drainage work. Greenville Harbor, Miss. (Vicksburg District). Hired labor and work under a continuing contract for dredging the harbor channel and constructing the port area fill was started December 20, 1961, and is 37 percent complete. A total of 3,320,499 cubic yards of ma- terial was dredged from the channel of which 2,177,604 cubic yards were retained in the port area fill. Memphis Harbor (Tennessee Chute), Tenn. (Memphis Dis- trict). Contract construction was continued on the Ensley left bank chute levee and 257,000 cubic yards of material were placed in the embankment. A total of 5,956,000 cubic yards has been placed to date and 8.9 miles of the levee are to approved grade and section. Design memorandum 3 covering the general design of the pumping station was approved. Plans and specifications for pumping station machinery have been approved and are being readied for advertising. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA. (Atchafalaya Basin, Morganza and West Atchafalaya floodways, and Atchafalaya River.) a. Atchafalaya River and Basin. Revetment maintenance at Legonier, on the left bank of the Atchafalaya River, approximately 4 miles below Red River, consisted of placing 2,385 squares of articulated concrete mattresses, by the Vicksburg District. b. Atchafalaya Basin floodway. (1) New work accomplished by contract was as follows: Road surfacing material procured under two supply contracts was placed for a distance of 6.1 miles on Wax Lake West levee and 12.4 miles on the lower Morganza guide levee; between January 8 and 20, 1962, the Texas Pipe Line Co. relocated pipeline facilities crossing Lake Mongoulois, Bayou Chene Cut-Tarleton Bayou channel enlargement, under reimburs- able agreement. New work by hired-labor forces consisted of placing riprap to repair bank erosion at Avoca Island levee, over approximately 780 linear feet, levee restoration over 7,546 linear feet at Wax Lake West levee, and construction of a service and storage building at Bayou Boeuf lock. Maintenance, by contract, was as follows: Repairs to bin-type revetment on the east protection levee between Bayou Long and Morgan City was initiated on June 14, 1962, and 1,210 cubic yards of shell and 1,604 tons of riprap were placed over a distance of 3,541 linear feet, making the contract 41 percent complete; and repairs to Tiger Island floodwall were accomplished by placing 3,329 square feet of steel-sheet piling and 343 linear feet of con- crete capping during the period July 10 to September 19, 1961. Maintenance, by hired-labor forces, consisted of repair of two drainage culverts in the vicinity of Verdunville Canal and repair of one culvert at West Bayou Sale levee; placing of shell and riprap MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2055 for bank protection at three locations in the west-protection levee; and grading, restoring bank, and placing shell and riprap for bank protection of approach channels at Bayou Boeuf lock. (2) Protection levees: Enlargement of levees on the east and west protection levee system was continued. In the Atchafalaya Basin and floodway approximately 40.3 miles of levees were en- larged or restored. (3) Interior drainage west of Berwick: Construction of Wax Lake east pumping station, commenced on October 24, 1960, was completed December 7, 1961, including installation of mechanical equipment which was procured under a supply contract. A gas supply line for the pumping station was constructed, by contract, between September 18, 1961, and January 21, 1962. Construction of a culvert under U.S. Highway 90, Wax Lake east drainage area, under a cost participation contract with the State of Louisiana, Department of Highways, was initiated De- cember 16, 1960, and completed August 22, 1961. A reimbursable contract has been entered into with the Southern Pacific Co. for installing temporary false work spans to permit excavation for and construction of a culvert under the tracks of the Southern Pacific Co., Wax Lake east drainage area. A contract was awarded for construction of Bayou Yokely pumping station enlargement and work was commenced on Febru- ary 21, 1962. Excavation for the structure is approximately 94 percent complete and excavation for channels, 78 percent complete; concrete is being placed in base slab, walls, columns, and floors; the contract is about 52 percent complete. Two supply contracts awarded last fiscal year for furnishing mechanical equipment are complete except for erection when the pumping station is ready for installation. A contract was awarded for construction of North Bend pump- ing station and work was commenced on May 22, 1962. Work accomplished consists of excavating for the structure, building forms and placing reinforcing steel, and placing concrete for pumphouse floor. The contract is about 30 percent complete. Two contracts were awarded for furnishing mechanical equip- ment for Wax Lake West pumping station. Maintenance by hired-labor forces consisted of repairs to Gordy drainage structure and to east and west Wax Lake drainage struc- tures. (4) High-level railroads and highways: Construction of the New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Railway Co. high-level crossing between Courtableau and Krotz Springs, over the west Atchafalaya Flood- way, was completed September 6, 1961, with only minor items of deferred construction accomplished during the fiscal year. (5) Atchafalaya Basin dredging: In the main channel 15,781,- 537 cubic yards were dredged by contract to improve flow and lower flood heights. Channel enlargement was at the following locations: Chicot Pass, between miles 80.2 and 85.1 where work was initiated on August 19, 1960, and completed November 20, 1961, with 6,125,294 cubic yards dredged this fiscal year; Whiskey Bay Pilot Channel between miles 54.54 to 60.64, initiated Decem- ber 19, 1961, with 4,283,355 cubic yards dredged; Blind Tensas 2056 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Cut, between miles 67.8 to 70.5, initiated June 4, 1962, with 239,680 cubic yards dredged; and Lake Mongoulois, Bayou Chene and Tarleton Bayou, miles 71 to 76 where dredging was accomplished between November 13, 1961, and May 26, 1962, with 5,133,208 cubic yards dredged. (6) Land acquisition and flowage easements: The acquisition of flowage easements in the west Atchafalaya Floodway is com- plete except for three tracts. One tract will be conveyed by the Texas and Pacific Railway Co. in subordination required under master agreement for railroad relocations. The Texas & Pacific Railway Co. has recently indicated its unwillingness to convey this tract until gaps in the guide levees are closed. Two tracts will be condemned because of title difficulties and unwillingness of the owner to sign an option. Tracts already in condemnation are complete. In the Atchafalaya Basin floodway below the latitude of Krotz Springs, acquisition of flowage easements for the project, "Bayou Chene and vicinity," is complete. Perpetual dredging and spoil-disposal easements are being acquired for dredging in Bayou Chene-Tarleton Bayou and Blind Tensas-Cut Lake-Mongoulois Channel. Fifty tracts are to be acquired. Temporary spoil-disposal permits have been obtained from owners of 77 tracts, allowing entry in advance of signature of offer; perpetual easements are required in 62 of these tracts; 13 tracts have been condemned; 12 tracts have been donated by the State of Louisiana, and 14 tracts have been acquired by direct purchase. Negotiations for purchase of perpetual easements over 3 tracts are incomplete and 20 tracts are to be condemned for title. Acquisition of flowage easements in connection with the project, "Lands below the latitude of Krotz Springs," is on a claim basis. There are an estimated 250 claims (or tracts) involved. Claims have been received covering 154 tracts, 79 of which have been paid; 63 tracts (or claims) cannot be settled because of title difficulties or owners' refusal to settle on the basis of appraisal of damage. One claim has been withdrawn, and nine claims were eliminated as covering lands "subject to frequent overflow." Two claims are being examined for payment. Approximately 62 percent of the total estimated claims have been received and processed, and approximately 51 percent of the claims received have been settled amicably. Acquisition of all lands for the construction of Bayou Boeuf lock has been completed. Acquisition of one fee tract for Bayou Courtableau control struc- ture is complete. All other lands required for inlet and outlet chan- nels, including relocation of utilities, are being acquired by local levee boards subject to reimbursement by the United States. All rights-of-way have been acquired by the levee boards and made available for construction. (7) Operation and maintenance of structures: The Bayou Boeuf, Berwick, and Bayou Sorrel navigation locks were operated and maintained respectively as parts of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Bayou Teche, and alternate Gulf Intracoastal Water- way route between Morgan City and Plaquemine. Other structures were operated and maintained as required. c. Morganza Floodway (includes Morganza structure). (1) MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2057 Ordinary maintenance of the floodway and control structure was accomplished as required during the fiscal year. (2) Land acquisition and flowage easements: Acquisition of comprehensive easements over lands in the Morganza Floodway is complete. (3) High-level railroads and highways: The Texas & Pacific Railway Co. has indicated unwillingness to execute subordination for west Atchafalaya Floodway covering its branch lines until gaps in levee are closed. This item, therefore, must be held in abeyance. Exchange agreement with New Orleans, Texas & Mex- ico Railroad Co. covering Morganza Floodway and west Atcha- falaya Floodway high-level crossings has been executed on behalf of the Government and the railroad and final title assembly has been forwarded to the Chief of Engineers for record. Exchange agreements for State Highway 1 (formerly State Highway 30) and the Texas & Pacific Railway across Morganza control structure have been completed. d. Atchafalaya River navigation. Maintenance work by leased dredge consisted of the removal of 649,750 cubic yards of shoaled material to restore project depth as follows: Between mile 100.1 to mile 106, 559,750 cubic yards were moved during the period July 27 and September 2, 1961; and between mile 108.7 to mile 112, 90,000 cubic yards were dredged from June 24 to 30, 1962. BAYOU COCODRIE AND TRIBUTARIES, LA. Condition surveys were made by hired labor as required. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LA. Wave-wash protection of the lakeshore levee across Jefferson Parish was continued. Levee toe protection at item B-11 and berm paving at item B-12, which were initiated by contract on April 10, 1961, were completed on November 21, 1961, with 9,372 tons of riprap placed at item B-11 and 11,914 tons placed at item B-12. Under another contract commenced February 27, 1962, and com- pleted on June 29, 1962, a total of 23,817 tons of riprap was placed in berm pavement and 3,964 tons of riprap for toe protection at item B-13. Enlargement of lateral levees consisted of continuation of en- largement of item A-3, in the Jefferson-St. Charles Parish protec- tion levee where contract work was initiated on June 4, 1962, and 4,886 cubic yards were placed in the landside berm. The contract is 17 percent complete. OLD RIVER, LA. (a) Construction of the navigation lock was continued. Major items of work performed during the fiscal year were as follows: Completed the placement of concrete in the lock structure proper, the piers for the floating guide walls, and the floating guide wall pontoons; completed placement of concrete in the floodwalls to approximate elevation 54 feet; completed erection of the gantry crane and the steel miter gates; essentially completed the place- ment of backfill adjacent to the lock structure; completed the place- ment of riprap; installed and partially connected the lock operating 2058 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 machinery components; began and partially completed the resi- dence and office buildings. A contract was awarded and work was commenced on October 16, 1961, for the navigation lock tail bay channel excavation and 295,895 cubic yards were excavated, making this contract 9 percent complete. Unfavorable working conditions and high river stages caused suspension of operations from February 12 to June 4, 1962. Bank protection along approximately 6,050 linear feet of the south bank of the outflow channel consisted of the following work: Preparatory dredging for placing articulated concrete mattresses was accomplished by a leased dredge under contract with the Vicksburg District; the placement of 54,397 squares of mattresses by the Vicksburg District; and placement of 18,068 tons of riprap and 8,133 tons of crushed stone in upper-bank paving, accom- plished between January 3 and February 15, 1962, under contract awarded by the New Orleans District. Work under two contracts awarded for levee construction was retarded by unfavorable weather; 60,580 cubic yards were placed in levee enlargement. A contract was awarded for overbank clearing at the control structures and operations were started on June 6, 1962. Approxi- mately 83 acres were partially cleared during the first week when weather conditions caused suspension of work. A contract was awarded and preliminary work was started on June 22, 1962, for Old River closure base and bank preparation. Work accomplished by hired-labor forces consisted of restora- tion of rainwash damage at Black Hawk-Knox levee, restoration of retaining dikes for spoil area at the outflow channel, modifica- tion of crane servicing area at the low-sill structure, installation of nine staff gages at the overbank and low-sill structures, and construction of two standard road crossings over the tiein levee. (b) Land acquisition. There are 22 tracts in the project, 7 of which are fee. Two fee tracts and 13 easement tracts have been ac- quired by direct purchase. Title to five fee tracts and two easement tracts has been obtained through Federal condemnation proceed- ings. LOWER RED RIVER, LA. A contract was awarded for maintenance work at Roxana, mile 99.2-R, requiring placement of approximately 730 linear feet of standard board revetment. Initiation of work was delayed by high river stages until June 14, 1961, when grading was com- menced, and 3,000 cubic yards of grading were complete at the end of June. (See tables D-1, and E-1, for revetments and levees, respectively.) Maintenance of bank-protection works by hired labor forces consisted of repairing Richardson pile dikes, mile 94.5-R and trail dike, mile 94.90-R; and clearing, grading, levee restoration, and riprap slope paving at Scott Home levee, consisting of placement of 854 cubic yards of earthfill, 2,928 tons of riprap in slope pave- ment, and 256 tons of riprap in rock groins. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2059 TENSAS BASIN, LA. AND ARK. Vicksburg District Jonesville, La: Emergency remedial works are necessary to pre- vent further deterioration of the outfall channel from U.S. High- way 84 to Little River. Investigations and planning for permanent repair are to be expedited. Red River backwater area: Local interests surfaced 6 miles of levee roads with gravel furnished by the Government. Hired-labor forces restored the levee to grade at scattered locations. Boeuf and Tensas Basin, La. and Ark.: Preparation of plans and specifications, surveys and studies are continuing. Channel improvement and related works progressed as follows: (1) Black Pond Slough, Ark. Work under a continuing contract for enlarge- ment of the lower 14.3 miles of the stream started January 5, 1962, and is 29 percent complete. Operations during the fiscal year comprised 219,680 cubic yards of channel excavation. Reimbursable contract for rearrangement of a Chicot County bridge was completed June 11, 1962. Relocation of State High- way 35 Bridge and of U.S. Highway 65 Bridge is underway. A similar contract for relocation of two gas pipelines was completed. The county of Chicot, Ark., completed construction of a tempo- rary bridge, and relocations of two existing bridges over Big Bayou, and four bridges over Boeuf River under a reimbursable contract. (2) Bayou Macon, La. Contractor essentially completed chan- nel clearing and construction of cutoffs in reach 2, mile 23.91 to 61.37 (improved mileage). A continuing contract for clearing and snagging and channel enlargement and realinement in reach 3, mile 61.37 to 75.5 (improved mileage) started July 23, 1961, and is 56 percent complete. A similar contract for clearing and snagg- ing, cleanout, and channel enlargement in reach 4, mile 75.5 to 100.7 (improved) started June 5, 1962. Operations during the fiscal year comprised 30.16 miles of clearing and snagging and 5,631,829 cubic yards of channel excavation. Under reimbursable contract, the Louisiana State Highway De- partment completed relocation of State Highway 577 Bridge. A reimbursable contract for relocation of three oil pipelines in reach 3 was completed, and relocation of two telephone cables is under- way. LOWER ARKANSAS BASIN, ARK. Arkansas River levees. Construction of artificial levee berms continues with the completion of 5.7 miles on the north bank levee and 1.6 miles on the south bank levee and initiation of construc- tion of 2.2 miles on the south bank levee. Local interests surfaced 3.1 miles of levee roads on the north bank and 6.3 miles on the south bank with gravel furnished by the Government. Total of 3.7 miles of north bank levee and 0.3 mile of south bank levee dikes were restored. YAZOO BASIN, MISS. (a) Lower auxiliary channel. Contractor completed the last reach of the lower auxiliary channel from mile 24.9 to 32 on 2060 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 January 26, 1962. A continuing contract for construction of a control weir was completed November 17, 1961. Hired-labor forces maintained the completed items. Operations during the fiscal year comprised 1,722,901 cubic yards of channel excavation and 185,- 996 cubic yards of levee embankment. The project was placed in operation on January 19, 1962. (b) Yazoo City protection works. Hired-labor forces continued operation and maintenance of the pumping plant and drainage facilities. (c) Greenwood protection works. Work under reimbursable contracts is in progress for the relocation of two State Highway 7 Bridges over the proposed Big Sand diversion channel, a Le- flore County Bridge, nine powerlines, and three telephone lines. Hired-labor forces continued maintenance of the completed levees and operation and maintenance of floodgates and pumping station. (d) Main stem. Construction: (1) Levees. Planning and de- sign of Coldwater and Yazoo River levees are continuing. Con- tract work continued as follows: Construction of 4.4 miles of new levee on the east bank of Yazoo River, completed May 25, 1962; Yazoo City to Piney Creek levee closures and drainage structures on the east bank, essentially complete; construction of 17.8 miles of new levee on the west bank Yazoo River between Belle Prairie and Wasp Lake is continuing; and construction of 14 miles of new levee on the east bank between Bee Lake and Belzoni started November 9, 1961. On Pompey Ditch, construction of a levee setback 3 miles long on the west bank started July 10, 1961, and was completed April 27, 1962, and construction of a levee set- back 4 miles long on the east bank started February 7, 1962, and is 86 percent complete. Hired-labor forces rehabilitated various stretches of existing Yazoo River levees to incorporate them into the levee system. (2) Channel improvements: Greenwood cutoff. County of Le- flore, Miss., completed alteration of a county road under a reim- bursable contract. Similar contracts for relocations of 2 gas pipe- lines, 2 powerlines, and 2 telephone lines are underway. (3) Channel maintenance. Maintenance of the channels of the Coldwater, Tallahatchie, and Yazoo Rivers by random snagging and drift removal and herbicide willow control continued as re- quired during the fiscal year. (e) Tributaries. Construction: (1) McKinney Bayou. A con- tinuing contract for construction of the McKinney Bayou pump- ing station is essentially complete. (2) Bobo Bayou. Work under a continuing contract for clear- ing and snagging, enlargement and realinement between mile 0 and mile 1.21 (Little Tallahatchie River) and the lower 6.9 miles of Bobo Bayou started July 23, 1961, and is 96 percent complete. Work under a similar contract for clearing and snagging and channel enlargement between mile 6.9 and mile 14.9 started May 1, 1962, and is 23 percent complete. Operations during the fiscal year comprised 0.8 mile clearing and snagging and 1,396,000 cubic yards channel excavation. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2061 Reimbursable contracts are complete for relocations of two Quitman County bridges and State Highway 6 Bridge. Relocations of three Panola County bridges, alteration of one bridge, and re- location of 9 powerlines and 3 telephone lines are underway. Maintenance: Maintenance of the channels of Yalobusha, Little Tallachatchie, and Yocona Rivers, and Cassidy, David and Bur- rell Bayous, and Ascalmore Creek by random snagging and drift removal and herbicide willow control continued as required dur- ing the fiscal year. (f) Grenada Reservoir. (See table C.) Construction of public use facilities is continuing. Repairs to Graysport Crossing by contract and hired labor are in progress. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, was re- imbursed for reforestation work in the reservoir area. Restoration of Durden Creek is being accomplished by the Soil Conservation Service under a reimbursable agreement. The work is being performed by contract. Hired-labor forces maintained and operated the dam and ap- purtenant structures and made necessary repairs. There were 1,513,800 visitor-days for recreation. On July 1, 1961, 551,400 acre-feet of water remained in storage from the 1961 flood season, and by November 8, 1961, the flood- control pool was emptied. Maximum water elevation in the reser- voir was 228.6 feet, mean sea level, on April 15, 1962, or 3.1 feet above the previous maximum elevation of record set in 1961. Peak inflow was 42,000 cubic feet per second on April 1, 1962. Average daily releases varied to accord with inflow and down- stream stages ranged from 0 to a maximum of 4,800 cubic feet per second. On June 30, 1962, 692,600 acre-feet of water remained in the flood-control pool. (g) Enid Reservoir. (See table C.) Construction of public use facilities is continuing. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, was re- imbursed for reforestation work in the reservoir area. Hired-labor forces maintained and operated the dam and ap- purtenant structures and made necessary repairs. There were 639,500 visitor-days for recreation. On July 1, 1961, 235,100 acre-feet of water remained in storage from the 1961 flood season and by November 10, 1961, the flood- control pool was emptied. Maximum water elevation in the reser- voir was 265.9 feet, mean sea level, on April 15, 1962, or 7 feet above the previous maximum elevation of record set in 1955. Peak inflow was 62,000 cubic feet per second on April 11, 1962. Average daily releases varied to accord with inflow and down- stream stages ranged from 0 to a maximum of 2,800 cubic feet per second. On June 30, 1962, 365,600 acre-feet of water re- mained in the flood-control pool. (h) Sardis Reservoir. (See table C.) Construction of public- use facilities is continuing. Contract work for repairs to the seepage wells and for paving the bottom of the present toe drainage ditch was completed Sep- tember 4, 1961; and construction of a berm for correction of the 2062 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 north embankment underseepage started January 17, 1962, and is 90 percent complete. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, was re- imbursed for reforestation work in the reservoir area. Hired-labor forces maintained the dam and appurtenant struc- tures. Contract and hired-labor forces made necessary repairs. There were 1,573,000 visitor-days for recreation. On July 1, 1961, 532,200 acre-feet of water remained in storage from the 1961 flood season and by November 2, 1961, the flood- control pool was emptied. Maximum water elevation in the reser- voir was 275.3 feet, mean sea level, on April 16, 1962. Peak in- flow was 36,000 cubic feet per second on April 13, 1962. Average daily releases varied to accord with inflow and downstream stages ranged from 0 to a maximum of 4,600 cubic feet per second. On June 30, 1962, 751,900 acre-feet of water remained in the flood- control pool. (i)Arkabutla Reservoir. (See table C.) Construction of public- use facilities is continuing. Contract work for cleanout of Tate-Panola Canal 6 was started April 23 and completed May 9, 1962. Hired labor forces maintained and operated the dam and ap- purtenant structures and made necessary repairs. There were 400,200 visitor-days for recreation. On July 1, 1961, 57,800 acre-feet of water remained in stor- age from the 1961 flood season and by November 9, 1961, the flood-control pool was emptied. The maximum water elevation in the reservoir was 228.3 feet, mean sea level, on March 1, 1962. Peak inflow was 26,400 cubic feet per second on February 24, 1962. Average daily releases, varied to accord with inflow and down- stream stages, ranged from 0 to a maximum of 4,300 cubic feet per second. On June 30, 1962, 83,600 acre-feet of water remained in the flood-control pool. (j) Yazoo Basin backwater. Contract work for construction of 2.5 miles of new levee, items 2 and 3, started July 16, 1961, and is 87 percent complete. (k) Big Sunflower River, etc. Big Sunflower River: A con- tinuing contract for channel clearing and snagging between Quiver River and Hushpuckena River, mile 99 to 169.5, is 37 percent complete. Contract work for clearing and snagging and channel enlargement, mile 33.5 to 35.8 was started March 12 and com- pleted June 2, 1962. Operations during the fiscal year comprised 25.7 miles channel cleanout and 306,131 cubic yards of channel excavation. A reimbursable contract for alteration of a Sharkey County road is complete. Quiver River: A continuing contract for 28.2 miles of chan- nel clearing, mile 31.5 to 59.7 (improved mileage) started August 4, 1961, and is 61 percent complete. Operations during the fiscal year comprised 17.38 miles of channel clearing and snagging. Owners relocated three powerlines under a reimbursable agree- ment. Quiver River tributaries: (1) Fighting Bayou. A continuing contract for channel cleanout of the lower 4.1 miles was completed MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2063 July 29, 1961. Operations during the fiscal year comprised 0.88 mile clearing and snagging. (2) Marsh Bayou. Contract work included 1.4 miles of clear- ing and 2.6 miles of channel cleanout. The work was started April 23 and completed June 11, 1962. The owner relocated two powerlines under a reimbursable agree- ment. (3) Parks and Turkey Bayous. One contract is in force for improvements in these streams. Improvement of Parks Bayou in- volves 6.6 miles of channel clearing and 2.8 miles of cleanout in the lower 9.4 miles of the stream. Improvement of Turkey Bayou involves channel clearing the lower 5.6 miles of the stream. The work started June 25, 1962. Bogue Phalia: A continuing contract for channel clearing and snagging between mile 60.27 and mile 82.78 started September 1, 1961, and is 24 percent complete. Operations during the fiscal year comprised 3.97 miles clearing and snagging. Snake Creek: (Tributary of Bogue Phalia,) Work under con- tract for channel clearing and snagging, cleanout, and enlargement in the lower 9.8 miles was started August 7 and completed Decem- ber 7, 1961. Operation comprised 0.7 mile clearing and snagging, 3.1 miles cleanout, and 452,400 cubic yards of channel excava- tion. Reimbursable contracts are complete for relocation of 4 Bolivar County bridges, Mississippi State Highway 8 Bridge, 7 powerlines, and 3 telephone lines. LOWER WHITE RIVER, ARK. White River backwater levee and pumping station. A contract was awarded for construction of the pumping station on June 21, 1962. Work under a contract for restoration of 10 miles of levee is 27 percent complete. ST. FRANCIS BASIN, ARK. AND MO. (1) Channel improvement. (a) Round Pond interior drainage. Alteration of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad bridge crossing the canal was continued and is 98 percent complete. (b) Tulot Channel. Work on the Tulot Channel involving total excavation amounting to 4,419,529 cubic yards was completed as were bridges at U.S. Highway 63 and the St. Louis, San Francisco Railway crossings. (c) Wittsburg cutoffs. A contract was awarded on May 8, 1962, involving the excavation of 1,100,000 cubic yards of material. (d) St. Francis Bay. Enlargement of the St. Francis Bay channel is in progress which will involve excavation of 2,670,000 cubic yards of material. The work is 82 percent complete. (e) Straight Slough ditch. Bids were opened on June 21, 1962, on two items of ditch excavation and levee construction. The work will aggregate about 7,500,000 cubic yards of excavation. (f) Mayo Ditch. Enlargement work involving 483,564 cubic yards and the alteration of the Arkansas Highway 139 Bridge was completed. (g) Big Slough ditch. A contract involving excavation of about 2064 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 850,000 cubic yards of material was awarded on June 20, 1962. (h) Big Lake Floodway. Work under contracts for the en- largement of ditches in the floodway, and the construction of three timber bridges, was continued. The three bridges were completed. A total of 3,536,927 cubic yards has been excavated, and the work is 97 percent complete. (i) State Line Ditches outlet channel. Work under two con- tracts involving 3,500,000 cubic yards of excavation is in progress. During the fiscal year 897,396 cubic yards were excavated, and the work is 26 percent complete. Work under reimbursable con- tracts with the Arkansas Highway Department for alteration of the Highway 18 Bridge at Pettyville and with Arkansas-Missouri Power Co., for alteration of a gasline was completed. Altera- tion of a railroad bridge at Pettyville under a reimbursable con- tract with the St. Louis, San Francisco Railway Co. is 86 percent complete. (2) Levees. Levee construction was continued in the basin with the placing of 1,506,808 cubic yards of earthwork. The Madison to Marianna channel closure was completed during the fiscal year. (3) Wappapello Reservoir. Construction of public-use facilities was continued. The dam and appurtenant structures were main- tained in operating condition and malaria-control operations were continued. Leasing of reservoir lands was continued and patrol of the leased property was maintained. The fish and wildlife con- servation program conducted jointly with the Missouri Conser- vation Commission was continued. There were 609,500 visitor-days for recreation. The reservoir was nominally empty of flood storage at the be- ginning and end of the fiscal year and the water level was con- trolled insofar as possible in accordance with the malaria-control program. Maximum water surface elevation during the year was 366.43 feet mean sea level on March 22, 1962, with a net flood storage of 100,800 acre-feet. Peak inflow into the reservoir was 33,800 cubic feet per second on March 22, 1962. Maximum out- flow during the year was 9,030 cubic feet per second on March 22, 1962. WEST TENNESSEE TRIBUTARIES, TENN. Wolf River and tributaries. Work under a contract for con- struction of the Wolf River diversion channel and the channel closure has been completed. A contract involving 38,000 linear feet of channel improvement and excavation of 1,512,000 cubic yards of material was awarded. Reimbursable contracts were negotiated with the Illinois Central and the Louisville & Nash- ville Railroads for alteration of their bridges crossing the channel in the improvement area. Obion River, Tenn. A contract for channel excavation involv- ing 1,707,827 cubic yards was completed. Two contracts for chan- nel excavation involving 4,660,000 cubic yards are underway, and the work is 28 percent complete. FLOODS Memphis District. Rains, occurring over the Mississippi River and Ohio River Basins during March 1962, resulted in a Missis- MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2065 sippi River crest stage of 50.5 feet on the Cairo gage on March 16, 1962, with a corresponding maximum discharge of about 1,248,000 cubic feet per second. Floods occurred in the St. Francis River Basin during March 1962 with a maximum stage of 20.8 feet at St. Francis, Ark., on March 4, 1962. Operation of flood- control works effected reductions ranging from 1 to 4 feet on the St. Francis River above Lake City, Ark. Operation of the up- stream reservoir system reduced stages on the Lower White River to a maximum recorded stage at Clarendon, Ark., of 27.4 feet on March 12, 1962. Crest stages on the west Tennessee tributaries occurred as follows: Obion River at Bogota, Tenn., 23.45 feet on March 3, 1962; North Fork of Forked Deer River at Dyersburg, Tenn., 27.75 feet on March 1, 1962; Hatchie River at Rialto, Tenn., 17.25 feet on March 1, 1962; Loosahatchie River at Brunswick, Tenn., 24.5 feet on January 23, 1962; and Wolf River at Raleigh, Tenn., 15 feet on February 28, 1962. Vicksburg District. Stages on the Mississippi River were gen- erally slightly above normal from the latter part of July, 1961, until the middle of May, 1962. Stages during March and April were moderately high for the time of year. Crest stages occurred in April, varying from 6.9 feet below flood stage at Arkansas City to 0.4 feet below at Natchez. A continuous rapid fall oc- curred in May with a slight rise in June, 1962. Stages on the Ouachita River were moderately high from the latter part of December, 1961, until the middle of May, 1962. Crests occurred in February, March, and April, 1962, producing maximum stages of 4.6 feet above flood stage at Arkadelphia, 9.3 feet above at Camden, and 1.7 feet below at Monroe. The Black River at Jones- ville crested 1.4 feet below flood stage in May, 1962. A rise that occurred on the Boeuf River in December-January crested at about flood stage in the lower reaches. Rises on the Tensas River during the same period were several feet below flood stage. A rise in the Coldwater-Tallahatchie-Yazoo Rivers began in December, 1961, and crested in January, 1962, when maximum stages were 2.2 feet above flood stage at Swan Lake and 1.3 feet below flood stage at Greenwood. The Yazoo River at Yazoo City crested 4.3 feet above flood stage in December. A moderate rise on the Sunflower River crested in December. Operation of flood- control works effected reductions averaging 4 feet on the Cold- water River, 4.5 feet on the Tallahatchie River at Swan Lake, and 5.5 feet on the Yazoo River at Greenwood. The Big Black River crested at Bovina in December, 1961, at a stage of 40.5 feet, 0.8 of a foot above the maximum stage of record and 12.5 feet above bankfull. An additional rise in April crested 2.3 feet lower than the December rise. New Orleans District. No floods occurred on the Mississippi, Atchafalaya, nor Red Rivers within the New Orleans District. Red River Landing gage (flood stage 45 feet) crested at 45.70 feet on April 16, 1962. New Orleans gage (flood stage 17 feet) crested on April 17, 1962, at a stage of 15.79 feet. Simmesport gage ( flood stage 41 feet) at the head of the Atchafalaya River 2066 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Basin, recorded a maximum stage of 39.78 feet on April 17, 1962. On the Red River at Alexandria (flood stage 32 feet) the highest stage recorded was 23.72 feet on February 2, 1962. CONDITION AT END OF FISCAL YEAR Construction of the existing project began in 1928 and has con- tinued throughout the ensuing years. Based on current estimated cost of $1,821,525,200 and actual cost of $1,205,646,188, the entire project is about 66 percent complete. The results of continuing surveys of the Mississippi River below Cairo are indicated in published folio of maps, entitled "Flood Control and Navigation Maps of the Mississippi River, Cairo, Ill. to the Gulf of Mexico, 1961." Contoured quadrangles, general maps of the alluvial valley, and pamphlets tabulating river stages, discharge measurements, etc., have been published and are available for departmental use and public distribution under prescribed regulations. Road-map- type information folders of the principal portions of the overall project have been published along with papers on the subjects of flood control and navigation. The present construction status of the project features listed in tables A and B follows: Mississippi River levees. There are 1,721 miles of Mississippi River levees below Cape Girardeau (including those on the north bank of the lower Ohio River, the Memphis Harbor project, and the south banks of the lower Arkansas and Red Rivers) with earth work aggregating about 1,116,847,000 cubic yards as listed in tables E-1 through E-3. There are 1,573 miles of these levees built to project grade and section. Graveled or hardsurfaced roads have been constructed on 436.6 miles of these levees. Below Baton Rouge, in the New Orleans District, about 124.1 miles of levee are protected against river wave wash by timber structures or levee-slope pavement. Shore- erosion-protection works have been constructed along 52.6 miles of levee. In order to insure the adequacy of the main stem levees, including those on the south banks of the Arkansas and Red Rivers, additional levee construction is recommended to pro- vide a standard 3-foot freeboard, adequate levee cross section, construction of berms for levee stabilization and seepage control, levee wavewash protection where necessary, drainage structures, and roadways for proper inspection and maintenance. Bonnet Carre spillway, La. The spillway structure was com- pleted in February 1931, and the remaining work was completed in December 1936. Operations and maintenance of the spillway are carried on as required. (See pp. 2089-2091, Annual Report for 1938 for description.) Birds Point-New Madrid floodway, Mo. Plans, designs, and specifications are complete for a levee and closure structure to prevent backwater flooding in the lower end of the floodway. Con- tract has not been awarded due to inability of local interests to furnish required local cooperation. Flood control work under section 6, May 15, 1928 Act. Levees constructed under the provisions of section 6 of the 1928 act, as summarized in table E-4, include 129.4 miles of levee along the banks of the Mississippi River between Cape Girardeau, Mo., MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2067 and Rock Island, Ill. and 306.2 miles along tributaries within the limits of Mississippi River backwater. Mississippi River-channel improvement. In carrying out the authorized channel improvement program between Baton Rouge and Cairo, 16 cutoffs were developed between 1933 and 1942. These, combined with chute-channel development and alinement improvements, decreased the channel length between these cities by about 170 miles. The effect of this channel shortening, in in- creasing its flood-carrying capacity, is stated on page 1811, An- nual Report of Chief of Engineers for 1943. Much progress has been made in advancing the overall channel-stabilization program, involving the construction of bank revetment, dikes, and improve- ment dredging, to prevent the river from regaining its former length due to its natural tendency to meander. There are now in place 475 miles of operative bank revetment on the Mississippi and lower Ohio Rivers as listed in tables D-1 through D-3. A navigation channel 9 by 300 feet is maintained by dredging as required dur- ing the low-water season. Since 1928 annual maintenance dredg- ing has averaged about 30 million cubic yards. Due to the growing effectiveness of the channel-improvement program average low- water maintenance dredging requirements are steadily being re- duced, and an increase in navigable depth is being obtained. A long-range plan has been developed and recommended to bring about the desired program of channel improvement between Cairo and the Head of Passes including additional bank revetment, dredging, training works, and foreshore protection. Baton Rouge Harbor (Devils Swamp). Construction under this project was initiated on January 19, 1958, and 7,458,086 cubic yards have been excavated in completing 2.5 miles of the proposed 5-mile channel to project dimensions. Construction of the retain- ing dikes to project dimensions is required to complete this seg- ment. This section is 84 percent complete. Vicksburg Harbor. Construction of the project started in De- cember 1956 and was completed except for some minor drainage work and slide repair in December 1960. This work is in progress. Greenville Harbor. Construction of the first lift retaining dikes began in February and was completed in May 1961. Dredging of the harbor channel and constructing the port area fill started December 20, 1961, and is 37 percent complete. Memphis Harbor (Tennessee Chute). The Presidents Island portion of the project is complete. The Ensley left-bank chute levee is 81 percent complete. The project as a whole is 84 percent complete. Atchafalaya Basin, La. (a) Wax Lake outlet and Charenton Canal: Wax Lake outlet and Charenton Canal are complete. Al- terations to the New Iberia and Northern Railway bridge were completed July 18, 1955. (b) Atchafalaya River and Basin: Levees extend along both banks of the Atchafalaya River. The 50.8 miles in the east bank system have been built to approved grade and section, and 60 miles of the 60.7 miles in the west bank system have been built to approved grade and section. (c) Atchafalaya Basin floodway: Levees have been built to 2068 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 approved grade and section on the west side of the Atchafalaya Basin from Mansura Hills to Hamburg to confine flood waters within the West Atchafalaya floodway, the Atchafalaya River, and along Bayou des Glaises from Hamburg to Simmesport. Contin- uous levee systems extend along the east and west limits of the floodway. The east protection levee extends from Morganza to Cutoff Bayou; 40.7 miles of the 107.9 miles in this levee system having been built to grade and section. The west protection levees extend from Hamburg to Wax Lake outlet and thence via the lower floodway protection levee to Berwick drainage canal, with 108.7 miles of the 128.2 miles in the system built to grade and section. The lower Atchafalaya system of levees is partially com- plete west of Berwick and the lower Atchafalaya River from Ber- wick drainage canal to Wax Lake outlet and thence to the Char- enton drainage canal, including Bayou Sale and Teche Ridge levees. Of the 60.5 miles in this system, 31.3 miles have been built to grade and section. For status of these levees, see table E-1. Ring levees have been completed at Simmesport, Melville, and Krotz Springs. Landside borrow pit channels have been excavated along the west protection levee between the Bayou des Glaises di- version canal at Hamburg and the Charenton drainage canal, and along the east protection levee between Fordoche and Ramah for the passage of intercepted drainage. Floodway and basin improvements, other than levees, completed prior to this fiscal year are as described on pages 1884 and 1885 of the Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1943 and on page 2030 of the Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1961. Improvements completed since then include construction of Wax Lake east pumping station and construction of a culvert un- der U.S. Highway 90, Wax Lake east drainage area. Between Courtableau and Krotz Springs, over the west Atcha- falaya Floodway, the New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Railway Co. high-level crossing is complete. A total of 30.86 miles of improvement dredging in the main channel of the Atchafalaya Basin has been accomplished between miles 54.54 to 63.7, 71 to 81.9, 83.1 to 83.8, and 85.1 to 95.2. Improvements, other than levees, now in progress are as fol- lows: Improvement dredging at Whiskey Bay Pilot Channel be- tween mile 54.54 to mile 60.64, which is 44 percent complete; Whiskey Bay Pilot Channel extension between mile 60.64 to mile 63.7, which has just commenced; and Blind Tensas cut between mile 67.8 to 70.5, which is 4 percent complete. Two pumping stations are under construction, Bayou Yokely pumping station enlargement which is 52 percent complete, and North Bend pump- ing station which is 30 percent complete. Excavation at Wax Lake east, north of Bayou Teche, for interior drainage is essentially complete. Construction work under contract but not started includes chan- nel enlargement at Tarleton Bayou and Big Bayou Chene, be- tween mile 76 and mile 78.5; installation of temporary false work spans for construction of a culvert under the tracks of the South- ern Pacific in Wax Lake east drainage area; two supply contracts MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2069 for furnishing mechanical equipment for Wax Lake west pump- ing station; and a supply contract for furnishing road surfacing material for the west protection levee. The Atchafalaya Basin floodway is approximately 61 percent complete. (d) Morganza Floodway (includes Morganza control structure): At the upper end of the floodway, the combined high-level crossing for State Highway 30, the Texas & Pacific Railway's Port Allen branch line, and the Morganza control structure was completed February 18, 1960, when a lump-sum payment was made to the State of Louisiana Department of Highways, to provide for the assumption of the obligation for completing the embankments with permanent paving at a later date. About midway, the Texas & Pacific Railway Co. main line crosses the floodway between McKneely and Red Cross; this high-level crossing was completed February 9, 1956. At the lower end, U.S. Highway 190 was com- pleted September 12, 1953, and the New Orleans, Texas & Mexico Railroad high-level crossing was completed August 12, 1944. All scheduled construction has been completed. (e) Atchafalaya River navigation: Navigation improvement authorized by the act of September 3, 1954, was completed on February 15, 1956, to give a controlling depth of 12 feet over a bottom width of 125 feet. Bayou ,Cocodrieand tributaries,La. A total of 16,482,158 cubic yards has been excavated and 13.3 miles cleared and snagged for channel improvement and diversion in Bayous Boeuf, Cocodrie, and Clear. An improved and continuous channel is complete from mile 0 to the Bayou Rapides drainage structure, a distance of 59.8 miles. Drainage structures have been completed on the south bank of Bayou Rapides and in Bayou Boeuf diversion chan- nel at Lecompte, and the Lamourie control structure has been com- pleted on Bayou Lamourie. Twenty-one highway bridges, four railroad bridges, and two foot bridges have been constructed or reconstructed. The overall percentage of completion is 60 per- cent for Bayou Cocodrie and tributaries improvements. Lake Pontchartrain,La. A total of 17.4 miles of levee along the shore of Lake Pontchartrain, including lateral levees to high ground, has been constructed, with 7.7 miles being completed to grade and section. (See table E-1.) A total of 10.2 miles of wave wash protection has also been completed. (See table E-5.) Work remaining to complete the project consists of placing additional fill, shaping and dressing levees, and construction of wave wash protection works. The project is 71 percent complete. Amite River, La. The desired bank protection work has been completed by local interests. Old River, La. Construction was initiated September 14, 1955, and this project is 81 percent complete. Completed work consists of construction of low-sill and overbank structures; installation of gantry cranes at each structure; excavation of 67,499,316 cubic yards in constructing an outflow channel 7.4 miles long from Red River to the low-sill structure and excavation of 6,181,575 cubic yards in constructing an inflow channel from the low-sill structure to the Mississippi River approximately 0.4 mile long; construc- 2070 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 tion of 2,415 linear feet of bank protection along the east bank of the inflow channel; construction of 6,050 linear feet of bank protection along the east bank of the outflow channel; and con- struction of 0.8 mile of new levee and 1.2 miles of levee enlarge- ment. The lock structure is essentially complete, miter gates and oper- ating machinery have been installed and are ready for operational tests, earthwork is complete except for final dressing, and reser- vation area facilities are approximately 50 percent complete. The contract for construction of the lock is 96 percent complete. Excavation for the navigation lock tail bay channel was com- menced on October 16, 1961, and 295,895 cubic yards were ex- cavated. Overbank clearing at the control structures was initiated on June 6, 1962, and 83 acres were partially cleared. Preliminary work was started on June 22, 1962, for Old River closure base and bank preparation. An agreement has been entered into with the State of Louisiana Department of Highways, providing for construction of highway facilities across the Old River project and for a bridge across the lock. Lower Red River, La. The levees have been built to approved grade but are deficient in section. (See table E-1.) A total of 3 miles of dikes and 3 miles of standard revetment has been built. (See table D-1.) The project is 90 percent complete. Tensas Basin, La. and Ark. (a) Red River backwater area, La: The project is complete except for construction of gravel roads on levees; however, local interests have requested correction of im- paired drainage caused by construction of the levee. (b) Boeuf and Tensas Basin, La. and Ark.: Channel improve- ment has been completed as follows: Big and Colewa Creek-75.5 miles; Tensas River-96.5 miles; Bayou Lafourche-44.6 miles; Boeuf River-71.3 miles; Canal 19-50.2 miles; Canal 43-34.5 miles; Canal 81-32.7 miles; Big Bayou-33.3 miles; and Bayou Macon- 61.4 miles. The mileages listed are for the length of project im- provements actually constructed and do not include no-work reaches where the existing channel capacities are considered ade- quate. The following channel improvement work is in progress: Enlargement and realinement in Bayou Macon between mile 61.37 and mile 75.46; clearing and snagging, cleanout and enlargement in Bayou Macon between mile 75.46 and mile 100.65; and en- largement of the lower 14.3 miles in Black Pond Slough. Im- provements completed and underway involve 244 miles clearing and snagging and 88,782,000 cubic yards of excavation. Lower Arkansas Basin, Ark.: (a) Arkansas River levees: Total of 56.2 miles of the 61.5 miles of north bank levees and all of the 85.6 miles of south bank levees have been completed to ap- proved grade and section. These levees above mile 40 are pro- tected by bank-protection works constructed as a feature of the project for Arkansas River and tributaries, Ark. and Okla. For present status of this work see report of the Little Rock District, Southwestern Division on page 871. (b) Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin: Work has not been started. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2071 Yazoo Basin, Miss. (a) Yazoo Basin headwater: The four reser- voirs are in operation and maintenance and rehabilitation of the dams and appurtenant structures are continuing as required. Pub- lic-access and basic public-use facilities have been and are being provided at all four reservoirs. The State has built State parks with lodges, cottages, and boating facilities at Sardis and Grenada Reservoirs and State and national organizations have constructed necessary group camp facilities at the same two reservoirs. Channel improvements on the Coldwater-Tallahatchie-Yazoo Rivers are complete except for two cutoffs in the Tallahatchie River and two cutoffs in the Yazoo River. Construction of the lower auxiliary channel is complete. Improvement of these streams involved 329 miles of clearing and snagging and 55,464,000 cubic yards of excavation. Con- struction of the Greenwood protection works is complete except for the diversion of Big Sand Creek, a tributary of Pelucia Bayou, and extension of levees. Construction of the Belzoni and Yazoo City protection works is complete. (b) Yazoo Basin backwater: About 1.5 miles of new levee has been completed to approved grade and section. (c) Big Sunflower River, etc.: Channel improvements have been completed as follows: Big Sunflower River-78.6 miles; Little Sunflower River-21.6 miles; Quiver River-35 miles; Bogue Pha- lia-25.9 miles; Bogue Hasty-6.5 miles; Steele Bayou and Canal 9-76 miles; Deer Creek-7 miles; Fighting Bayou-4.1 miles; Snake Creek-9.8 miles; and Marsh Bayou-4 miles. The mileages listed are for the length of project improvements actually constructed and do not include no-work reaches in which the existing channel capacities are considered adequate. The following work is in progress: Channel clearing in Quiver River between mile 31.5 and mile 59.7, and channel clearing and snagging in Bogue Phalia be- tween mile 60.27 and mile 82.78. Improvements completed and underway involve 202 miles of snagging and clearing and 17,304,- 000 cubic yards of excavation. Lower White River, Ark. (a) White River backwater levee: The levee has been completed and contracts furnishing machinery and equipment and construction of a pumping station have been awarded. (b) Augusta to Clarendon, Ark. A total of 40 miles of levee along the east bank of White River has been completed to project grade and section. (c) De Valls Bluff, Ark.: Local protection work has been com- pleted. (d) Des Arc, Ark.: Local protection work has been completed. (e) Cache Basin, Ark.: Work has not been started. St. Francis Basin, Ark. and Mo. The Wappapello Reservoir is completed and available for use as required. On the west bank of the St. Francis River 129 miles of levee are to project grade and sec- tion. On the east bank of the St. Francis River 106 miles are to project grade and section. A total of 35 miles of channel improve- ments and cutoffs on the lower St. Francis River below Riverfront, Ark., has been completed. In the Elk Chute drainage district, 34 2072 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 miles of levee are to project grade and section. The levees along Little River are complete. Work on levees and drainage improve- ments is in progress. L'Anguille Basin, Ark. The L'Anguille River below mile 5 has been cleaned out as part of the St. Francis project. St. Johns Bayou, Mo. Construction of the levee and floodgate is complete. West Tennessee tributaries, Tenn. About 26 miles of channel cleaning on the Obion River have been completed. Work on chan- nel improvements and cutoffs is underway and is 17 percent com- plete. Reelfoot Lake area, Tenn. and Ky. Running Reelfoot Bayou has been completed. Wolf River and tributaries, Tenn. and Miss. Work has been completed on excavation of the Wolf River diversion channel and on the closure embankment. Work on channel improvement is underway and is 10 percent complete. Investigations and reports. Surveys and reports prescribed un- der the existing project and called for by congressional or de- partmental directives are made as required. Reports on tributary streams authorized pursuant to the act of January 21, 1927, when presented to the Mississippi River Commission in compliance with section 10 of the act of May 15, 1928 are considered and the con- clusions and recommendations of the Commission thereon are sub- mitted to the Chief of Engineers. Total costs. Total costs under the existing project, incurred from United States and contributed funds to June 30, 1962, were $1,531,999,053, of which $1,514,734,347 was for new work and maintenance, $14,877,310 for flood-control emergencies and $2,387,- 396 for general investigations. Total costs for construction and maintenance of levees under the existing project and expenditures incurred therefor by non-Federal agencies are given in table H-2. TABLE D-1. New Orleans District [Bank revetments and dikes built during fiscal year and operative protection in place June 30, 1962] Operations fiscal year 1962 Lost, Miles destroyed, or above Construction nonoperative Operative on Location Head of Bank since June 30, June 30, 1962 Passes Maintenance 1961 Reinforcement New work (existing) MISSISSIPPI RIVER Linearfeet Linear feet Squares Linear feet Linearfeet Standard revetment: Buras, La... ........................................ 25.1 Right......................................... .............. 2,900 Port Sulphur, La.... ....................................... 39.0 ... do.... ............................................................ 1,820 Third district reach, La....................................... 92.7 Left........ .......................................................... 20,542 Algiers Point, La................................................ 95.8 Right..................... ................................... 7,728 Gouldsboro Bend, La......................................... 95.8 do ..... ... ............. . ....... ....... ............. 4,960 2 Gretna Bend, La....... ..................................... 9....d..4,127 95.8 . do....... ............................................... Greenville Bend, La1.............................................. 100.4 ......... 19,870 Carrollton Bend, La............................................. 103.6 Left................................................................. 15,015 Avondale Bend, La.............................................. 108.5 Right................................................................ 15,098 Kenner, La..................................................... 113.7 Left........................9,089 Reserve, La .............................................. 138.1. ..... 138.1 do... ....................................................... 6,032 Plaquemine Bend, La........................................ 208.2 .12. do ..... ........ ........................... . . .. 14,761 Port Allen, La......... ................................. 229.5 ......do....3,220 229.5........................................... Allendale, La.. . . . . . ..................................................... 238.0 ..... do ... 1 ,806 ........... 11,806 Arbroth, La.................................................. 248.7 ..... do............................................................... 13,190 Grand Bay, La.................................................. .....256.2 do...2. .... 7,090 Red Store, La................................................... .... 268.0 . do...... 300 .. ..............2,3 2,382 6,400 Arrow Bend, La................................................. 270.0 Left ....... ..... 1,,300 08,172 . ............... 13,600 Boies Point, La........................................... 273.0 Right ........ 977 150 . 9,002 M organza, La.. ........................................... 277.3 23 . .............. d........ do.....12,750 ... ..... .13,310 Iowa Point, La....................................... .. 2.5 280.5 L Left..... ................. ............................................. 8,150 - Brunette Point, La... ...................................... 283.0 Right.......................................................................... 5,310 Greenwood Bend, La.. .. 285.0 Left .. 12,750 Carr Point, La.................................................. 301.2 Right... ................ 75.......................................... 8,600 Above Old River, La............................................ 302.5 ..... do .. .4,800 Fort Adams, Miss............................................... 306.0 Left........ ................................ 2,814 . ...... 16,300 Coochie, La... ........................................... 315.0 Right....... .................. 14,660 Palmetto, Miss.. . ......................................... 319.3 Left ........ .......... .............. 4,959 ................ 21,075 Subtotal New Orleans District................ .......... 14,383 150 38,227 ................. 298,487 Dikes: None. OLD RIVER CONTROL Inflow channel, east bank....... .................................... 312.0 Right.......25...... ..... .......................................... 2,415 . Outflow channel, east bank....................................... 312.0 ..... do....... 6,050 ............................................... 6,050 m -.1 O O TABLE D-1. New Orleans District-Continued 0 Operations fiscal year 1962 Lost, destroyed, or Miles below Construction nonoperative Operative on Tj Location mouth of Bank since June 30, June 30, 1962 Red River Maintenance 1961 Reinforcement New work (existing) z r ATCHAFALAYA RIVER Linearfeet Linearfeet Squares Linearfeet Linearfeet Standard revetment: Atchafalaya River, La ............................................ 1.0 Left......... 1,350 Legonier, La...................................................... ............................... 4.0 ..... do... ... 2,385 . 6,000 Simmesport, La................................................. 5.5 Right............................................... .............. 4,150 tX Total standard revetment ........................... ........... .............. ........... ..................... 2,385 ................. 11,500 Dikes: 1 None. r3 1 Includes all types of dikes and retards. TABLE D-1. New Orleans District-Continued Operations fiscal year 1962 Lost, destroyed, or Miles above Construction nonoperative Operative on Location mouth of Bank since June 30, June 30, 1962 Red River Maintenance 1961 Reinforcement New work (existing) (Jc RED RIVER Linear feet Linear feet I Squares Linearfeet Linearfeet Standard revetment: Egg Bend, La........................................................... 91.0 Right ....... ................ ................ ................ 2,200 R oxana, La.................. .................................. 99.0 ..... do........ .. . . . . .. . . . . . . ................ ................ 2,725 Ryland, La.................. .................................. 104.0 ..... do....... ................ 3,925 H udson, La.................. ................................. 115.3 .....do....... ................ ................ . .. . . .. .. .. . . 1,458 Alexandria Front, La.................. ......................... 122.0 ..... do....... ................ 5,550 Total standard revetment Red River ............................ I.............. .............. _ __.. . . . .. ... 15,858 O O Dikes: I Choctaw Bayou Bend, La.................. ..................... 71.6 Right........ ................ 1,563 Btingol (Egg Bend), La.................. ....................... Egg Bbnd, La.................. ................................ 90.0 91.0 do....... ..... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 2,477 Cologne Bend, La................................................ Echo, La. ........................................................... 92.1 93.9 do....................... ..... ..... do...... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 854 W 1,350W Richardson, La ............................................... 94.5 do....................... ..... ..... do....................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 1,849 - ................ ................ 1,556 5,014 Bertrand, La.................. Boyce, La.................................... ................................ ................. 139-139.5 142.8 ....do...... ................ . ... do....... ................ ................ I I I- 1,069 Total dikes Red River........................ ............... I.............. 15,732 SIncludes all types of dikes and retards. t\3 m ,j TABLE D-2. Vicksburg District -ZI 0 [Bank revetments and dikes built during fiscal year and operative protection in place June 30, 1962] Operations fiscal year 1962 _. Lost, Miles destroyed, or O above Construction nonoperative Operative on C Location Head of Bank . since June 30, June 30, 1962 Passes Maintenance 1961 0 O Reinforcement 0 New work (existing) MISSISSIPPI RIVER Linearfeet Linearfeet Squares Linear feet Linear feet Standard revetment: Bougere Bend, La... ............................... 326.0 Right....... ............... 546 3,383 18,968C Morville, La ................ ................. ........... 352.0 ..... do...... 160 60 6,457 ................ 5,730 Natchez Island, Miss ........................................... 354.5..... do...... .. .. . .. . . . . .. .. . ................ ............. ... 2,180 t Natchez Front, Miss ................... ....................... 360.0 Left. ........ ................ ................. ................ 6,045 j Gibson, La........................ .................. 368.0 Right....... 373 ................ S................ 9,528 Kemp Bend, La ............. ............................. 379.0 ..... do...... 2,875 354 ................ 19,180 O Goldbottom, Miss.. ....... ........ ................... ....... 388.5 Left......... 3,375 ................ 1,225 S................ 18,140 T Hardscrabble, La .................................... .......... 394.0 Right....... ............ ................ 22,530 M Grand Gulf, Miss. ............... ...................... 399.0 Left ........ ................ 275 24,915Z Lake Karnac, La.-Miss ................ ....................... 414.0..... do...... 2,345 3,890 2,717 12,555 0 Diamond Point, La.-Miss ................... ................... 417.5 Right ....... 535 12,125- Reid-Bedford, La ................... .......................... 423.6 ..... do...... ................ 18,120 Z Racetrack, Miss.. .. ..................................... 427.2 Left. ........ ............ .... 5,160 13,935 M Barge Line Terminal, M iss....................................... 431.5..... do...... .. ...... ........ |................ 3,040 Vicksburg Harbor, M iss ......... ............................... 431.7 .... do...... ................ ................ |................ 7,350 Opposite Delta Point, La.................. ....................... 432.0..... do...... 6,360 Delta Point, La.. ............................................. 432.0 Right....... 1,055 |. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . 7,060 King's Point, Miss ................. ................... ........ 434.5 Left. ........ 4,750 ................ 4,750 False Point, La. . ......... ........... ................. 437.2 Right....... 670 12,390 Marshall-Brown's Point, La.-Miss .............................. 440.5 Left........ ................ ................ 19,580 M illiken Bend,La............................................... 447.0 Right....... 2,180 ................ 44 650 , Belle Island, La.-Miss........................................... 453.8 Left......... 1,842 2,177 13,989 ............... 23,160 Goodrich, La........... ...... ................................ 460.0 Right........ 1,967 10,196 30,242 Cottonwood, Miss............................................... 466.5 Left......... 1,140 6,437 ................ 14,977 Fitler, M iss.................. .................................. 469.0 Left........ 438 13,450 ............... Hagaman, La................................................... 475.0-478.0 Right....... 920 30,528 Ben Lomond, Miss .............................................. 479.2 Left. ........ 389 905 10,235 ' Lake Providence, La ............................................. 482.0 Right....... ................ 11,600 M ayersville, Miss............................................... 489.0 Left ...... ................ ................ 27,742, Carolina, Miss................................................... 498.5 ..... do....... 4,220 ................ ................ 11,080 Cracraft, Ark. ........ ...................................... 502.0 Right....... ............... 16,130 Kentucky Bend,Miss .......................................... 509.0 Left. ........ . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . 12,285 Walnut Point, Miss ................... .......................... 513.0 ..... do....... i................ 1,014 ................ 13,784 American Cutoff, Miss......................................... 517.0 ..... do....... ............. 365 2,980 Lakeport, Ark............. ..................................... 516-519 Right........ 2,255 15,290 Sunnyside, Ark........ ................ .... ... .............. 523.0 .... do ........ ............................................ 11,305 Vaucluse, Ark................ ................... ..... . 525.0 .... do. .................................................. 4,300 Island 84. Ark ............. ............................... 526.5 Left................................................................. 13,475 Warfield Point, Miss........................................ 528.5 .... do............ .................................................... 4,320 LaGrange Towhead, Miss..................................... 530.0 ..... do... .............. 2................ 2, 5. Spanish Moss, Ark .......................................... 530.5 Right.............. 190.. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 4,5t0 Leland Cutoff, Ark ... ...................................... 531.0 Left............................... 1,300 Tarpley Island, Miss......................................... 534.0 Right........ .......... 2,000 Miller Bend, Miss .......................................... 536.0 Left........ 2,210 ................ 1,949 705 29,360 Ashbrook Island, Miss...................................... 541.5 Right....... ....... .................................................. 3,455 Arkansas City-Yellow Bend, Ark ................................ 547.0 Right....... 4,520 .................................... .......... 29,620 Huntington Point, Miss ............... ....................... 550.0 Left................................................................. 10,045 Pair O'Dice, Ark ................. ............................ 554.8 Right....... ..................... 9,095 Mounds, Miss ............................................. 555.5 Left.......... ................................. 3,850 Eutaw, Miss.................................. ............ 558. . do.......................... ............... ................ 9,528 Cypress Bend, Ark ... ...................................... 561.4 Right........................................................... 14,180 Catfish Point, Miss ................ ........................... 565.5 Left........ 930 9,170 13,155 , Ozark, Ark.-Miss ................ ............................. 570.3 Right........ 1,947 ............... 2,948 .............. 19,445 Prentiss, Miss ............................................... 574.5 Left.......................429 16,625 Riverton, Miss ... ........................................ 578.3 ..... do.......... ................. ............................. 12,500 Klondike, Ark ................. ......................... ...... 580.5 Right........ ...................... .... .... 227 ................ 21,120 Terrene, Miss ............... ............................. 584.2 Left......... 2,010 .. 11,700 Victoria Bend, Miss.............. ................ ...... .... 587.0 .... do...... 1,200 7,052 .. ... 10,285 Big Island, Ark ...................... ....................... 590.2 Right....... 2,400 395 ............................... 14,385 a Smith Point, Miss................. ........................ 595.5 Left......... 1,070 980 .... ................. 8,800 Dennis, Miss ...................................... 605.0 ..... do...................... ................ 9,430 ................ 12,920 Cessions, Miss...................... ........ ................ 609.5.. do....................................... ................... 10,910 Subtotal Vicksburg District ................ .................... 49,718 11,221 82,239 705 1827,822 (156.8 miles) O Dikes: Oi even Oaks, Ark................ 514.0 Right........ Right.............................514.0 1,550. .............................................. 1,550 Island 70, Miss ........ .................................... 601.6 Left......... 7,720 ............................................. 7,720 Subtotal Vicksburg District.................... .............. ... 9,270................. ...... .. 9,270 See footnotes at end of table. TABLE D-2. Vicksburg District-Continued 0 Operations fiscal year 1962 Li Lost, Above mouth destroyed, or ov of Arkansas Construction nonoperative Operative on Location River Bank since June 30, June 30, 1962 0 (1949 mileage) Maintenance 1961 Reinforcement New work (existing) 0 C ARKANSAS RIVER' Linear feet Linear feet Squares Linear feet Linear feet Standard revetment: Menard Bend, Ark......... ..................................... 31.5 Left........ .............. ............. ............... .............. 11,77 Lx Como, Ark ......... ......................................... 34.0 Right....... .............. .................. ................ .............. 8,88 'xi Total standard revetment, Arkansas River...................................... .......................................... 20,655 n Dikes: Hopedale Cutoff .... ........................... ............. 29.8 Right........ ................................................. 1,848 Fletcher Bend, Ark.. ................. ....................... 39.0 Right.... ..... 2,187 0 21..............2.............. Total dikes, Arkansas River ........................... .................................................. 4,03 z Includes 1,036 linear feet replacement of previous losses. 2 See report on Arkansas River and tributaries. Ark. and Okla., submitted by the Little Rock District, Southwestern Division on page 87: 1. Lej Zw ci TABLE D-3. Memphis District [Bank revetments and dikes built during fiscal year and operative protection in place June 30, 1962] Operations fiscal year 1962 Lost, Miles destroyed, or above Construction nonoperative Operative on Location Head of Bank since June 30, June 30, 1962 Passes Maintenance 1961 Reinforcement New work (existing) Linearfeet Linear feet Squares 1 Linear feet Linear feet RIVER MISSISSIPPI ri2 Standard revetments: Henrico, Ark............. ...... ............................... 597-601 Right........ ................ ................ ................ ................ 17,255 Knowlton, Ark................... ............................. 613-616 ..... do...... ................ 4,798 ................ 816,990 Island 67, Miss ...................................... .......... 616-618 Left......... ................ ................ 111 . .. .. . . . . . . .. ..... 7,530 - Ludlow, Ark.... .. ................... ............. 620-622 Right....... ................ ................ ................. .............. 9,140 I Rescue Landing, Ark.-Miss .................. .. ............. 621-626 Left........ ................ ................ 234 27,030 Fair Landing, Ark............................................... 627-630 Right........ ................ ................ 5,306 16,850 - Burke Landing, Miss................. . ......................... 630-634 Left. ....... ................ 512 50 19,220 Island 62, Ark. ........ ...................................... 634-636 Right........ 960 470 33 9,230 Oldtown Bend, Ark............................................. 639-642 .....do...... 670 5,915 300 21,960 C Horseshoe, Miss.................. .............................. 642-645 Left......... ................ ................ 2,689 200 16,405d Westover, Ark................. .......................... 646-648 Right........ ................ 346 ............... 12,730 Delta-Friar Point, Miss ............ ................. .... 648-654 Left......... ................ ................ 2,141 ............... 1030,190 0 Helena, Ark ......... ...... ................... ............. 653-660 Right....... ................ 269 36,510 O Trotters Landing, Miss ...................................... .... 659-665 Left......... ................ ................ 354 32,905 St. Francis, Ark .... ....... ............................. 667-669 Right....... ................ ................ 107 100 8,580 Harbert Point, Miss ............................................ 672-674 Left........ ................ ................ . . ............... 456 ................ 7,445 Walnut Bend, Ark.............................................. 675-680 Right....... ................ 456 ... ........ ..... 27,220 O Mhoon Bend, Miss. ............................................. 680-686 Left......... ................ ................ 6,077 36,028r Peters, Ark............ ....................................... 687-691 Right....... ................ 4,132 25 23,120 - Commerce, Miss ................ ............................ 692-694 Left. ....... ................ ................ 215 ................ 11,650O Polks Landing, Miss................... ........................ 695-697 ..... ................ do........ .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . ................ ................ ............... 11,094Z Porter Lake, Ark .............................................. 695-702 ................ Right........ ................ ................ 978 140 35,855 Pickett, Ark.-Miss ..................................... ........ 699-701 Left........................ ................ 1,533 40 9,030 Norfolk-Star, Miss. ............................................ 703-709 .... do...... 90 1,030 616 40 29,737 Cow Island Bend, Ark .......................................... 710-713 Right....... ................ 540 ................ 22,274 Coahoma, Tenn ................................................. 713-716 Left......... ................ 2,156 ................ 9,350 Ensley, Tenn ............... ................................ 719-722 ..... do...... 345 ................ 19,960 Dismal Point, Ark ... ................................ ......... 721-723 Right....... ................36 ................ 198 ........... *o... 7,200 Bauxippi-Wyanoke, Ark ......................................... 724-728 do.... .... 109 ................ 23,300 Presidents Island, Tenn .......................................... 728-730 Left........ 360 2,834 12,755 Tennessee Chute, Tenn .............. ....................... 6-7 C .... do..... 8,850 Memphis Harbor, Tenn........................................... 731-733 .do....... 42 14,800 Is Hopefield Point, Ark.-Tenn ............... ................. 733-734 Right........ 2 2,990 0 *I0 See footnotes at end of table. TABLE D-3. Memphis District-Continued .. 0 Operations fiscal year 1962 Lost, Miles destroyed, or above Construction nonoperative Operative on Lxri Location Head of Bank since June 30, June 30, 1962 Passes Maintenance 1961 b 0 Reinforcement New work (existing) O y Linearfeet Linearfeet Squares 1 Linear feet, Linear feet Standard revetments-Continued r Loosahatchie, Tenn....... ............................. 736-737 Left....... 1,470 180 3 180 5,580 St. Clair, Ark............................................ 739 Right........ .......... .60 .3 ................ 62,930 .X Island 40, Tenn.-Ark.......... ...................... 738-743 ..... do...... 24,350 n.50. Brandywine, Ark.-Tenn. ......................................... 747-750 C .....do....... 105 18,060 Cedar Point.Densford, Tenn....... ... ...... ........ 760-763 Left ....... ................ 4,790 6,637 20,270 - Chute of Island 35, Tenn............. ....................... 764-768 Right ....... 4,460 423 ................ 28,590 Lookout Bar, Tenn.... .......................... 772-773 ..... do....... 624 ................ 62,550 Lookout, Tenn ................................. ........... 774-775 ..... do....................... ................ 3 5,005 Sunrise Towhead, Tenn .......................................... 775-778C ..... do...... 128 ............... 12,440 O Bullerton Bar, Ark .............................................. 784-790 ..... do....................... ................ 83 20 23,265 Island 30, Tenn............. ....... ....................... 789-791 ..... do....... 1,080 3,190 7 155 11,645:. Osceola, Ark..................................................... Osceola, Ark...... ...... ......................... ........ 790 791' ..... ..... do..... do... . 21,350 5,823 z Keyes, Point, Tenn ................. ........................ 703-798 Left......... ................ ............ ... 614 ................ 24,909 I- Kate Aubrey, Tenn ........................................... Island 26, Tenn............................................. 796-797 801-804 Right ....... . . ................ 260 .do....... 567 ................ 2,500 15,710 zM Bend of Island 25, Tenn ........................................ 805-808 Left....... 2,162 ........... 22,730 Barfield, Ark. ................................................ 809-816 Right ....... 612 100 40,905- Tamm Bend, Tenn. ... ............................... 819-821 Left......... ................ ................ 94 18,540 v Huffman-Hickman, Ark.-Tenn.................................... 825-830 Right ....... ................ ............... 99 ................ 26,984 Heloise, Tenn.......... ... ................................ 831-834 Left......... 660 65 ................ 12,935 Island No. 18, M o................... ........................... 834-838 Right ....... ................ 94 ................ 22,170 Linwood Bend, Tenn............................................ 840-843 Left ........ 74 14,850 Bells Point, Mo... ............................... ......... 845-847 Right........ ......... . .... 5,420 Gayoso-Caruthersville, Mo................. .................... 848-853 ....do..... 1,088 25,600 Hathaway Landing, Tenn.......... .................... 856 Left........ 1,000 Robinson Bayou, M o........................................... 856-857 Right...... 230 2,467 150 10,940 Fritz Landing, Tenn ............................................. 859-860 Left......... 70 7,210 Bend of Island 14, Tenn......................................... 862-863 ....do....... 12,050 Little Cypress, Mo.... ... ................................... 866-870 Right....... 1,950 915 ............... 100 27,270 Merriwether-Cherokee, Tenn...................................... 872-877 Left ........ 1,155 30,215 Linda, M o .................................................... 880-882 Right.. ..... 33 11,950 Pelow Toneys T.H., Tenn........................................... 883-886 Left......... 1,440 5,272 20,685 New M adrid Bend, M o.......................................... 888-893 Right ....... 1,970 43 30,130 New Madrid, Mo..................................... ....... 894-895 .....do....... 5,559 LaForge, M o................. .................................. 895-899 ..... do....... 430 1........ 3,903 20,250 Slough Landing Neck, Ky.-Tenn............................ 901-906 Left... . . 210 ........... 87 28,980 Island 9, Ky.-Tenn................... .......................... 909-913 ..... do....... 1,240 ........... ... 19,995 Chute of Island 8, Ky ............. ................... ..... 917-919C ..... do....... |................ Bend of Island 8, Mo............. ........................ 12,620 922-924 Right ....... |................ |................ 9,800 Island 8, Ky............................... ........ 920-921 C ..... do....... S................ 30 Hickman-Reelfoot, Ky.......................................... 5,905 926-933 Left......... S................ 75 35,959 Beckwith Bend, Mo.............................................. 933-936 Right........ ................. 2,408 Williams, Ky. .. .............................. 120 14,588 . 937-939 Left ......... 1,820 275 7,725 Wolf Island, Ky ......... ........................... 944-945C Right ....... 2,020 185 185 105 Columbus, Ky ..................................... .. 6,515 946-947 Left ......... ................ 33 3,825 Belmont, Mo ................................................. 948-949 Right ....... Island 3 and 4, Ky............................................ ................ 5,760 949-952 ..... do....... |................ 13,560 Campbell, Ky ................. ................. . 953-954 Left. ....... |................ ... . . . . . . Prichard, Mo ......................................... |................ 89 6,935 .. 956-959 Right....... |................ 15,045 Wickliffe, Ky ...................................... ............ 962-963 Left ......... 6,270 Subtotal Memphis District.................... ............................. . .............. I R. I =, L wo I ".'. , .. I, n.. I zo 1- 1,3a1,35 i Dikes: I- Island 64, Ark ........ ..................... ...... 626 Right ....... 585 130 ................ Island 63, Miss.................. ................................ Left ....... 6,545 636 6,120 FriarsPoint, Miss............................................... 648 ..... do....... ................ Cat Island, Ark ................... 3,710 - ............. .... 708 Right.... 50 Dismal Point, Ark.... Robinson Crusoe, Ark.................... ............... ............ ..................... 721 737 .....do....... ... .do....... 3,124 ....... 350 9,530 'I 2,774 H Redman Point, Tenn.-Ark ...................................... Randolph Point, Tenn.......................................... 740 ..... do....... .......... ..... " ................ 11450 7,650 1 744 Left ....... 5,183................ 11440 14,543 Poker Point, Ark................ ... .............. .. 745 Right ....... 5,690 Lookout, Tenn.-Ark... .................. 772 .....do....... Ashport-Golddust, Ark....... .............. 11160 5,510 ............. 799 .....do....... 7,960 Wrights Point, Ark.................... ........................ 823 ....do...... Island 21, Tenn... ... 2,221 ................ 2,221 0 ................... ........ 831 Left......... 35,720O Island 20, Mo. ................. .... ..... .... 834 Right........ 226 25 ............ .. Hathaway, Tenn.................... .............................. 4,796 : 858 Left...... 8,960'~ Steiart T.H., Mo............................. ....... 877 Right........ 276 31 6,296 Ruddles Point, Mo.. ......................... ................ 879 ..... do....... Island 9, Ky .................................... . . . . . . . . |... ............. |................ .............. () 2,880 2 913 Left......... '7,010". Prichard, Mo........ ......................... ........ 954 Right........ .............. 4,410 iI I I. Subtotal Memphis District...... ....... ............... ...................... 11,615, 186 1,050 400 112,325 Z See footnotes at end of table. C0 :,00 t!=t TABLE D-3. Memphis District-Continued 0 Operations fiscal year 1962 Lost, destroyed, or Miles above Construction nonoperative Operative on ro Location Cairo Bank since June 30, June 30, 1962 Gage Maintenance 1961 0 Reinforcement O New work (existing) 0 H Linear feet Linear feet Squares 1 Linearfeet Linearfeet x OHIO RIVER Standard revetment: Cache-Cairo, Ill..............................................0-4 . ............... Right....... ............ 163 ............... . 22,702 O ' 0 1 Square equal 10 by 10 feet (100 sq. ft.). 7 Includes 110 linear feet of stone revetment at Heloise. 2 Groins. 8 Includes 200 linear feet of destroyed work replaced with maintenance funds. 8 Linear feet of pile-and-stone dike. Dike extended 50 feet with maintenance 9 2,180 linear feet of reinforcement charged to Memphis Harbor project. funds. 10Operative length corrected for discrepancy in report of June 30, 1961. 490 54 Linear feet of triangular frame retards and pile dikes. linear feet of destroyed work replaced with maintenance funds in fiscal year Submerged dike; status unknown. e Lumber mattress revetment. 1961. 11 Linear feet of dike on which repairs were made. z $4 Vs " F-+ TABLE E-1. New Orleans District [Present condition of project levees, from Cape Girardeau, Mo., to Head of Passes, La., and levee operations for fiscal year 1962, as provided for in sec. 1 of the act of May 15, 1928, as amended] Built to Operations fiscal year 1962 In system Built June approved Contents Contents Required Estimated Percent Location of levee when com- 30, 1962 grade June 30, June 30, to final complete pleted 1 and 1961 Mainte- Lost or 1962 complete contents 2 section New work nance abandoned 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 MISSISSIPPI RIVER Miles Miles Miles cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards Lower Tensas .......................... 15.5 14.4 12.9 8,755 61 8,816 1,179 9,995 88 t Atchafalaya ........................... '118.9 3 +118.9 '114.3 '62,128... . . . . 62,128 283 62,411 99 w Lafourche............................... 82.0 82.0 68.2 19,740 19,740 545 20,285 97 - Barataria ................................. 71.9 71.9 56.8 10,181. .. ... ............ ........... ........... 10,187 322 10,500 97 Pontchartrain, including 2.1 miles Baton Rouge front levee.................... Lake Borgne ............... .......... 125.7 48.3 125.7 48.3 120.2 31.5 46,125 1............ ......... 46,125 187 46,312 99 I. 7,805 3O 7,815 268 8,083 97 . Orleans Parish.. ............... ....... 27.5 27.5 11.8 4,386 4,389 273 4,662 94 Total Mississippi River .............. 489.8 488.7 415.7 159,120 61 19........... 159,200 3,057 162,257 98 C LAKE PCNTCHARTRAIN JEFFERSON PARISH, LA. Lake Pontchartrain protection levee......... 17.4 17.4 7.7 8,925 8,930 (6) (6) (1) O BONNET CARRE SPILLWAY Upper and lower guide levees ............... 11.7 11.7 11.7 12,001 .................. ........... 12,001 1............ 12,001 100 LOWER RED RIVER 0 Hotwells to Moncla, La.................... 59.8 59.8 '59.8 20,767. ..................... 20,767 1,248 22,015 94 Z ATCHAFALAYABASIN FLOODWAY East bank Atchafalaya River .............. 50.8 50.8 50.8 21,339 94 21,433 161 21,594 99 Bayou Des Glaises .... .............. 8.1 8.1 8.1 1,217 1,217 1,217 100 West bank Atchafalaya River.............. 60.7 60.7 60.0 11,160 11,160 ....... .. .. 11,199 99 Simmesport Ring ..................... 1.6 1.6 1.6 990 990 990 100 Melville Ring .. ........... ......... 4.1 4.1 4.1 2,385 2,385 2,385 100 Krots Springs Ring................. 1.7 1.6 1.6 1,187 ........ 110 1,187 1,200 99 Mansura Hills to Hamburg. .......... 20.3 20.3 20.3 4,943 5,053 5,053 100 West protection levee, Hamburg to Berwick drainage canal via Calumet, including 1 mile Berwick floodwall ................ 128.2 128.2 108.7 78,167 7 330 1............ 78,504 ( ) 00 See footnotes at end of table. M TABLE E-1. New Orleans District--Continued 0 00 Built to Operations fiscal year 1962 In system Built June approved Contents . . Contents Required Estimated Percent Location of levee when com- 30, 1962 grade June 30, June 30, to final complete pleted 1 and 1961 Mainte- Lost or 1962 complete contents 2 section New work nance abandoned O 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 y Miles Miles Miles cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards Levees west of Berwick and the lower Atchaf- alaya River, Berwick drainage canal to Charenton drainage canal ............... 60.5 60.5 31.3 11,753 24 ........................ 11,777 (6) (b) (1) Morganza upper guide levee .............. 9.0 9.0 9.0 5,477 .................................. ,5,477 100 East protection levee, Morganza to Cutoff Bayou, including 19.6 miles of Morganza lower guide levee and 1.7 miles of floodwall, etc ................................... 107.9 107.9 40.7 56,150 397 275 ............ 56,822 (s) (6) (6) cl 0 Total Atchafalaya Basin and floodway. 452.9 452.8 336.2 194,768 538 699 ............ 196,005 Combined total .................... 1,031.6 1,030.4 831.1 395,581 604 718 ............396,903 . ............................ z n i w 1 i.. r . nn A 4- n n 4 _ _ _ ! An A A _ __ 7 _ Irea protected from Mirssisslppi Diver project nooa--adopseu project compl ete--is 23,621 square miles for entire project. w.. n 4n M * i n 1 A . * Excluding yardage to be abandoned. 8 Adjusted due to construction of Port Allen lock. SIncludes new tie-in levee below Old River lock. 6 Indeterminate pending completion of studies underway. 6 Levees to grade, but minor deficiencies to section exist on approximately 19 miles. cTJ CO z TABLE E-2. Vicksburg District [Present condition of project levees, from Cape Girardeau, Mo., to Head of Passes, La., and levee operations for fiscal year 1962, as provided for in sec. 1 of the act of May 15, 1928, as amended] Built to Operations fiscal year 1962 In system Built June approved Contents Contents Required Estimated Percent Location of levee when com- 30, 1962 grade June 30, June 30, to final complete pleted 1 and 1961 Mainte- Lost or 1962 complete contents section New work nance abandoned 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1, 000 Miles Miles Miles cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards RIVER MISSISSIPPI w Lower Yazoo........................... 2178.3 2178.3 174.1 197,007 32 ............ 198,857 23,309 222,166 90 Upper Tensas .......................... 148.6 148.6 116.3 139,029 1,850 860 20 ............ 139,889 12,190 152,079 92 z= Lower Tensas. ................ ........ 125.7 125.7 125.7 121,125 13 13................... 121,125 3,701 124,826 97 H Subtotal Vicksburg District.......... 452.6 452.6 416.1 457,161 2,710 65 ............ 459,871 39,200 499,071 92 0 YAZOORIVERANDBASIN f12 t- IHeadwater .............................. 3556.0 ,129.0 699.0 22,710 3,051 ............ 25,761 18,357 1............ 44,118 58 C 0 Backwater ............................... 98.0 2.5 '3.5 808 1,095 ........................ 1,903 23,097 25,000 8 Total Yazoo River and Basin........ 654.0 131.5 102.8 23,518 4,146 ........................ 27,664 41,454 69,118 40 I==l ,< ARKANSAS RIVER, ARK. North Bank............................. 761.5 56.2 56.2 17,340 1,228 ............ ............ 18,568 8719 819,287 96 ry South Bank .............................. 85.6 85.6 85.6 49,818 209 ........................ 50,027 3,553 53,580 93 y H Total Arkansas River ............... 147.1 141.8 141.8 67,158 1,437 ......................... 68,595 4,272 72,867 94 RED RIVER BACKWATERLEVEES Total Red River Backwater.......... 9151.8 93.1 93.1 16,846 ................ ................. 1016,846 5,820 1122,666 75 IArea protected for Mississippi River project nooa--aaoptea project com- plete-is 23,621 square miles for entire project. 89Sincludes 5.3 miles ior Gillett new levee whicn has been aeferrea naenfinitely. Includes 295,000 cubic yards for Gillett new levee. 2Includes 1.4 miles of concrete levee wall and 0.3 miles earth levee on Vicks- burg City front. Does not include 2.1 miles of high ground where no levee was required. 10 Does not include approximately 900,000 cubic yards hydraulic fill placed 3Includes 29 miles, Greenwood protection works, but does not include 2.5 in Smithland Landing river crossings. miles of highway and railroad embankment to be utilized in project. n Includes 5,820,000 cubic yards of embankment in 58.7 miles of new levee SIncludes 40 miles built to interim grade and section., in Sicily Island area as recommended in Mississippi River and Tributaries com- s Includes 22.5 miles Greenwood protection works. prehensive review. e Includes 1 mile of highway embankment. 00 TABLE E-3. Memphis District 00 [Present condition of project levees, from Cape Girardeau, Mo. to Head of Passes, La. and levee operations for fiscal year 1962, as provided for in sec. 1 of the act of May 15, 1928, as amended] Built to Operations fiscal year 1962 In system Built June approved Contents Contents Required Estimated Percent Location of levee when com- 30, 1962 grade June 30, June 30, to final complete pleted 1 and 1961 Mainte- Lost or 1962 complete contents 2 section New work nance abandoned td Itj 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 O Miles Miles Miles cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards MISSISSIPPI RIVER Upper Yazoo ......................... 93.6 93.6 89.6 105,087 275 25 105,362 2,547 107,909 98 Tiptonville-Obion River .................. 43.9 36.5 30.6 12,344 1,367 11 13,711 1,378 15,089 91 Slough Landing Neck dike ................ 9.6 9.6 9.6 1,329 ......... 9. 1,329 160 1,489 89 Reelfoot. ............................ '22.7 22.7 22.7 13,903 94 13,997 121 14,118 99 White River backwater ................. 440.3 40.3 40.3 29,281 29,281 29,281 100 White River. .................... 574.4 74.4 46.8 67,151 53 15 67,204 2,644 69,848 96 Lower St. Francis .................. '212.3 212.3 210.5 133,285 491 27 133,776 2,071 135,847 98 Upper St. Francis.... ............. 7121.4 121.4 121.4 46,259... . . . . 46,259 46,259 100 Thebes to Cairo, Ill.... ........... 89.7 9.7 9.7 6,463 ... . . . . 3 6,463 ............ 6,463 100 Subtotal Memphis District........... 627.9 620.5 581.2 415,102 2,280 93 ............ 417,382 8,921 426,303 98 z Li OHIO RIVER F- Ohio River............................ 95.3 5.3 5.3 3,644 ............ 9 ............ 3,644 ............ 3,644 100 U13 ST. FRANCIS RIVER East bank... ................. 205.3 126.1 105.5 48,418 272 18 1016,715 31,975 26,533 58,508 55 West bank....................... 151.9 136.7 129.2 20,907 1,236 54 921 21,222 4,357 25,579 83 Subtotal Memphis District........... 357.2 262.8 234.7 69,325 1,508 72 17,636 53,197 30,890 84,087 63 LITTLE RIVER, ARK. East bank............. .... ......... 40.7 40.7 40.7 5,853 .......... ............ ............ 5,853 ............ 5,853 100 West bank. . ................. 35.3 35.3 35.3 4,099 4,099............. 4,099 100 Elk Chute.... ................ 39.9 39.9 34.2 5,652 .......... 4 ............ 5,652 458 6,110 93 Subtotal Memphis District........... 115.9 115.9 110.2 15,604 ............ 4 ............ 15,604 458 16,062 97 1.6 75 1,479 LITTLE RIVER, MO. 10,762 ..... ... ''26.4 19.7 19. Diversion ohannel ....................... 1126.4 19.7 19.71 10,762 1............ 10,7621 725 11,487 94 WHITERIVER Augusta to Clarendon ..................... 1249.2 39.5 39.5 9,566.......... ......... .............9,566 1,834 11,400 84 HARBOR MEMPHIS Memphis Harbor .......................... 10.4 8.9 8.9 5,699 257 39 ............5,956 1,395 7,351 81 I -- - I--- I I I I I I I I Grand Total Memphis District....... 1,192.3 1,072.6 999.5 529,702 4,045 217 17,636j 516,111 44,223 560,334 92 I 1Area protected from Mississippi River project flood--adopted project com- 8 Includes 6.3 miles of Cairo drainage district (Mississippi River) levee and plete-23,621 square miles for entire project. 3.45 miles of Cairo City (Mississippi River) levee. 2 Excluding yardage to be abandoned. Includes 5.3 mles of levee from Cache River levee to end of floodwall at sIncludes 1.4 miles of Hickman City levee and 21.3 miles of Mississippi Cairo, Ill. River frontline levee-Hickman, Ky., to Bessie, Tenn. 10Design of Madison-Marianna levee completed, 16,714,560 cubic yards of F- ' Extends from Old Town, Ark., to Laconia Circle levee, Ark. gross channel excavation abandoned. s Includes 66.1 miles of frontline levee from Helena, Ark., to mouth of White 11 Includes 14.1 miles of main line diversion levee; 2.7 miles of Ramsey Creek w 1- River, Ark., and 8.3 miles of Laconia back circle levee. levee; 2.9 miles of Sals Creek levee; 5.6 miles of West Basin levee; and 1.1 6 From New Madrid, Mo., to mouth of St. Francis River, Ark. miles of Middle Valley levee. 7Includes 84.3 miles of frontline levee from Commerce to New Madrid, a Includes 1.7 miles of levee above Augusta and 1.7 miles of levee at George- 02 Mo., 35.2 miles of Birds Point-New-Madrid setback levee and 1.9 miles of St. 02 town, Ark. Johns Bayou levee- -4 -4 r 0 I~ -4 02 TABLE E-4. o oo [Yardage placed in levees and levee operations for fiscal year 1962, as provided for in sec. 6 of the Flood Control Act approved May 15, 1928, as amended] Operation fiscal year 1962 Li m Built to Approxi- In system Built approved Contents Contents Required Estimated Percent mate Location of levee when June 30, grade and June 30. Lost June 30, to final complete area completed 1962 section 1961 New work or 1962 complete contents protected abandoned 0 lxi 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Square . Miles Miles Miles cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards miles L MISSISSIPPI RIVER St. Louis District 1-4 Clemens Station, Mo. to mouth of Missouri River................................. 28 28 25.6 25.6 ................... .......... 4 Mouth of Illinois River to Prairie du Pont, Ill.. 20 20 30 Prairie du Pont, Ill., to Grand Tower, Ill..... Mouth of Missouri River to Cape Girardeau, 27.1 . .. .......... ..................... ... ...27.1.......... .......... .. .......... Mo......................... 4 4 57.2 57.2.................... 2 Grand Tower, Ill., to Thebes, Ill............ 46 46 1,252.4 1,252.4 .................... ......... 8 Rock Island District Rock Island to New Boston, Ill.............. 31.4 31.4 31.4 4,485 4,485 4,485 100 Total Mississippi River............ 129.4 129.4 ' 34.4 5,847 ............ .. 5,847.3 ............ 4,485 61 MISSI1SIPPI RIVER TRIBUTARIES New Orleans District RED RIVER Moncla to Lake Long...... ................ 20.7 20.7 20.7 394 394 394 100 () t Vicksburg District ARKANSAS RIVER Farelly Lake levee district ................. ............ ............ . 2768 768 768 100 (,) RIVER OUACHITA East bank below Monroe, La........... 68.5 364.7 364.7 43,737 3,737 500 4,237 90 50 West bank: Bawcomville, La................ 3.1 3.1 3.1 2 .......... 283 ........... 283 100 1.5 Harrisonburg to Little River, La....... 12.4 12.4 12.4 '682 .......... 682 ........... 682 100 (*) Total Oucahita River ................ 84.0 80.2 80.2 4,702 ............ ........ ... 4,702 500 5,202 .......... 51.6 YAZOORIVER West bank .................. ........... 8.7 8.7 8.7 735 ............. ........ 735 735 100 75.8 Memphis District WHITE RIVER Horn Lake, Ark................ ........ 1.8 1.8 1.8 50.1 ..................... 50.1 ............ 50.1 100 (') H Louisville District 012.0. OHIO RIVER Shawneetown, Ill........................ 3.8 3.8 3.8 315.5 .......... ......... 315.5 ........ 315.5 100 1.3 - St. Louis District b ILLINOIS RIVER n Havana, Ill., to Beardstown, Ill............. 25 25 8 1,610 ........................ 1,610......... ....... ... ............ .. 24 !y Beardstown, Ill., to mouth of Illinois River... 166 166 127 15,940 ....................... 15,940 ............ ......... ... .......... 172 Total Illinois River................ 191 191 135 17,550 ........................ 17,550 196 i H0' 21 Unknown. 8 Includes 82,253 cubic yards constructed by local Interests. Includes 1.8 miles constructed by local interests. '5 Includes 115,000 cubic yards constructed by local Interests. 6 Includes approximately 95,000 cubic yards constructed by local lntret Approximately 91 square miles benefited. 0 O TABLE E-5. New Orleans District [Effective levee wave-wash protection build during fiscal year and protection structures in place June 80, 1962] Operations fiscal year 1962 Lost or 0 Miles above Location Head of Bank In place destroyed during Operative on Passes June 30, 1961 fiscal year 1962 June 30, 1962 New work Maintenance LJ 0 Ifj 0 b Linear feet Linear feet Linear feet Linear feet Linear feet 0 MISSISSIPPI RIVER 1-3 Barataria levee district.. ......... ..... ........ ........ 10-81 Right........ 218,796 SP 4,943 SP 8,918SP . .... 232,027 SP 0 89,247 WR ..... 10,946 WR ......... 78,301 WR lid 121,229 SE 28,050 SE 484 SE ............... 149,279 SE ................. Totals 308,043 4,943 8,918 210,946 310,328 Lafourche levee district..... ............................. 95-175 Right........ 95,888 SP ................ 1,400 SP .............. 95,888 SP 933WR ............................... 933WR, 20,207 SE ................ 1,368 SE ................ 21,575 SE Totals .... ...................... .............. . 96,821 ............... 1,400 ................96,821 Atchafalaya levee district..... ........................... 175-302Right........ 0 SP 850 SP ............................... 850 SP z Total'......................... 0 850 .. .......... ................... 850 Lake Borgne levee district..... ............................ 45-91 Left.......... 124,697 SP ................ 7,279 SP.......... 129,459 SP 38,051 WR.............................. 1,881 WR 36,170WR w- 71,734 SE 10,000 SE ................ .......... 81,734 SE i.. ................ Total ......................... 162,748 7,279 1,881 165,629 Pontchartrain levee district........................................... 104-228 Left........ 25,680 SP 25,680 SP 1,480SE 1,480SE Total......... ........................ Left......... .91-104 25,680 .. ........ ............ .................. 25,680 Orleans levee district........ ............................ 91-104 Left......... 13,213 SP .................................. 13,213SP 2,022 W 2,022WR 5,912 SE ................ 1,765 SE ................ 51,912SE T otal .................................. .............. .............. 15,235 ............... ................ . . ... .... 15,235 Orleans levee district ................. ...................... 81-95 1Right........ 33,391 SP ............ 6,149 WR .... ............ 4,015 SP ................ ................ 37,006 SP 2,649 WR 3,500 WR 17,765 SE. 17,765 SE T otal 1........................................................ 39,540 ................ 4,015 2,649 40,506 Total Mississippi River ....................................... 648,067 5,793 21,612 15,476 655,049 LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN,SEEFERSON PARISH, LAg Lake Pontchartrain levees ............................. 59,957 SE 361,283 SE 53,957 SE I I I I I , 1 3Supplements existing protection with overlapping berm paving and toe pro- 1 Shore erosion (which includes levee toe protection) supplements slope paving and wooden revetment and is not included in totals. tection. s Replaced by slope paving. SP-Slope paving; WR-wooden revetment; SE-shore-erosion protection. w 02 0. rM b I- 0 C r0 M M w CC O .CG O 00 H TABLE F-1. New OrleansDistrict 0 n [New channel improvement work accomplished during fiscal year and operative portion of project feature in place June 80, 1962] x In project when complete Completed June 30, 1962 Operations during fiscal year Location of improvement Year . - Percent initiated complete Excavation Clean out Excavation Clean out Excavation Clean out ITJ Cubic yards Miles Cubic yards Miles Cubic yards Miles Bayou des Glaises diversion channel..................... 1938 2,222,845 ................ 2,222,845 .............. ................................ 100 td Bayous Rapides, Boeuf, and Cocodrie.................... 1946 22,039,158 23.3 16,482,158 13.3................................ 75 Charenton drainage and navigation canal................. Wax Lake Outlet.. ............................... 1939 1938 10,878,835 ................ 57,546,196 ................ 398576251................ . 10,878,835 .............................. 57,546,196 ................................................ 236,356,612................ .. ............... 15,781,537................ 100 100 59 f"z Atchafalaya Basin Floodway.. ......................... 1933 Morganza floodway. • , . ... : 1941 , . 1,321,753 ................ 1,321,753 ................................................ ,'" " ... ............. . ...... ..... ,....::... 100 Old River outflow channel..................1956 67,449,316 ................ 67,449,316..............................................100 100 Old River inflow channel............ Old River lock approach channels............ ................ .......... 1960 1961 6,181,575 .................. 6,750,500 ................ . .. 6,181,575 . ............................................... 295,895 .................... 295,895 ................ 4 v Baton Rouge Harbor (Devils Swamp)....................1958 17,074,633 ................ 7,458,086 ................ ........... ....... 44 TABLE F-2. Vicksburg District [New channel improvement work accomplished during fiscal year and operative portion of project feature in place June 30, 1962] In project when complete Completed June 30, 1962 Operations during fiscal year Location of improvement Year Percent initiated complete Excavation Clean out Excavation Clean out Excavation Clean out 1,000 1,000 1,000 cubic yards Miles cubic yards Miles cubic yards Miles YAZOO BASIN HEADWATERS,MISS. Coldwater River... ............................... 1941 9,897 46.70 9,897 46.70 ................................ 100 Arkabutla Canal........1948 1948 ................ ............... 81 81 ....... ........... 100 Tallahatchie River......... ..... 1940 7,361 110.00 3,476 110.0 .............. ............ 55 Little Tallahatchie River and Panola Quitman Floodway... 1939 1,170 33.19 1,170 33.19 ................................ 100 Yocona River.... ................................ 1952 606 ............... 606 .............................. .............. 100 Bobo Bayou...... ............................. 1944 2,773 5.52 1,819 4.80 1,396 0.8 70 Cassidy Bayou........................................ 1943 10,538 47.60 3,033 47.60 ................ .......... 33 Yalobusha River....................................... 1939 6,337 42.05 6,337 42.05 ............................... 100 Pelucia Creek ........................................... 1953 1,299 2.90 ................ 2.90 . .............................. 1 Yazoo River......................................... 1941 5,106 ................. 4,202 .............................................. 82 Lower Auxiliary Channel............................... 1956 23,520 ....................... 23,520 ............. 1,723 17.... ................ 100 Tchula Lake............ ................................ .... .. 3245 31.50 .2. . . 7 D avid and Burrell Bayous.............................. 1957 1,032 18.82 51,032 18.82 ............... ................ 100 Tippo Bayou-Ascalmore Creek............................ 1956 2,800 20.3 85 20.3 ................................. 3 M cKinney Bayou.. .................................. 1960 207 2.18 207 2.18 . ............... . ............... 100 BIG SUNFLOWER RIVER, ETC., MISS. Big Sunflower River......... ................... 1947 5,324 195.10 5,324 70.43 306 25.72 78 Quiver River... .............................. 194725.51,91...................... 1947 2,373 55.50 1,393 31.18 .17.38 .......... Deer Creek............................................ 1947 73 2.04 73 2.04 ................. ................ 100 Steele Bayou............................................ 1947 3,451 45.40 3,451 51.40 .......... ..................... 100 Big Sunflower River tributaries.......................... 1957 7,856 173.45 6,272 31.48 452 7.74 50 Quiver River tributaries.............................. 1960 ............. 20.00 ............... 8.08 ............... 4.88 40 Steele Bayou tributaries.................................. 1959 ... ... 791 33.8 71.1.4 791 ........... 13.44 ...... ...................... ...... 75 BOEUF AND TENSAS BASINS, ARK. AND LA. Bayou La Fourche, La.................................. 1949 152,106 1.10 35,816 1.10 ............... ................ 70 Big and Colewa Creeks, La.............................. 1947 1 '20,179 147.21 24,375 34.01 ............... ................ 40 Tensas River, La....................................... 1947 '19,942 1151.29 1,092 86.16 ............... ................ 15 Boeuf River, Ark. and La............................... 1953 20,937 50.58 20,937 17.98 ............................... 80 Flesehmans Bayou, Ark.............................................. 518 3.0 Caney B ayou, Ark....................................... . ............ .... 7.1 7............................. ................ ................ ................ See footnotes at end of table. ,o TABLE F-2. Vicksburg District-Continued N CD EP In project when complete Completed June 30, 1962 Operations during fiscal year Location of improvement Year _ Percent initiated complete Excavation Clean out Excavation Clean out Excavation Clean out C BOEUF AND TENSAS BASINS, ARK. 1,000 1,000 1,000 O ANDLA.-Continued cubic yards Miles cubic yards Miles cubic yards Miles Canal 18, Ark .................................... ........... ...... 690 1.6 Big Bayou,Ark ... ................................. 1952 1,827 14.87 1,827 14.87 ............................... 00 Black Pond Slough, Ark................................ 1962 580 ................ 220 220 ................ 22................ 29 Bayou Macon, Ark. and La............... ........... 1959 16,000 84.2 8,852 57.93 5,632 11.63 65 Rush Bayou, Ark ............................................................. 6.2. Canal 19, Ark.... . ........ ....................... 1957 11,572 ................ 10,532 ................................ ................ 91 Or Kirsch Lake Canals, Ark............................................ .... 620 ............. ..................... Canal 43, Ark ........................................... 1956 698 24.80 698 24.80 ................ ............... 100 Canal81,Ark .......................................... 1957 4,433 7.01 4,433 7.01 ................................ 100 BAYOU METO BASIN, ARK. C C M eto. ................... Bayou Met. ...... .......................... ................... .......... .................. 9,940 9,940 19.90 ............................................................ z Bayou Meto and Salt Bayou............ Little ................. ................................................ Wabbaseka Bayou ...................................... ............ 5,650 353 10.92.............. 20.10........................................................... z BradleySlough ................... .......................................... 470......................................................................... 1Y 'Includes additional improvements recommended in Mississippi River and 2 Does not include approximately 1,500,000 cubic yards of channel excavation tributaries comprehensive review. completed by localinterests in the lower 26 miles of the stream. Lxi t' C/2 TABLE F-3. Memphis District [New channel improvement work accomplished during fiscal year and operative portion of project feature in place June 30, 1962] In project when complete Completed June 30, 1962 Operations during fiscal year Location of improvement Year Percent initiated complete Excavation Clean out Excavation Clean out Excavation Clean out 1,000 1,000 1,000 cubic yards Miles cubic yards Miles cubic yards Miles West Memphis drainage project, Ark ..................... 1951 1,747 2.2 1,747 2.2 ................................ 100 Mississippi County drainage district 17, Ark................ 1947 1,068 ............... .1,068 ............. ............ ... ................ 100 i Cross County project ditch, Ark ....................... 1942 7,710 ............... 7,710 ............................................... 100 Tyronsa River, Ark. ...... ....... .......... 1939 2,795 ............... 2,795 ............................ ................. 100 Birds Point-New Madrid, intercepting ditch enlargement, r/2 Samos and vicinity, Mo .............. .......... 1952 285 4.6 285 4.6 ................................ 100 rJ2 Mississippi River, western Tennessee tributaries (backwater H area). ...................................... 1952 4,890 26.1 541 26.1 ................................ 11 Cache River, Ark...................................... (1) 97,000................. L'Anguille River, Ark............................... (1) 16,000 23.5..................................... ...................... Mississippi River below Cape Girardeau, west Tennessee tributaries................................... 1961 15,900 160.0 2,996 ................ 2,996 ............... 19 C St. Francis River, Mo. and Ark................. ....... 1953 75,557 16.0 56,860 ............... 5,389 ................ 75 Reelfoot Lake area, Ky. and Tenn., Bayou du Chien, Ky. and '-4 Tenn ................................... ............. () 215................................... Wolf River and tributaries, Tenn.............. ......... 1960 5,540 ................ 537 ............................................... 10 O Running Reelfoot Bayou, Tenn.......................... 1955 4,145 ................ 4,145 ............................................. 100 1 Authorized, but no work started. rj2 z t3 0O c Cn 2096 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 TABLE G. Costs during fiscal year 1962 Construction Maintenance Other FEDERAL FUNDS Flood Control, Mississippi River and tributaries: Memphis District: General investigations ................. ................. $55,761 Advance engineering and design ......................... $39,744 .............. Mississippi River levees ................................ 1,148,003 $375,036 Memphis Harbor ...................................... 566,221 St. Francis Basin ................ ............. ........ 3,306,311 324,220 Lower W hite River.................................... 424,959 37,020 Channel improvement. .................................. 8,928,070 6,328,671 . . . . . . . West Tennessee tributaries ............................ 524,039 .............. Wolf River and tributaries ............................ 29,873 . . . . . . . Reelfoot Lake ........... .................. 540 Inspection of completed works ......................... 29,616 Mapping................................. 112,627 Subtotal ........ ........... . ................. 14,967,764 7,207,192 55,761 Vicksburg District: General investigations ...... .......................... ....... .. ............ 48,353 Advance engineering and design ......................... 126 ...... ..... Mississippi River levees ................................ 1,107,039 117,971........... Lower Arkansas River ............................... 705,542 80,697. Tensas Basin .. ............................. 1,798,943 33,412. Jonesville, La ......................................... 3,500. .................... Yazoo Basin ............... ...................... 4,572,154 1,350,901.. Vicksburg Harbor.................................... 21,225 .......... Channel improvement .................................. 10,244,202 5,004,102........... Mapping ............................................................. ...... 6595. 117,324 .......... Greenville Harbor ... ........ .................... 946,595 . Inspection of completed works .......................... ........... 17,079 Subtotal ................................. ......... 19,399,330 6,721,490 48,353 New Orleans District: General investigations................................. .............. 7........ . . 238 2 Inspection of comlpeted works........................... 7,540 Mississippi River levees ................................. 511,317 856,759........... Lower Red River .................................... 188,173........... Old River Control. ....... ........................... 6,744,463 ............ Bayou Cocodrie and tributaries ......................... 726 .......... 24,006 ........... Lake Pontchartrain......................... 309,726 Atchafalaya Basin.................................... 3,850,113 1,660,148........... Channel improvement .................................. 3,687,142 1,770,249........... Bonnet Carre ................. ....................... ............. 111,282 M apping............... ............................. ............ 51,999 ........... Subtotal............. ..................... 15,102,763 4,670,159 238 Total Federal funds ..................... ......... 49,469,858 18,598,842 104,353 CONTRIBUTEDFUNDS Memphis District: Wolf River and tributaries................................ 7,007 . . ............ New Orleans District: Old River control .................. ........................ 12,697 ....................... Total contributed funds .............................. 19,704 . ........... Grand total, Federal and contributed funds.................. 49,489,562 18,598,842 :104,353 MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2097 TABLE H-1. Statement of allotments under appropriationsfor flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries from May 15, 1928 through fiscal year 1962 (new structure efective July 1, 1955) District or installation and class of work Allotments ALLOTMENTS CHARGEABLE AGAINST FLOOD CONTROL ACT LIMITATIONS COMPLETED WORKS Waterways Experiment Station............................................................... $874,000 Office, Chief of Engineers ................................................... . ........... ...... 19,158 Rock Island District: S. G. and 0. prior to August 18, 1941 ..................................................... 14,009 St. Louis District: S. G. and O0 prior to August 18, 1941 ....... .......................................... 169,351 Subtotal ............. .................................. ......... ....... 1,076,518 Memphis District: Des Arc, Ark........... .............................................................. 178,924 Contraction works .................................... ................................. 8,692,790 De Valls Bluff, Ark..................................................................... 231,215 M apping... ... ................................................................. 1,450,336 New M adrid Floodway .................................................................. 6,521,543 Roads on levees (Miss. River levees) ... ........................................... 12,426 S. G. and 0. prior to August 18, 1941 (excludes $603,000') ................................... 1,395,766 Subtotal.................. ......................................................... 18,483,002 Vicksburg District: Boeuf Basin Levees .......... ..................................... ..................... 2,764,605 Channel Realignment, Arkansas River ................... ............... ................. 125,073 Contraction Works ................................................................... 1,972,182 Eudora Floodway.................................................. .......... 826,235 Grants Canal (Miss. River levees) ...................................................... 7,069 Roads on Leveesg........................................................................ Mapping... 1 05,66020 1,531,020 S. G. and 0. prior to August 18, 1941 (excludes $920,000 ) ....... . ................... 1,430,201 Subtotal .................. .................. ................... ... ..... 8,762,049 New Orleans District: Atchafalaya River and Basin, La ...................................................... 3,375,492 Bonnet Carre spillway, La.............. ............................................. 14,212,197 Contraction works ................................................................... 1,258,916 Mapping...................................... ............................ 1,112,966 Roads on levees .......... . .. ................. ............. ..... 540,838 SS.G. and 0. prior to August 18, 1941 (excludes $603,000') ................................ 2,098,566 Wax Lake Outlet and Charenton Canal................... .................. .............. 10,098,817 Atchafalaya Basin, Rights -of-way and flowage Bayou des Glaises Setback .................. ... 387,917 Subtotal........... ... ................ ....................... .. 33,085,711 All other completed items: Surveys under Sec. 10 of FC Act approved May 15, 1928................................ 4,995,214 Impounded savings.................................................. .............. 1,593,097 Plant transferred to revolving fund.... ......... ..................................... 24,924,578 OCE (portion of allotment transferred to revolving fund, Washington Dist.) ............ ... .. . 19,882 Subtotal................................. 31,532,772 Total completed works ....... ............................................. 92,940,055 UNCOMPLETED WORKS Rock Island District: Levees under sec. 6, Flood Control Act May 15, 1928................. ................. .. 579,462 St. Louis District: Levees under sec. 6, Flood Control Act May 15, 1928......... .......... ........ 1,897,980 Subtotal.................. .................. ................... ... ..... 2,477,442 Memphis District: Miss. River levees: Miss. River levees (includes $200,000')...................................................... 84,893,297 New Madrid ............................................................... 98,000 Channel improvement: Revetments (includes $308,000') ..................................................... 187,571,000 Dredging.............. ........... .................................... 26,810,000 Dikes .......... ...................................................... 8,736,000 Reelfoot Lake .......... ............................................................ 444,005 St. Francis Basin: Wappapello Reservoir (includes $20,0001) ............. .. .................. 7,910,000 St. Francis River and tributaries (includes $75,000 ._excludes $70,0001) .................. 34,369,000 Big Slough and Mayo Ditch ......................................................... 855,000 Little River drainage ............................................................... 1,797,000 2098 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 TABLE H-1. Continued District or installation and class of work Allotments Lower White River: Augusta to Clarendon, Ark .................... ................................... $1,378,172 White River Backwater Levee, Ark. (excludes $14,0001) ................... ............ 8,705,827 Levees under sec. 6, Flood Control Act May 15, 1928 ... .................................. 108,651 Memphis Harbor (excludes $36,000') ..................................................... 15,400,000 West Tennessee tributaries (excludes $55,000') .............. ........................... 865,000 Wolf River and tributaries (excludes $43,000 ) ............................................. 963,000 Subtotal ................................... ................... ........... 380,903,954 Vicksburg District: Mississippi River levees (includes $200,000' and excludes Grants Canal, $7,069, shown under completed works) ..................................................................... 71,070,000 Lower Arkansas River: North bank (excludes $10,000') ...................................................... 6,730,000 South bank (includes $15,000') .......... .................................... 14,265,000 Tensas Basin: Boeuf and Tensas Rivers, etc. (excludes $41,000') ............. .................... 18,879,000 Red River backwater levee, La. (includes $17,000') ..................................... 8,065,000 Jonesville, La.. ............................................................... 139,899 Channel improvement: Revetments (includes $308,000') .................................................... 131,000,000 Dredging . ............................................................. 20,425,000 Dikes ........................................ 745,000 Levees under sec. 6, Flood Control Act May 15, 1928 ..................................... 958,174 Vicksburg Harbor (excludes $12,000') ..................................................... 4,684,678 Greenville Harbor (excludes $11,000') ..................................................... 1,150,000 Yazoo Basin: Sardis Reservoir (includes $20, 000') ................... .............................. 11,832,000 Enid Reservoir (includes $30,000 ') .... ...... .................................. 15,142,000 Arkabutla Reservoir (includes $20,000') .............. ............................. 12,030,000 Grenada Reservoir (includes $70,000') ................................................ 31,423,000 Greenwood (includes $15,000') ....................................................... 2,650,732 Belzoni (includes $500) ............................................................ 317,156 Yazoo City (includes $4,000') ........... ................... .................. 2,209,611 Lower auxiliary channel (includes $23,000') ................ ......................... 10,930,000 Main stem (includes $38,000') ....................................................... 9,742,000 Tributaries (includes $53,000) ...................................................... 6,606,000 Big Sunflower River, etc., (includes $19,000') .......................................... 6,578,000 Yazoo Backwater (includes $60,000' )............ ............................... 1,132,000 Upper auxiliary channel (includes $27,500) ............................................ 27,500 Subtotal.......... ........................................... 388,731,752 New Orleans District: Baton Rouge Harbor (excludes $4,000 '). ................................................. 699,184 Bayou Cocodrie and tributaries (excludes $8,000') .......................................... 3,377,796 Channel improvement: Dredging. ................ ..................................... 35,945,266 Revetments (includes $308,000) ................................................. 49,009,999 Lower Red River (south bank levees) (excludes $1,000 ) ................................... 8,145,928 Lake Pontchartrain (excludes $27,200') .. ...... ................................. 4,806,800 Levees under sec. 6, Flood Control Act May 15, 1928 .................................. ... 200,680 Miss. River levees (includes $41,000') ..................................................... 46,459,673 Atchafalaya Basin: Atchafalaya Basin Floodway (includes $254,000') ..................................... 111,038,537 Morganza Floodway .... ....... .............................................. 35,992,116 Atchafalaya River navigation ....................................................... 303,462 Old River Control ...................................................................... 55,475,000 Subtotal.......................... ................... ............ 351,454,446 Total uncompleted works ......................................................... 1,123,567,596 ADVANCE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN (CONSTRUCTION) Memphis District: White River backwater levees ....................................................... 104,000 Vicksburgh District: Greenville Harbor ...................................................................... 59,000 Total advance engineering and design .............................................. . 163,000 Total chargeable against Flood Control Act Limitations excluding flood control emergencies .......... 1,216, 670,651 Total allotments for maintenance since August 18, 1941 ............... .................... 304,542,855 Total allotments for flood control emergencies ........................................ ... 14,900,300 Total allotments for general investigations ................................... ........... 2,427,829 Total flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries appropriations ............................. 1,538,541,636 See footnotes at end of table. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2099 TABLE H-1. Continued District or installation and class of work Allotments Appropriations in addition to flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries: Other appropriations itemized in footnote (1) pp. 2068 and 2069 Annual Report for fiscal year 1953. $32,068,908 Preauthorization studies under other appropriations ..................................... .. . 264,200 Subtotal......................................... 32,333,108 Grand total appropriated to June 30, 1962 ............... . ............................ 1,570,874,744 1 Preauthorization study costs. TABLE H-2. Statement of costs to June 30, 1962, incurred for the construction and repair of levees by the United States Government on existing project under supervi- sion of the President, Mississippi River Commission (includes all costs from Federal and contributed funds under secs. 6 and 7 of Flood Control Act ap- proved May 15, 1928, and under sec. 9 of Flood Control Act approved June 15, 1936, and expenditures from the beginning of earliest records through Decem- ber 31, 1961, for similar purposes by States, local levee districts and communi- ties interested, covering yardage placed, rights-of-way, engineering expenses, repair work, crevasse closing, high-water expenses, interest, etc.)' Costs incurred from Federal funds for levees through June 30, 1962 Engineer district New work Maintenance Memphis District: Section 6.......... ........ ................................ $108,651 $6,800 Sections 7 and 9 ................................. ........... ................ 3,453,809 All other: Flood protection in White River, Woodruff and Monroe 252,363 ................ Counties, Ark. Mississippi River levees.................................... 83,384,988 13,025,045 White River backwater, Ark. (part for levees) ................ 7,978,053 543,533 Augusta to Clarendon, Ark. (part for levees) ............. 1,986,458 43,737 Des Are, Ark. (part for levees) ............................ 178,924 De Valls Bluff, Ark. (part for levees) ..... ............. 241 New Madrid Floodway (part for levees) .... ............ 3,144,130 972 St. Francis Basin (part for levees) ........................ 15,461,467 820,786 Memphis Harbor (part for levees) ........................ 2,044,284 Roads on levees ........ ........................ 12,426 Little River drainage district .............................. 635 Subtotal (Memphis District) ............................. 114,552,625 17,894,685 Vicksburg District: Section 6 ................................................. 894,154 124,373 Sections 7 and 9 ................. ........................... 6,812,761 All other: Mississippi River levees .................................... 69,299,918 12,303,680 Arkansas River levees, Ark.......... .............. 21,581,942 3,139,565 Boeuf and Tensas Basin (part for levees) ............... 2,649,295 163,313 Vicksburg Harbor (part for levees) ................ ...... 17,804 . Red River backwater levees, La .......................... 8,056,997 543,263 Yazoo Basin (part for levees) .......... ............. 8,668,695 337,791 Jonesville, La.................. ......................... 512,899 ................ Yazoo Backwater ................. ...................... 550,309 ................ Subtotal (Vicksburg District) ........... .......... 112,232,017 23,424,748 New Orleans District: Section 6 ........................ ....................... 181,700 160,951 Sections 7 and 9 . ................ ........................... .................... 1,722,523 All other: Mississippi River levees (excludes Bonnet Carre spillway 45,872,479 28,350,060 levees). South Bank Red River levees............................. 8,135,642 3,606,817 Rights-of-way and flowage, Bayou des Glaises setback......... 387,917 Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, La. (part for levees) ............ 60,781,066 8,109,833 Morganza Floodway, La. (part for levees) ................. 2,291,678 63,915 Bonnet Carre spillway, La. (part for levees) ............. 3,329,173 Lake Pontchartrain, La. (part for levees) ................ 6,024,532 1,053,875 Subtotal (New Orleans District) .......................... 127,004,190 43,067,977 See footnotes at end of table. 2100 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U, S. ARMY, 1962 TABLE H-2.-Continued Costs incurred from Federal funds for levees through June 30, 1962 Engineer district New work Maintenance Other Districts: Omaha District (sections 7 and 9) ................................................. $101,487 Kansas City District (section 7) ................................ 25,000 Rock Island District: Section 6 ................................................ 2$825,962........ Section 7.... ......... .................................... ......... 166,785 St. Louis District: Section 6 ....... ..................................... 31,968,756 . Section 7. ................ .............................. .................. 29,787 Cincinnati (section 9) ......................... 9,688 Louisville District (section 9) ................... ....... .................... 17,860 Tulsa District (sections 7 and 9)............ ...... ............... 395,806 Little Rock District (sections 7 and 9).................. ............. ... 2,129,108 Subtotal (other Districts) ................... ............. 2,794,718 2,875,525 Total Federal funds ................. ................. 356,583,552 87,262,936 Costs incurred from contributed funds for levees through June 30, 1962 Engineer District New work Maintenance Rock Island District: Section 6.................................... ............... '$410,028 ............ Section 7.................................................... ........ ..... .$2,079 St. Louis District: Section 6. ...................................... 9.............. *988,577 Tulsa District (sections 7 and 9) ..................................................... 167 Memphis District: Section 6........ .......................................... 54,397 ................ Mississippi River levees...................................... 22,024................ Vicksburg District: Jonesville, La................................................. Section 6.... ............................................. Sections 7 and 9 ...................................................... 0236,065 100,000............ .... 27,603 620 Mississippi River levees ...................................................... 14,761 ........ New Orleans District: Section 6.................................................. 74,271 23,354 Mississippi River levees ........................................ 40,000 291,190 South Bank Red River levees .................................. 4,200 ................ Lake Pontchartrain, La ........................................ 1,350,000 ................ Total contributed funds .............................. 3,294,326 345,014 Grand total, Federal and contributed funds .................... 359,877,879 87,607,950 Expenditures for levees by State and local organizations Engineer district reporting from beginning of earliest available records through December 31, 1961 Rock Island District ......................................................... $6,160,918 St. Louis District...... ................................................. .. 30,531,659 Memphis District .......................................................... 110,165,342 Vicksburg District ................ ........................................ 65,366,824 New Orleans District ......................................................... 190,278,133 Total......................... ............................... .... 402,502,879 'For net expenditures on previous project by the United States Government for same purpose (U.S. funds, $81,857,583; and contributed funds, $16,177,994), see p. 1738, Annual Report for fiscal year 1937. SIncludes $1,145. Includes $18,142. Includes $572. 5 Includes $9,071. Expended by the northern district, St. Louis, Mo., in fiscal year 1929 on existing project.' The northern district was then abolished and its works transferred to the Rock Island and St. Louis Dis- tricts.) 6 Does not include $159,666 equivalent work reported as costs in fiscal year 1961 annual report. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION 2101 Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS 1 Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 General investigations: Allotted............... 569,000 $372,000 $114,562 $115,000 $125,000 $2,427,829 Cost.............. 511,091 418,327 144,736 118,457 1104,353 22,387,396 Construction (includes ad- vance engineering and design): Allotted.............. 46,207,900 46,841,600 51,890,950 54,531,000 54,005,000 1,167,092,437 Cost ... ...... 42,041,131 53,153,206 53,630,707 53,549,265 249,469,858 21,156,067,973 Maintenance: Allotted............. 16,411,710 18,660,290 17,063,000 17,250,000 18,820,000 354,921,406 Cost .............. 15,824,380 19,297,481 17,148,456 17,155,228118,598,843 2354,031,406 Flood controlemergencies (maintenance): Allotted.. ................................ ....... ... ....... ... 14,885,922 Cost..... ............ 31,411 5,693 145 ............ (1) 14,874,443 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ......................... $1,284,837 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 (Estimated) ................ 51,875,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 [estimated) ... 53,159,837 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project .................... a 232,206,448 1 Appropriations were as follows: Appropriations chargeable against Flood Control Act authorizations: Flood Control, Mississippi River and tributaries except for emergencies (excludes maintenance allotments Aug- ust 18, 1941 through June 30, 1962) : Net total allotted for works under Mississippi River Commission ........................... $1,185,137,879 Allotted for surveys under sec. 10 of Flood Control Act approved May 15, 1928 (not under Mississippi River Commission .............................. 4,995,214 Transferred to revolving fund .................... 24,944,460 Impounded savings ............................... 1,593,097 $1,216,670,651 Flood control emergencies: Net total allotted ................................ 14,885,922 Impounded savings ............................... 14,377 14,900,300 Additional funds not chargeable against Flood Control Act authorizations: Appropriations for Flood Control, Mississippi River and tributaries except for flood control emergencies: General investigations ........................... 2,427,829 Maintenance allotments August 18, 1941 through June 30, 1962 .................................. 304,542,855 306,970,684 Subtotal-Flood Control, Mississippi River and tributaries appropriations ................................ 1,538,541,636 Appropriations in addition to appropriations for Flood Control, Mississippi River and tributaries (itemized in footnote (1), pp. 2068 and 2069, Annual Report for fiscalyear 1953) ................................... 32,068,908 Preauthorization studies .............................. 264,200 Subtotal ........................................ 32,333,108 Grand total .................... ............................ 1,570,874,744 Reconciliation of appropriations and allotments: Total allotted to June 30, 1962 (ENG Form 1239) ................... 1,539,327,594 Transferred to revolving fund .................................... 24,944,460 Surveys under sec. 10 of Flood Control Act approved May 15, 1928 (not under Miss. River Commission) ............................ 4,995,214 Impounded savings withdrawn by Chief of Engineers ................ 1,607,475 Total appropriated to June 30, 1962 ........................... 1,570,874,744 Appropriations 96X3112 for 5 years were as follows: Fiscal year 1958 .................................................. 60,715,000 Fiscal year 1959 ....................................... 68,347,500 Fiscal year 1960 ........................................ 69,068,512 Fiscal year 1961 .................................................. 71,896,000 Fiscal year 1962 ........................................ 72,950,000 Amount unappropriated is computed as follows: Appropriations authorized except for flood-control emergencies ............ $1,448,877,100 Appropriations authorized for flood-control emergencies (maintenance) .... 25,000,000 Total authorizations .................. .............. ........... 1,473,877,100 2102 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Appropriations for flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries chargeable against Flood Control Act authori- zations: Appropriations chargeable except for flood-control emergencies: Through fiscal year 1962 ........................ $1,216,670,651 For fiscal year 1963: (estimated) Construction .... 51,875,000 $1,268,545,651 Appropriations for flood-control emergencies: Through fiscal year 1962 (includes appropriation prior to July 1, 1953 and allotments thereafter) .. 14,900,300 14,900,300 Total appropriations chargeable against Flood Control Act authorization .. ..................................... 1,283,445,951 Amount unappropriated: For all works except for flood-control emergencies .................... 180,331,448 For flood-control emergencies (maintenance) ........................ 10,099,700 Total unappropriated ................ ........................... 190,431,148 Maintenance allotments, except for flood-control emergencies, August 18, 1941 through June 30, 1962, amounting to $304,542,855, and general investigations amounting to $2,427,829, and portions of the funds ($70,500,000) appropriated for fiscal year 1963, which have been programed for maintenance ($18,500,000) and for gen- eral investigations ($125,000), are excluded from the charges against Flood Control Act authorizations. Note. Amounts in parentheses above are estimates. Fiscal year 1963 ap- propriations were not made at the time of preparation of this report. CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Contributed...........$729,518 $150,968 $125,675 $151,708 $83,516 $4,423,550 Cost.................. 18,712 983,633 127,118 95,110 19,705 4,261,483 Maintenance: Contributed.......... ............................... 19,537 ........... 1376,352 Cost............................ ...................... 19,537 .......... 1376,352 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962............................ $81,956 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................... 81,956 1 Includes $2,866 contributed for flood-control emergencies. BEACH EROSION BOARD The Beach Erosion Board was organized under authority of section 2 of the River and Harbor Act approved July 3, 1930 (Pub- lic Law 520, 71st Cong.) which authorized and directed the Chief of Engineers under the direction of the Secretary of the Army to cause investigations and studies to be made, in cooperation with public agencies of the various States, to devise effective means of preventing erosion of the coastal and Great Lakes shores by waves and currents. To furnish the technical advice and assist- ance required in this program, the Chief of Engineers was directed to form a board of seven members to assist in the conduct of studies, review the reports on such investigations and submit recommendations. By Executive ruling the agency applying for a cooperative study under this act is required to contribute 50 per- cent of the estimated cost of the investigation. Each study re- sults in a report containing plans and specific recommendations as to methods or means to improve or remedy a condition at a particular locality. A summary of such cooperative studies fol- lows: Number of applications for studies approved prior to July 1, 1961' .. 130 Number of applications for studies approved during fiscal year 1962 . 4 Number of reports completed prior to July 1, 1961 ............... 131 Number of reports completed during fiscal year 1962 .............. 10 Number of studies remaining to be completed ..................... 21 1 Two or more reports have resulted or will result from some applications. Section 5 of the River and Harbor Act approved August 30, 1935 (Public Law 409, 74th Cong.) provided that every report submitted to Congress looking to the improvement of the entrance at the mouth of any river or at any inlet for navigation contain information concerning the configuration of the shoreline and the probable effect of the proposed improvement on the coastline for a distance of not less than 10 miles on either side of the entrance. The basic law authorizing beach-erosion studies was supplemented by the act approved July 31, 1945 (Public Law 166, 79th Cong.), which made it the duty of the Chief of Engineers, through the Beach Erosion Board, in addition to participating in cooperative investigations under the basic law, to make general investigations with a view to preventing erosion of the shores of the United States by waves and currents and determining the most suitable methods for the protection, restoration and development of beaches; and to publish from time to time such useful data and in- formation concerning the erosion and protection of beaches and shore lines as the Board may deem to be value to the people of the United States. Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shore of the United States was established in the act approved August 13, 1946 (Public Law 727, 79th Cong.), subsequently amended by Public Law 826, 84th Congress, approved July 28, 1956. The latter act declared it to be the policy of the United States to assist in the construction, but not the maintenance, of works for the restoration and protection against erosion, by waves and currents, of the 2103 2104 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 shores of the United States, its Territories and possessions, pro- vided that the Federal contribution to any project shall not exceed one-third of the cost and that the plan of protection shall have been specifically adopted and authorized by Congress after investi- gation and study by the Beach Erosion Board. Periodic'beach nourishment by deposit of sandfill at suitable intervals of time may be considered as construction eligible for Federal aid for azspecified period, if in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers it is the most suitable and economical protective measure. Shores other than public are eligible for Federal assistance toward their protection if public benefits result therefrom, the amount of Federal assist- ance being adjusted in accordance with the degree of such benefits. The word "shores" as used in the act includes all the shorelines of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, and lakes, estuaries, and bays directly connected therewith. During fiscal year 1962 the following served as members of the Beach Erosion Board: Maj. Gen. Keith R. Barney, U.S. Army, president; Maj. Gen. William F. Cassidy, U.S. Army, president; Brig. Gen. Robert G. MacDonnell, U.S. Army, division engineer, South Pacific Division; Brig. Gen. Thomas H. Lipscomb, U.S. Army, division engineer, North Atlantic Division; Brig. Gen. Howard A. Morris, U.S. Army, division engineer, South Atlantic Division; Brig. Gen. Arthur H. Frye, Jr., division engineer, South Pacific Division; Brig. Gen. Seymour A. Potter, Jr., U.S. Army, division engineer, New England Division; Dr. Thorndike Saville, consulting engineer to the State of New York; Dr. Morrough P. O'Brien of California, dean emeritus of the College of Engineering, University of California; Dr. Lorenz G. Straub, engineering con- sultant, division of waterways, department of conservation, State of Minnesota. During fiscal year 1962, the Board carried out studies and in- vestigations in cooperation with appropriate agencies of various States and with the field offices of the Corps of Engineers to develop effective works for the protection and stabilization of the shores and beaches of coastal and lake waters. The Board completed the review of cooperative beach erosion control reports on New Bedford, Mass.; Rockport, Mass.; Hills Beach, Biddeford, Maine; Salisbury Beach, Mass.; Ventura area, Calif., Virginia and Biscayne Keys, Fla.; Orange County (San Gabriel River to New- port Bay), Calif.; Fort Macon-Atlantic Beach, N.C.; San Juan, P. R.; and Raritan and Sandy Hook Bays, N.J., the latter combined in a single report with a hurricane study. The Board's staff reviewed 18 reports on navigation improve- ments which included information as to probable effects on adjacent shorelines, as provided in section 5 of the River and Harbor Act approved August 30, 1935, and also reviewed one hurricane reconnaissance, and 7 hurricane survey reports and one' multipurpose survey report, in addition to the combined report on Raritan and Sandy Hook Bays, N.J. The following approved cooperative studies were either in pro- gress or awaiting funds on June 30, 1962. BEACH EROSION BOARD 2105 Date approved Locality by Chief Division District of Engineers engineer engineer Atlantic City, N. J. (review) ............ ............... .Mar. 26, 1958 North Atlantic Philadelphia California, State of (cont. study) ........................... Sept. 12, 1946 App. VII Pt. Conception to Mexican Boundary ............ June 12, 1958 South Pacific Los Angeles App. VIII_Pt. Delgada to Pt. Ano Nuevo ................... Mar. 18, 1959 ..... do.........San Francisco Bakers Haulover__Miami Beach, Fla...................... May 24, 1960 South Atlantic Jacksonville Broward County; Fla................................. Apr. 6, 1960 .do......... Do. Evanston, Ill. (review) ............ .................... :. Aug. 11, 1959 North Central Chicago Falmouth, Mass... ....................... Mar. 26, 1959 New England Fire Island Inlet to Jones Inlet, N.Y. (review) ................... Sept. 15, 1960 North Atlantic New York Fort Pierce, Fla ............ ....................... Dec. 30, 1960 South Atlantic Jacksonville Haleiwa Beach, Oahu, Hawaii.. ......................... Aug. 25, 1959 Pacific Ocean Honolulu Hawaii, State of ... Mar. 23, 1962 .... do...........Do. Hunting Island, S. C. (review) .......... ..... . . ....... Sept. 8, 1959 South Atlantic Charleston Long Island, Jones Inlet to Norton Pt. and Staten Island, N.Y.... Mar. 23, 1959 North Atlantic _ New York Martha's Vineyard, Mass........... ................. . Feb. 14, 1961 New England Nantasket an Revere Beaches, Mass....... . ............... Sept. 19, 1961 ..... do. Newport, R. I.............. ....................... Feb. 14, 1961 ... do... New Jersey, State of............... .............. Apr. 1, 1953 North Atlantic Coastal Inlets.. ........ ... ................ Dec. 18, 1961 North Atlantic Philadelphia Great Egg Harbor ............... ................ d.......do....... ... do....... Do. Cold Spring .... ................ .............. .......... do.........do........... Do. Townsends .................. ..... ...... .. .... ... .... do....... ... do........... Do. OcracokeInlet to Cape Lookout, N. C......................... Dec. 16, 1959 South Atlantic Wilmihgton Oeracoke Island, N. C...................................... Oct. 29, 1957 ... :do......... Do. Perth Amboy, N .......................................... Feb. 2, 1961 North Atlantic New York Tokeland, Wash.. ........ ......... .... .............. .. May 15, 1962 North Pacific Seattle Waikiki Beach, Oahu, Hawaii (review)........................ Aug. 25, 1959 Pacific Ocean Honolulu The Board has continued general investigations of means of protecting shores and beaches against erosion, in accordance with authorization contained in the act approved July 31, 1945 (Public Law 166, 79th Congress). Five technical memoranda and one miscellaneous paper, of which three were prepared by staff mem- bers, were published by the Board and publication of the Board's Bulletin was continued on an annual basis to disseminate pertinent information to the public. Four articles by Board staff members were published in the 1961 bulletin, and two additional articles by staff members are in preparation for the current annual Bulletin. Revisions and addenda to bring the comprehensive report entitled "Shore Protection Planning and Design," Technical Report 4, up to date with current research, were completed and this report with the revisions was reprinted and distributed. Three technical papers prepared by the staff and presented before meetings of technical societies have been or are being published in the technical press and three additional technical reports were presented, but are not presently planned for publication. Three additional techni- cal reports were published in technical journals, and three others are currently in press. In addition a discussion of a technical paper was prepared by staff members and has been published. Six additional papers reporting results of research by the staff were in preparation. An initial draft of a booklet explaining beach erosion and shore processes in lay terms was prepared, and is planned for publication next year. The staff worked on 12 major research or engineering projects (other than hurricane studies) for various agencies, and 8 reports were prepared for agencies on such proj- ects. One foreign and one State engineer spent a week or more at the Board undergoing training in coastal engineering. Five con- tracts with universities for research to supplement the staff activities were continued. Seven descriptive presentations on shore processes and shore protection were made by staff members. 2106 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Following the March 1962 disastrous east coast storm, the entire staff assisted in determining emergency areas, estimating emer- gency rehabilitation requirements, and determining design criteria. One staff member was assigned on temporary duty to the North Atlantic Division for about 3 weeks to aid in these deter- minations. A cooperative program involving use of fluorescent tracers in model testing was initiated with the British Hydraulic Research Station. Plans were perfected and budgetary estimates were made to enlarge the research and development program as part of the ex- panded national oceanographic program. At the end of the year, studies by the staff were in progress on: the characteristics of ocean waves by actual measurement at five localities; methods of bypassing sand at inlets; sources of beach material; wave runup and overtopping on shore structures, includ- ing permeable structures; wave runup spectrum; stability of rubble-mound structures; effects of tidal inlets on adjacent beaches; scour in front of seawalls caused by wave action; wave forces on structures; relation of littoral drift rate to incident waves; wave setup; amount of suspended sand in the surf zone; model scale effects; adaptations of the wave spectrum analyzer to laboratory and full field use; development and test of a sandbar- opening device for use at river mouths; use of radioactive and fluorescent tracers in beach studies; sand dune growth and stabilization by sand fences; beach deformation under wave action; use of offshore borrow material for beach fills; and reexamination of completed shore-protection projects. CALIFORNIA DEBRIS COMMISSION This Commission, consisting of three officers of the Corps of Engineers appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate, created by the act of Congress approved March 1, 1893 (27 Stat. L., p. 507), was organized in San Francisco, Calif., on June 8, 1893, and has jurisdiction and duties extending over the drainage area of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, com- prising the great central valley of California and extending from the crest of the Sierra Nevada on the east to that of the Coast Range on the west, and from Mount Shasta and the Pitt River Basin on the north to the Tehachapi Mountains on the south. These rivers empty into the head of Suisun Bay, ultimately dis- charging into the Pacific Ocean through the connecting bays and straits and the Golden Gate. The Commission also has charge of improvements for the control of floods on the Sacramento River. The duties prescribed by the act creating the Commission are: (a) To regulate hydraulic mining in such a way as to permit its resumption and continuance under such restrictions as to prevent the resulting debris from being carried into navigable waters or otherwise causing damage; and (b) to study and report upon general hydraulic and hydraulic-mining conditions and matters affecting or affected by them and to make surveys, mature, and adopt plans for the purpose of improving the navigability, deep- ening the channels, and protecting the banks of the rivers, and affording relief from flood damages. While the Commission was to "adopt" plans as a result of its study, the act creating it did not provide means for directly carry- ing them out. Congress, however, has from time to time adopted certain of the plans formulated by the Commission and charged it with their execution, under the direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers. IMPROVEMENTS Page Page Navigation Navigation-Continued 1. Regulation of hydraulic 3. Sacramento River and mining and preparation tributaries, Calif., of plans .............. 2107 (debris control) ...... 2111 2. Treatment of the Yuba River debris situation- Flood Control restraining barriers, Calif. ................. 2109 4. Sacramento River, Calif. .. 2115 1. REGULATION OF HYDRAULIC MINING AND PREPARATION OF PLANS Location. Operations are largely limited to the territory between Mount Lassen on the north and the Yosemite Valley on the south, on the western watershed of the Sierra Nevada. (See U.S. Geological Survey sheets for the area, 25 in number.) Existing project. This improvement provides for regulating hydraulic mining operations, planning the improvement of condi- tions upon the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their 2107 2108 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 tributaries affected' by such operations, and the preparation of plans to enable hydraulic, mining to be resumed in their drainage areas. In addition, the Secretary of the Army is authorized to enter .into contracts to supply storage for. water and use of outlet facili- ties from debris-storage reservoirs for domestic and irrigation purposes and power development, upon such conditions of delivery, use, and payment as he may approve. Applications of prospective miners are fully investigated by the California Debris Commission and permits to operate are .where issued to those who provide satisfactory debris-restraining basins by construction of suitable dams necessary or agree to make ;payment for storage in Government-constructed, debris- restraining reservoirs constructed under the act of June 19, 1934, as set forth below. For location and description of Government- constructed debris-restraining reservoirs for general hydraulic mining see Improvement 3, "Sacramento River and tributaries (debris control), California." The average annual Federal cost of this work during the past 5 years was $4,975. The existing project was authorized by the following: Acts Work authorized Documents Mar. 1, 1893 Created California Debris Commission and authorized: Ex. Doe. 267, 51st Cong., 2d sess. Ex. (a) Hydraulic mining under its regulation in the drainage Doc. 98, 47th Cong., 1st sess. areas of the Sacramento and San JoaquinRivers, if pos- sible without injury to the navigability of these river systems or to lands adjacent thereto; and (b) preparation of plans by the Commission for improvement of the nav- igability of these river systems, and flood and debris- control therein. Feb. 27 19071 Authorized California Debris Commission to permit hy- (Amendment of sec. 13 of act approved draulic mining without construction of impounding works, Mar. 1, 1893.) provided there is no injury to the navigability of the above river systems or the lands adjacent thereto. June 19, 19342 Amended act of Mar. 1, 1893, which provides for construc- (Amendment of secs. 18 and 23 of acts tion of debris dams or other restraining works by the approved Mar. 1, 1893.) California Debris Commission and collection of a 3- percent tax on the gross proceeds of each mine using such facilities, so as to eliminate this tax and substitute an annual tax per cubic yard mined, obtained by dividing the total capital cost of each dam, reservoir, and rights- of-way, by the total capacity of the reservoir for restraint of debris; and authorized revocation of commission orders permitting such mining, for failure to pay this annual tax within 30 days after its due date; and also authorized receipt of money advances from mineowners to aid such construction, to be refunded later from the annual payments of yardage taxes on material mined. June 25, 1938 a Added at the end of sec. 23 of above act, a provision that (Further amendment of sec. 23 of act the Secretary of the Army is authorized to enter into approved Mar. 1, 1893.) contracts to supply storage for water and use of outlet facilities from debris-storage reservoirs for domestic and irrigation purposes and power development, upon such conditions of delivery, use, and payment as he may ap- prove, these payments are to be deposited to the credit of such reservoir project, reducing its capital cost to be repaid by tax on mining operations. 1 Public Law 137 (H. R. 13867). SPublic Law 425, 73d Cong., (H. R. 1503). S Public Law 716, 75th Cong., 3d sess. (H. R. 9881). For latest published map, see Annual Report for 1913, page 3170, and Rivers and Harbors Committee Document 50, 74th Congress, 1st session. Local cooperation. Mineowners are required to bear all ex- RIVERS AND HARBORS - CALIFORNIA DEBRIS COMMISSION 2109 penses incurred in complying with the orders of the Commission for regulation of mining and restraint of debris. Operations and results during fiscal year. Inspections of hydraulic mines were accomplished to determine the compliance of the mineowners with the requirements of the licenses issued. Cost of these inspections, regulation of hydraulic mining, issuance of licenses, and other administrative work was $5,008 during the fiscal year for maintenance. Administrative work overlaps that of improvements 2, 3, and 4, hereunder, and that of the Sacra- mento Engineer District. Condition at end of fiscal year. The Commission has received 1,290 applications for hydraulic mining licenses; 8 mines are licensed, of which 2 use storage behind Government debris dams. Work remaining to be done is, in general, the continuation of the above or similar operations. The total cost of all work to June 30, 1962, was $788,851, for maintenance. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 Maintenance: .......... Appropriated. $5,011 $5,000 $4,870 $4,993 $5,000 $788,851 Cost.................. 5,011 4,995 4,868 4,992 5,008 788,851 2. TREATMENT OF THE YUBA RIVER DEBRIS SITUATION-- RESTRAINING BARRIERS, CALIF. Location. The works are on the Yuba River between Marysville and where the river emerges from the foothills, near Hammonton, some 10 miles easterly from Marysville, or about 9 miles below the Narrows. (See U.S. Geological Survey topographic map of the Sacramento Valley, Calif.) Existing project. This provides for storage of mining debris within the bed of the Yuba River, a nonnavigable stream, by means of construction of Daguerre Point Dam, a debris barrier, and by the restraint of flow channel to narrow limits by means of train- ing walls and other regulation works to prevent deposits of mining debris from washing into the river and being carried down to the Sacramento and Feather Rivers to the detriment of navigation therein. The variation in water levels due to floods is about 12 feet. The total cost of new work, completed in 1935, was $723,259, of which $361,482 was from United States funds and $361,777 from required contributed funds by the State of California. (For details of this project in its original form, see Annual Report, 1917, p. 1810, "Previous projects.") The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $141,164, consisting of an average of $70,582 from U.S. funds and $70,582 from required contributed funds. The expenditure of $107,500 from U.S. deferred maintenance funds, together with $107,500 from required contributed funds, a total of $215,000, in addition to regular maintenance and required contributed maintenance funds in fiscal years 1958 through 1960 inclusive, is reflected in the above average. The existing project was adopted in a rather indefinite form by 2110 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 the River and Harbor Act of June 3, 1896, and in its more definite form by the River and Harbor Act of June 13, 1902 (H. Doc. 431, 56th Cong., 1st sess.). (For the latest published map, see U.S. Geological Survey topographic map of the Sacramento Valley, Calif.) Local cooperation. Fully complied with for new work. Total costs for new work for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization amount to $361,777, all of which was required contribution by the State of California. In addition, training walls were built on each bank below Daguerre Point for a distance of 11,250 feet and just above Daguerre Point, on the south bank, for a distance of 11,000 linear feet by two gold-dredging companies in connection with their dredging operations. It was estimated (1920) that it would have cost the United States $450,000 to build these training walls. Flood channels were also built by gold-dredging companies within the confines of the project works. It was estimated (1926) that the cost of equally effective works to restrain debris movement would have been more than $776,000 to the United States. The State of California is required to contribute annually an amount equal to the Federal allotment for maintenance. Operations and results during fiscal year. Maintenance: Op- erations during the year included condition and operation studies, involving maintenance of gages and gage readings, and the prepa- ration of plans and specifications, all of which were accomplished by hired labor. In addition, bank protection was accomplished along Yuba River, both banks, vicinity of Simpson Lane and Hallwood Road, in Yuba County. Total cost of maintenance during the fiscal year was as follows: Funds Maintenance United States: Regular appropriations ................ .............................................. $47,444 Required contributed .................................................................. 47,445 Total......... .......................................................... . .... 94,889 Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the project was initiated in November 1902, and completed in 1935. Three training walls, having a total length of 85,100 feet and providing two 500- foot-wide channels, were built, partly by gold-dredging companies and partly by the United States. A cut was made through Daguerre Point and a concrete spillway constructed therein. The channel between Marysville and the training walls was cleared of obstruc- tion. Dikes were built to block off old sand channels. Subsequent to the above construction, the Yuba Consolidated Goldfields was issued a Department of the Army permit in 1944 for dredging a 600-foot channel which replaces the above two 500-foot channels above Daguerre Point Dam. Work under the permit was completed in October 1956. The new channel gives almost a 90 degree approach for flows toward the crest of the dam. The project has been maintained in a satisfactory condition suitable to the purpose intended and the result has been to hold RIVERS AND HARBORS - CALIFORNIA DEBRIS COMMISSION 2111 in the Yuba River millions of cubic yards of mining debris which would otherwise have passed into the channels of Feather and Sacramento Rivers to the detriment of navigation. Regulation of the river necessitates an annual program for clearing in the chan- nel to provide adequate capacity for floodflows, and the construc- tion of bank revetment for current deflection work as required to prevent erosion. Erosion is threatening to undermine the downstream founda- tion of Daguerre Point Dam and a study is required to determine the method and extent of repair work needed to stabilize the foundation area. Such study is proposed to be undertaken during fiscal year 1963. The total cost of the project to June 30, 1962 was as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total United States: Regular appropriations .............................. $361,482 $705,931 $1,067,413 Deferred maintenance ...................................... ......... 207,500 207,500 Total United States ............................ 361,482 913,431 1,274,913 Required contributed ................................... 361,777 913,137 1,274,914 Total ............. ...................... 723,259 1,826,568 2,549,827 Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated........................... ......... .......................... $361,482 Cost................ .......... ........................................................ 361,482 Maintenance: Appropriated.......... 1$100,000 1$69,000 $67,250 $69,250 $47,413 1913,431 Cost.................. 237,582 281,604 2116,635 69,648 47,444 2913,431 1 Includes deferred maintenance funds as follows: Fiscal year 1958, $100,000; fiscal year 1959, $7,500; Total appropriation to date, $207,500. SIncludes deferred maintenance funds as follows: Fiscal year 1958, $37,582; fiscal year 1959, $66,591; fiscal year 1960, $3,327; total cost to date $207,500. CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated.......... ........... ............................. 361,777 Cost............... .............. ......... .......... 361,777 Maintenance: Appropriated .......... $100, 000 $100,000 $50,000 $60,000 $50,000 920,223 Cost................. 37,582 81,604 116,635 69,648 47,445 913,137 3. SACRAMENTO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, CALIF. (DEBRIS CONTROL) Location. The project reservoirs are to be constructed in the watersheds of the Yuba, Bear, and American Rivers, Calif. (See U.S. Geological Survey sheets for the basin areas, seven in number.) Existing project. The project was designed to permit the re- sumption of hydraulic mining on a substantial scale and provides for construction of reservoirs for the purpose of retaining mining 2112 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 debris. North Fork Dam was completed in fiscal year 1939. The reservoir is located on the North Fork of the American River about 5 miles northeast of the city of Auburn and 40 miles north- east of Sacramento. The dam is 155 feet high, 620 feet long, and the reservoir has a debris-storage capacity of 26 million cubic yards. Harry L. Englebright Dam was completed in fiscal year 1941. The reservoir is on the Yuba River about 20 miles northeast of the city of Marysville. The dam is 260 feet high, 1,142 feet long, and the reservoir has a debris storage capacity of 118 million cubic yards. The total Federal cost of new work for construction of these reservoirs was $4,646,872. The reservoir project sites on the Middle Fork of the American River and on Bear River are considered to be inactive and are excluded from the foregoing cost estimate. The estimated cost of this portion of the project is $2,298,128 (1935). The average annual maintenance cost during the past 5 years was $26,148. The Harry L. Englebright Reservoir and the North Fork Reser- voir have total recreational areas of 68 and 25 acres, respectively. Studies have been made of the adequacy and improvement of these areas. It is estimated (July 1961) that improvements to recrea- tional areas will cost $215,000 and $105,000 for Harry L. Englebright Dam and North Fork Dam, respectively. Construction of facilities at Englebright Reservoir was initiated in fiscal year 1959 and is approximately 29 percent complete. Construction of facilities at the North Fork Reservoir, also initiated in fiscal year 1959, is approximately 55 percent complete. Construction of further facilities has been deferred pending decision for construc- tion of the Auburn Dam. The main recreation area at the North Fork Dam and Reser- voir, approximately 10 acres, is maintained and operated by the Auburn Recreation Park and Parkway District under a license agreement approved in September 1953. The licensee has main- tained and made some improvements to the existing facilities. In addition, a 10-acre area at the head of the reservoir is being serviced by the above-named district. Public use of the reservoir area was about 40,100 visitor-days in calendar year 1961. Recreation areas at Harry L. Englebright Dam and Reservoir, approximately 20 acres, are maintained by the Corps of Engineers. Public use of the reservoir area was about 46,700 visitor-days in calendar year 1961. The existing project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1935 (Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. 50, 74th Cong., 1st sess.). For latest published map, see the project docu- ment. The act approved November 6, 1945, provided that the dam constructed at the Upper Narrows site on the Yuba River, in the State of California, should thereafter be known and designated as the Harry L. Englebright Dam. Local cooperation. Satisfactory assurances were furnished the Secretary of the Army for repayment of the capital cost of the reservoir from taxes on material hydraulically mined, under RIVERS AND HARBORS - CALIFORNIA DEBRIS COMMISSION 2113 licenses, and impounded in these reservoirs. These funds are paid to the Director of Internal Revenue then credited by the Treasurer of the United States to the Hydraulic Mining in California Debris Fund. A total of $305,638 has been appropriated to the project from the above debris fund as of June 30, 1962. Of this amount, $302,524 has been expended for Federal operation and maintenance of Harry L. Englebright and North Fork Reservoirs from this debris fund to June 30, 1962. Improvements have been made to facilities at North Fork Dam and Reservoir by the Auburn Recreation Park and Parkway District and the Auburn Boat Clubs (concessionaire) at an esti- mated cost of $36,000 since September 1953. Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: Studies were initiated to determine the practicability of providing addi- tional boat launching facilities and parking areas at Harry L. Englebright Reservoir. Maintenance: Operations during the year included maintenance and operation of the Harry L. Englebright and North Fork Dams and appurtenant service facilities and condition and operation inspections and studies, all of which were accomplished by hired labor. The total cost of work during the fiscal year was as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total Regular .. ................... .... ........... 18335 $5,772 $6,107 mining inCalifornia Hydraulic .......................................... 22,689 22,689 Total............................................ 1335 28,461 28,796 1 For recreational facilities. Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the dams was initiated in 1937, and the North Fork Dam and Reservoir was completed and in use at the end of the fiscal year 1939 and Harry L. Englebright Dam and Reservoir was completed in January 1941. The two debris-control structures are in good condition. The parking areas have been enlarged and improved to somewhat relieve the congested parking situation in the public-use areas and additional recreational facilities were constructed in fiscal years 1960 and 1961. Public use of these reservoir recreational areas has more than doubled during the past 5 years and greatly overtaxes the present capacities. It is expected that future public use will increase rapidly as additional recreational facilities become available. The primary purpose of the project was to make possible the resumption of hydraulic mining in the tributary watershed for which local interests are required to reimburse the United States according to the volume of debris contributed. However, hydrau- lic mining activity has practically ceased during recent years. Annual maintenance activities are required to protect the Federal investment and, in addition, maintenance of the project benefits the downstream navigation projects, primarily the Sacramento River project, in that it prevents debris deposits in these channels 2114 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 and thus reduces the annual maintenance costs for the Sacramento River navigation channel. Maintenance of this project also helps to maintain flood-channel capacities in the downstream river reaches. In the case of Harry L. Englebright Dam and Reservoir an additional benefit is realized through the use of the head created for the generation of hydro- electric power. An existing contract with the Pacific Gas &Electric Co. calls for payment to the Federal Government of $18,000 per year for the first 30 years and $48,000 per year after that in return for the use of head at Englebright Dam and generation of hydroelectric power. Total payment through December 31, 1961, amounts to $342,100; these funds are paid to the California Debris Commission and deposited for credit by the Director of Internal Revenue to the "Debris Fund." The total cost of the project to June 30, 1962, was as follows: Funds New work 1 Maintenance Total1 United States: Regular ... ............................... 24,702,182 $315,254 2$5,017,436 Hydraulic mining in California .......................................... 302,524 302,524 Total ........................ ........... ....... . 24,702,182 617,778 25,319,969 1 Exclusive of $644,503 costs from regular funds on inactive portion of the project. 2 Including $55,310 for recreational facilities. Cost and financial statement Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated...................... $15,000 '$40,000 1$400 '$8,000 2 3$4,710,272 Cost................. .......... 114,992 133,395 '6,589 1335 2 44,702,182 Maintenance: ........... Appropriated $45,523 18,000 18,000 25,000 23,739 6620,892 Cost.................. . 28,012 24,363 22,000 27,906 28,461 6617,778 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30,x 1962.' ............................ $8,090 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963. .................................... 15,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963.1 .................. 23,090 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project.' ....................... 7241,600 1 For recreational facilities, Code 710 appropriation. 2 Exclusive of $644,503 appropriation and costs on inactive portion of project. ' Includes $63,400 for recreational facilities, Code 710 appropriation. 4Includes $55,310 for recreational facilities, Code 710 appropriation. 6 Includes $315,254 from regular funds and $305,638 from hydraulic mining in California funds. ' Includes $315,254 from regular funds and $302,524 from hydraulic mining in California funds. 7 Exclusive of $1,653,625 (1935 index) for inactive portion of project. FLOOD CONTROL-CALIFORNIA DEBRIS COMMISSION 2115 4. SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIF. Location. The works covered by this improvement are on the Sacramento River and tributaries in north-central California from Collinsville to Ord Bend, a distance of 184 miles. Previous project. Improvement of the original project for Sacramento River was previously performed under the title of "Alleviation of Debris Conditions in the Sacramento and Feather Rivers, California." This minor project was absorbed in the exist- ing project. The original project was adopted by the River and Harbor Act of June 25, 1910 (in accordance with report of Cali- fornia Debris Commission dated June 30, 1907, and printed in Annual Report for 1907, page 2262). For further details, see Annual Report for 1917, page 1815, and Annual Report for 1938, page 1995. Existing project. The Sacramento River flood control project is a comprehensive plan of flood control for the Sacramento River and the lower reaches of its principal tributaries. The improve- ment extends along the Sacramento River from Ord Bend in Glenn County, Calif., downstream to its mouth at Collinsville at the upper end of Suisun Bay, a distance of 184 miles, and comprises a system of levees, overflow weirs, drainage pumping plants, and flood bypass channels or floodways designed to carry the surplus flood- waters without inundation of valley lands. The project provides for the enlargement of the Sacramento River below the mouth of Cache Slough about 20 river miles upstream from Suisun Bay; for making two cutoffs between the mouth of the Feather River and Colusa; construction of four bypass weirs, and reconstruction of Tisdale Weir; construction of drainage outfall gates at Butte Slough and at Knights Landing; construction of levees along certain reaches of the main river and tributaries; construction of three drainage pumping plants on the east side of Sutter Bypass; construction of bank-protection works and levee setbacks on the main river and tributaries from Ord Bend to Collinsville; and maintenance, during the construction period, of the enlarged river channel below Cache Slough, including revetment of the banks of the enlarged channel. The project also includes channel clearing, rectification, snagging, and bank protection along the Sacramento River and tributaries in Tehama County from Red Bluff southerly. Approximately 980 miles of levee construction, with an average height of 15 feet, and 98 miles of bank protection are involved in the project. When completed, the project will provide adequate flood protection to about 800,000 acres of highly productive agri- cultural lands and to the cities of Colusa, Marysville, Yuba City, Sacramento, North Sacramento, and numerous smaller commu- nities; two transcontinental railways; one transcontinental high- way; and State and county highways and feeder railroads. It has made possible the reclamation of swamps and other overflow land which have been developed to a high degree of use. The project is approximately 92 percent complete at the end of fiscal year 1962. The above levee improvements were supplemented by the fol- lowing: 2116 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Acts Work authorized Documents Dec. 22, 1944 Additional levee construction and reconstruction, including H. Doc. 649, 78th Cong., 2d seas., and and May levee protection of Upper Butte Basin, and multipur- H. Doc. 367, 81st Cong., 1st sess. 17, 1950 pose reservoirs. July 3, 1958 Bank protection and incidental channel improvements, H. Dec. 272, 84th Cong., 2d sess. Sacramento River from Chico Landing to Red Bluff, and local interests accomplishment of flood-plain zoning above Chico Landing. July 14, 1960 Bank protection works at critical locations, Sacramento S. Doc. 103, 86th Cong., 2d sess. River. This supplemental work is reported in detail under Improvement No. 8, "Sacramento River and Tributaries, Calif., from Collinsville to Shasta Dam," Improvements of rivers and harbors in the Sacramento, Calif., District. The latest approved estimate (July 1962) of Federal cost for the existing project (exclusive of the improvements authorized by the Flood Control Acts of December 22, 1944, May 17, 1950, July 3, 1958, and July 14, 1960), including new work and maintenance, is $72,600,000, for construction. The record flood of December 1955 disclosed certain structural and functional deficiencies which could not be identified until the system was tested by this major flood. Such deficiencies are being corrected under the present project authorization. Survey of the work required to correct these deficiencies was made in 1957. Since the remaining work to complete the project is presently defined in the memorandum of understanding, dated November 6, 1953, between the State and the Corps, a supple- ment to this memorandum was entered into with the State of California November 29, 1957 to include the new work items. Cost of the work covered was estimated at $6,300,000 (1957). More detailed surveys have indicated a lesser requirement for rehabili- tation under supplement 1 than was estimated from preliminary reconnaissance; such items have been eliminated from work remaining to complete the project, thereby substantially reducing the total estimated Federal project cost. A second supplement to the memorandum of understanding was entered into on June 5, 1958, providing for a maximum expenditure of $1,500,000 for interim bank protection at critical locations. The final contract for this work was completed during September 1961; total expedi- tures for supplement 2 work, including Government costs, were about $1,304,000. Operation and maintenance of the project after completion will be the responsibility of local interests; as units of the project are completed they are transferred to agencies of the State of Cali- fornia for operation and maintenance. The existing project was adopted by the Flood Control Act of March 1, 1917 (H. Doc. 81, 62d Cong., 1st sess., as modified by Rivers and Harbors Committee Doc. 5, 63d Cong., 1st sess.), and modified by the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928 (S. Doc. 23, 69th Cong., 1st sess.), the River and Harbor Act of August 26, 1937 (Senate Committee Print, 75th Cong., 1st sess.), and the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (H. Doc. 205, 77th Cong., 1st sess.). Full monetary authorization was provided in the acts authorizing the project. Local cooperation. Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928, pro- FLOOD CONTROL---CALIFORNIA DEBRIS COMMISSION 2117 vided that local interests were to contribute one-half the cost of construction of project levees, estimated at $3,191,500, and fur- nish the lands, rights-of-way, and easements therefor. The modified project which was adopted in the River and Harbor Act of August 26, 1937, provided that the State of California should execute and maintain the remainder of the general flood control project, now being done or to be done by the United States, and make illegal any levee, ditches, or other works in the bypasses or on the lands reserved for overflow that might reduce or impede the flood runoff, unless approved by the California Debris Com- mission; should hold and save the United States free from damages due to construction works: and provided further, That the bank revetment for protection of levees above Cache Slough, and the levee reconstruction recommended in the project document (Senate Committee Print 75th Cong., 1st sess.), should not be undertaken until the State of California, political subdivisions thereof, or responsible local agencies have agreed to provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, the rights-of-way for said works, including the cost of all alterations to highways, road crossings, and drainage and irrigation facilities incident to the work, and shall have contributed one-third of the cost of bank revetment and levee reconstruction, with the understanding that the contribution of funds will be made as required by the progress of the work; and the State of California was to undertake the operation of the movable top of Sacramento weir in accordance with the schedules established by the California Debris Commis- sion. The modification of the project authorized in the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941, relieved local interests of all future con- struction costs under the existing project, but required them to give assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they would: (a) Provide all needed lands, easements, and rights- of-way free of cost to the United States; (b) bear the expense of necessary highway, railroad, and bridge alterations; (c) hold and save the United States free from claims for damages resulting from construction of the works; and (d) maintain and operate all flood control works after completion, in accordance with regu- lations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Chapter 196 of the Statutes of 1953, State of California, offi- cially adopted the project and modifications thereto. Local in- terests are represented by the Reclamation Board of the State of California. The Board has met all requirements to date and has furnished assurances of required local cooperation to meet all requirements for work as needed. Local interests' costs from required contributed funds for proj- ect work total $4,949,438 for levee construction, bank-protection works, and levee setbacks, of which $4,939,752 was for new work and $9,686 for maintenance. In addition to the project requirements, local interests have constructed several pumping plants for drainage of agricultural and urban land protected by the project levees. Also, some chan- nel-clearing work was accomplished by the State of California and other local interests to supplement project levee construction. 2118 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Total estimated costs for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including the above required contributed funds, amount to $107,500,000 (July 1962). Total estimated cost of new work to June 30, 1962, for all requirements of local cooperation under terms of the project authorization, including required non-Federal contributions, amount to about $93,100,000. Units or portions of the project are transferred to agencies of the State of California for operation and maintenance as they are completed. Annual cost of such maintenance is estimated at $1,130,000 (July 1962). Operations and results during fiscal year. New work: Construc- tion, initiated by contracts during fiscal year 1961, was completed at the following locations: (a) Levee construction, right bank, Yolo bypass and left bank, Cache Slough; (b) levee construction, Feather and Yuba Rivers, Marysville and Reclamation District 10; and (c) bank protection, north side of Sherman Island along Threemile Slough between Threemile Slough and the Patrick fish- ing resort (completion of supplement 2 work). Stage construction was continued on Sherman Island by hired labor and rented equip- ment. Construction was accomplished by contract at the following loca- tions: (a) Feather River channel clearing; and (b) levee and patrol roads, American River, Natomas Canal, and American River, vicinity of I Street Bridge. In addition, construction was initiated by contract at the fol- lowing locations: (a) Bear River, vicinity Carlin Bridge to high ground; and (b) Feather River and Yuba River, SPRR to high ground. Engineering and design, including surveys, explorations, prep- aration of contract plans and specifications, and design memoranda was continued by hired labor during the fiscal year. Hired labor was also utilized in the preparation of operation and maintenance manuals and as-built drawings for completed portions of the project. Utility relocations were accomplished concurrently with the Federal construction and under the contract with funds provided by the State of California. Maintenance: None. Total cost of all work during the fiscal year was as follows: Funds New work United States: Regular appropriations .............................................................. $1,508,875 Contributed ... ................................. ................... ......... 70,297 Total ................................................................ 1,579,172 Condition at end of fiscal year. Construction of the existing project, initiated in fiscal year 1918, is approximately 92 percent complete. The channel improvement accomplished to date has produced a channel with a capacity of 579,000 cubic feet per sec- ond in the Sacramento River below Cache Slough. In addition, FLOOD CONTROL-CALIFORNIA DEBRIS COMMISSION 2119 discharges up to 21,000 cubic feet per second can be diverted from the Sacramento River through Georgiana Slough. Completed major project items include approximately 900 miles of levees; five weirs with a combined discharge capacity of 602,000 cubic feet per second; two cutoff channels; two sets of outfall gates; channel improvement and clearing in the Sacramento River, Butte Creek, Putah Creek, and Sutter and Tisdale Bypasses; construction of two main bypasses or floodways and secondary bypasses at Tis- dale and Sacramento weirs and at Wadsworth Canal; construc- tion of Knights Landing ridge cut and of Cache Creek settling basin installation of gaging stations; and enlargement of Sacramento River below Cache Slough. The cutoffs at Collins Eddy and between Wild Irishman and Kinneys Bends were made in 1918 and 1919, respectively. Sac- ramento weir was completed in 1917, Fremont weir in 1924, Tisdale and Moulton weirs in 1932, and Colusa weir in 1933. Out- fall gates at Knights Landing were constructed in 1930 and at the mouth of Butte Slough in 1936. Pumping plants on Sutter bypass were completed in 1944. Work items with reference to the clearing, snagging, rectification of channels, and bank pro- tection on Sacramento River and tributaries in Tehama County and from Red Bluff southerly, provided for by Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941, were accomplished in fiscal years 1947, 1948, 1949, andl 1951. The total cost of this work was $126,355 of which $30,144 was by contract and $96,212 by hired labor. Flood damages prevented by the project during the December 1955 flood were estimated at $90 million, and flood damages pre- vented during the January and February 1956 floods were esti- mated at $15 million, a total of $105 million. These floods, how- ever, inflicted about $1 million damages to the area along the uncompleted portions of the project. For details of these floods see Annual Report for 1957, page 1904. Similarly, the project prevented damage estimated at about $100 million during the 1958 floods. However, estimates indicate that about $300,000 damages occurred along the uncompleted portions of the project. The large 1955 flood revealed certain functional and structural deficiencies in the comprehensive levee system. A survey of the work required to correct these deficiencies was completed in fiscal year 1958. Since the remaining work to complete the project is presently defined in the memorandum of understanding, dated November 6, 1953, between the State of California and the Corps, a supplement to this memorandum was entered into with the State of California on November 29, 1957, to include the new work items. A second supplement to the memorandum of understanding was entered into on June 5, 1958, providing for a maximum ex- penditure of $1,500,000 for interim bank protection at critical locations; this work was completed during fiscal year 1962 at a cost of about $1,304,000. Work remaining to be accomplished consists principally of com- pletion of levees (along Sacramento, Feather, and Yuba Rivers, and the adjoining bypasses and tributaries), bank protection, and clearing overflow channels and bypasses; and dredging of the en- 2120 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 larged flood channel below Cache Slough, with continued mainte- nance dredging until that part of the project below Cache Slough is completed. The total cost of the existing project to June 30, 1962, is as follows: Funds New work Maintenance Total United States: Regular appropriations ............................ $63,001,145 $1,979,104 1564,980,249 Public works..................................... 1,486,469 .............. 1,486,469 ............................... 64,487,614 TotalUnitedStates 1,979,104 66,466,718 project Contributed, work ............................... 4,939,752 9,686 4,949,438 69,427,366 1,988,790 71,416,156 Contributed, other ................................... 4,981,755 ................ 4,981,755 Total.............. 74,409,121 ........................ 1,988,790 76,397,911 1 Does not include $429,671 representing book value of plant purchased with previous project funds and transferred to existing project without reimbursement. Cost and financial statement FEDERAL FUNDS Total to Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962 New work: Appropriated .......... $2,275,000 $2,585,000 $2,174,700 $1,459,000 $1, 10,000 1 265,456,094 Cost.................. 2,285,959 3,863,566 1,869,055 1,762,367 1,508,875 1 65,167,614 Maintenance: Appropriated......... ........... ............... ........ ... .......... 1,979,104 Cost ................. ................. .. .......... ........... 1,979,104 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 ............................ $67,352 Appropriated for year ending June 30, 1963 .............. .................. 1,500,000 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................. 1,567,352 Estimated additional amount needed to complete project ........................ 4,344,802 1 Includes appropriation and cost of $680,000 for new work for previous project. 2 Includes $1,486,469 public works funds for new work for existing project. CONTRIBUTED FUNDS Total to 2 Fiscal year 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 June 30, 1962' s New work: .......... Appropriated $320,140 $539,461 $759,000 -$164,810 --$52,000 $10,714,438 Cost.................. 198,686 565,148 549,850 67,394 70,297 10,601,507 Maintenance: Appropriated........... ........ ........................ 9,686 Cost............... ............. .................................... 9,686 Other new work data: Unobligated balance for year ending June 30, 1962 .............................. $102,691 Unobligated balances available for year ending June 30, 1963 .................... 102,691 1 Includes $680,000 required contribution for new work for previous project. 2Includes $310,801 voluntary contribution for bank protection for existing project. s Includes required contributed funds for existing project in amount of $4,949,438, of which $4,939,752 was for new work and $9,686 for maintenance. U. S. ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION Organization and functions: The Chief of Engineers, by letter dated June 18, 1929, to the president of the Mississippi River Commission, directed the establishment of a hydraulic laboratory in the alluvial valley of the Mississippi. This institution is the Waterways Experiment Station with installations at Vicksburg and Jackson, Miss. It was initially established in 1929, under the jurisdiction of the president, Mississippi River Commission. By General Order 9, Office, Chief of Engineers, July 29, 1949, the station was transferred to the direct jurisdiction of the Chief of Engineers, effective August 10, 1949. Col. Alex G. Sutton, Jr., Corps of Engineers, is Director. The organization is the principal field agency of the Corps of Engineers for the conduct of engineering research, development, and investigational activities in the technical fields of hydraulics, ground mobility, flexible pavements, soils other than those phases involving seasonal frost and permafrost, nuclear weapons effects on structures, terrain and waterways, and concrete other than those phases relating to the design and construction of rigid pave- ments. On a reimbursable basis, Waterways Experiment Station performs experimental studies, applied research, and provides consulting service, pertaining to problems encountered through- out the Corps of Engineers as are within its broad capabilities in its assigned fields. Such services include model and prototype studies, engineering and analytical design studies, laboratory research con- cerning portland cement and bituminous concrete mixture design, laboratory testing, and field investigations. Field investigation services include planning, accomplishment, and analysis of: com- prehensive exploration of soil and rock formations; instrumenta- tion systems to measure water velocities and directions and to determine pressures, deflections, and strains in engineering struc- tures; telemetry systems, principally for hydrologic data; and field inspection services including establishment of control labora- tories and training field personnel. Subject to approval by the Chief of Engineers, studies can also be undertaken for other agencies. The Waterways Experiment Station also provides a central re- search service to assemble, analyze, and disseminate experimental data of importance to the Corps of Engineers, particularly in, but not necessarily limited to, the fields covered by the hydraulics, soils, and concrete divisions. In connection with this fact-disseminating service, the station maintains an extensive scientific reference library and issues publications of general interest, and can aid materially in eliminating duplication of effort throughout the Corps of Engineers in the conduct of experimental studies. During fiscal year 1962, one annual summary, 130 reports of individual studies conducted at the Waterways Experiment Station, 4 trans- lations, and 29 miscellaneous publications for the Waterways Ex- periment Station and other offices were distributed to Corps of Engineers offices and interested outside agencies. In addition, the editing and printing units completed approximately 500 miscel- 2121 2122 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 laneous assignments for the Waterways Experiment Station and other offices. Operations and results during fiscal year. Work accomplished at the Waterways Experiment Station is, in general, initially financed by the revolving fund, reimbursement therefor being ob- tained directly from agencies for whom the work is performed. The cost for operation of the station for the 12 months ending June 30, 1962, amounted to $9,928,465, of which $8,648,880 was charged to establishments served for research investigations and related services, and $1,279,585 for permanent improvements. Of the reimbursable work, $3,700,250 was charged to civil funds, $4,853,930 to military funds, and $94,700 to non-Governmental agencies. The total cost incurred for operation of the Waterways Experiment Station to June 30, 1962, amounted to $92,409,710, of which $86,548,421 represents reimbursable cost and $5,861,289 the unamortized cost of permanent improvements and equipment. The following table is a summary of the studies and investigations accomplished at the station during fiscal year 1962. PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NAVIGATION CONGRESSES The United States by an Act approved June 28, 1902, appropri- ated $3,000 a year for the support and maintenance of the Perma- nent International Commission of Navigation Congresses and for payment of the actual expenses of properly accredited national delegates of the United States to the meetings of the Congresses and of the Commission. An increase in the appropriation to $5,000 annually was authorized by the River and Harbor Act approved June 30, 1948. Of this amount, $1,500 is paid by the American Section directly to the International Association with headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. The objective of the association--to promote the progress of inland and maritime navigation-is met by holding International Congresses and by publishing technical bulletins and other documents. The Congresses are held in various member coun- tries, usually at 4-year intervals. The Association is supported principally by member nations, but membership also extends to corporations and individuals. Mem- ber nations and international organizations are represented at the Congresses and at meetings of the Permanent International Com- mission by delegates, the number of official delegates being based on the amount of the annual subsidy paid by the government, or organization, but not to exceed 10 in number. Corporate members may send two official representatives to the Congresses. Individual membership is of two classes: Annual and life, depending on the method of payment of dues. The affairs of the Association are managed by a Permanent International Commission composed of delegates from the sup- porting governments and international organizations. A perma- nent council assists the International Commission. The American members of the Permanent International Commission comprise the National Commission which is the governing body of the American Section. The Director of Civil Works, Office of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, and the Resident Member of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors are ex officio Chairman and Secretary, respectively, of the National Commission. Two mem- bers of the National Commission also serve as members of the permanent council. The chairman, secretary, and two council mem- bers are the officers of the American Section. The secretary handles all administrative matters of the American Section. During fiscal year 1962, the United States members of the Perma- nent International Commission were: Maj. Gen. William F. Cas- sidy, USA, ex officio Chairman of the National Commission; Col. Carl H. Bronn, CE-USA, ex officio secretary; Brig. Gen. Herbert D. Vogel, USA (Ret.), Chairman of the Board, Tennessee Valley Authority; Mr. Carl B. Jansen, Chairman of the Board, Dravo Corp.; Maj. Gen. Kenneth D. Nichols, USA (Ret.), consulting engineer; Mr. D. Luke Hopkins, Vice Chairman, Maryland Port Authority; Rear Adm. Eugene J. Peltier, C.E.C., USN, Chief, Bureau of Yards and Docks; Maj. Gen. Charles G. Holle, USA (Ret.); Mr. Howard J. Marsden, Port Development Officer, Mari- 2123 2124 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 time Administration, Department of Commerce; Col. Edmund H. Lang, Deputy Engineer, Headquarters, Eighth United States Army. Effective April 1, 1962, Maj. Gen. Robert G. MacDonnell, Director of Civil Works, Office of the Chief of Engineers, succeeded General Cassidy as ex officio Chairman of the National Commission. Members of the Permanent International Council were Mr. Jansen and General Vogel. Brig. Gen. Gordon R. Young, USA (Ret.), Col. Charles L. Hall, USA (Ret.), and Col. Francis H. Falkner, USA (Ret.), are honorary members. Col. Spencer Cosby, USA (Ret.), an honorary member since 1955, died on March 26, 1962. The XXth International Navigation Congress was held in Balti- more, Md., September 11 to 19, 1961, under the patronage of The Honorable John F. Kennedy, President of the United States. Secre- tary of State Dean Rusk opened the Congress on September 11, at Shriver Hall, Johns Hopkins University. Maj. Gen. Charles G. Holle, USA (Ret.), was Secretary General of the Congress, and the two sectional committees on Inland Navigation and Ocean Navigation were headed by Maj. Gen. John R. Hardin, USA (Ret.), and Dr. Robert S. Rowe, dean of engineering, Vanderbilt University, respectively. The number of member nations repre- sented by delegates was 25; 12 other nations sent observers. Regis- trations for the Congress numbered 738; total number of persons attending the technical sessions exceeded 900; and principal social events were attended by approximately 1,000 persons. The United States was represented by Maj. Gen. Gerald E. Galloway, Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Division, Pacific Ocean, alternate for General Cassidy, Chairman; Brig. Gen. Herbert D. Vogel, USA (Ret.); Mr. Carl B. Jansen; Maj. Gen. Kenneth D. Nichols, USA (Ret.); Mr. D. Luke Hopkins; Rear Adm. Eugene J. Peltier; Mr. Howard J. Marsden; Col. Charles L. Hall, U.S.A. (ret.), alternate for General Holle; Col. Francis H. Falkner, U.S.A. (ret.), alternate for Colonel Lang; and Col. Carl H. Bronn. The same delegation represented the United States at the 1961 annual meeting of the Permanent International Commission on the morning of the opening date of the Congress, September 11, 1961, in Baltimore, Md. The 1962 annual meeting of the Permanent International Com- mission was held in Brussels, Belgium, on June 5, 1962. The United States was represented by Maj. Gen. Charles G. Holle, USA (Ret.), Chairman; Maj. Gen. Gerald E. Galloway, USA (Ret.), alternate for General Nichols; Col. Carl H. Bronn; Mr. J. Porter Taylor, Director, Division of Navigation and Local Flood Relations, Tennessee Valley Authority, alternate for General Vogel; Mr. Eric E. Bottoms, civil engineer, Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, alternate for Admiral Peltier; Mr. Stanley E. Horn, European Director, Maryland Port Authority, observer; and Mr. Christopher A. Squire, representative from United States Embassy, Brussels, ob- server. The membership of the American Section on June 30, 1962, totaled 904, consisting of 834 individuals and 70 corporate mem- bers. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NAVIGATION CONGRESSES 2125 Federal funds from the annual appropriation were expended as follows: Annual United States contribution to the Association .............. $1,500 Expenses of representatives to Congress in Baltimore .............. 1,090 Expenses of representatives to meeting in Brussels, Belgium....... 2,100 Total expenditures ....................................... 4,690 INVESTIGATIONS AND SUPERVISION OF PROJECTS UNDER THE FEDERAL WATER POWER ACT The Federal Water Power Act of June 10, 1920, created the Federal Power Commission, composed of the Secretary of War, Secretary of the Interior, and Secretary of Agriculture, with authority to grant permits and licenses for hydroelectric develop- ments in all waters over which Congress has jurisdiction. The act further required that the work of the Commission be per- formed by and through the Department of War, Interior, and Agriculture, and their engineering, technical, and other person- nel, except as may be otherwise provided by law. By the act of June 23, 1930, entitled "An act to reorganize the Federal Power Commission," sections 1 and 2 of the Federal Water Power Act of June 10, 1920, were amended. A commis- sion was provided for to be composed of five commissioners to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The necessity of performing the work through the Departments of War, Interior, and Agriculture was also re- moved and the Commission authorized to appoint such officers and employees as are necessary in the execution of its functions. By title II of the Public Utility Act of 1935, approved August 26, 1935, the original Federal Water Power Act was made part I of the Federal Power Act, and parts II and III added to that act. The law also provides that no waterpower license affecting the navigable capacity of any navigable waters of the United States shall be issued until the plans of the dam or other structures affecting navigation have been approved by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army. There is further provision whereby any person or corporation intending to construct project works in any stream over which Congress has jurisdiction, other than navigable waters, shall file a declaration of intention for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission will attach. During the past fiscal year work of an engineering nature has been assigned and accomplished as follows: Plans approved by Chief of Engineers and Secretary of the Army in accordance with sec. 4(e) of Federal Water Power Act.............. 15 Reports submitted on applications for preliminary permits or li- censes or amendments thereto..... ........................ 30 Licenses and permits under supervision ............................ 9 The necessary expenses in excess of nominal amounts for transportation and subsistence of personnel engaged in investi- gations and the cost of supervision under the provisions of the Federal Power Act are paid from appropriations made for the Federal Power Commission. All other costs of administration of the laws in question are paid from funds available for general expense of the Corps of Engineers. During the fiscal year funds were expended as follows for the investigation of waterpower projects in cooperation with the 2127 2128 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Federal Power Commission and the supervision of operations under waterpower permits and licenses: From appropriations for the Commission ........................... $0 From appropriations for General Expense of the Corps of Engineers.. 8,000 Total.............................. .......... ............... 8,000 MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL WORKS In addition to the work of improving rivers and harbors, civil works of a miscellaneous character as indicated below have been committed to the Corps of Engineers. Work accomplished. The work of the fiscal year is summarized as follows: Anchorage areas, special, established or modified under the provisions of section 1 of the act of Congress of April 22, 1940. ............ 3 Anchorages established or modified under the provisions of section 7 of the River and Harbor Act of March 4, 1915................... 2 Bridge plans approved by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army under the provisions of the General Bridge Act of March 23, 1906, and the General Bridge Act of August 2, 1946............. 1 118 Bridge rules and regulations established or modified under the provi- sions of section 5 of the River and Harbor Act of August 18, 1894.. 27 Dams, other than waterpower structures, plans approved by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army under the provisions of section 9 of the River and Harbor Act of March 3, 1899 ............ 1 Danger zone regulations established or modified under the provisions of chapter XIX of the Army Act of July 9, 1918, or section 7 of the River and Harbor Act of August 8, 1917......................... 14 Fishing regulations modified under sec. 10, act of March 3, 1899 .... 1 Harbor lines established or modified under the provisions of section 11 of the River and Harbor Act of March 3, 1899................... 27 Navigation regulations established or modified under the provisions of section 7 of the River and Harbor Act of August 8, 1917............ 5 Permits issued for work or structures in navigable waters under provisions of section 10, River and Harbor act of March 3, 1899 .... 6,391 Restricted area regulations established or modified under the provisions of section 7 of the River and Harbor Act of August 8, 1917......... 4 Sunken vessels removed under the provisions of sections 19 and 20 of the River and Harbor Act of March 3, 1899 ...................... 2 79 1 In addition, 31 extensions of time on bridge plans were approved. 2In addition, 197 sunken vessels investigated but not removed. Appropriations. The funds with which the miscellaneous civil works were prosecuted during the year totaled $1,767,417 and were derived as follows: For investigations, inspections, hearings, reports, service of notice or other action incidental to examination of plans or sites of bridges or other structures built or proposed to be built in or over navigable waters or to examinations into alleged violations of law for the protection and preservation of navigable waters of the United States or to the establishment or marking of harbor lines or establishment of anchorages: Allotted during year................................. $890,329 (These funds were allotted from river and harbor appro- priations in accordance with the provisions of sec. 6 of the River and Harbor Act of Mar. 3, 1905.) For the investigation and removal of sunken vessels: Balance on hand July 1, 1961............................ 367,012 Allotted during year (net) ............................... 510,076 (These funds were allotted from the appropriation "Opera- tion and Maintenance, General, Protection of Navigation, Removal of Sunken Vessels and Navigation Obstructions.") Total ................................................ 1,767,417 2129 2130 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 Expenditures. The total expenditures for the fiscal year, exclu- sive of outstanding liabilities, amounting to $103,470, were $1,- 589,045 expended as follows: For investigations, inspections, hearings, and other action inciden- tal to administration of Federal laws ........................ $890,329 For the removal of sunken vessels ............................. 698,716 Total ................................................ 1,589,045 Total funds available ........................................ 1,767,417 Total expenditures ............................... $1,589,045 Outstanding liabilities .............................. 103,470 1,692,515 Balance available June 30, 1962 ....................... 74,902 INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS BOARDS OF CONTROL In order to carry out United States obligations under inter- national agreements, several Divisions and Districts of the Corps of Engineers, having jurisdiction over areas bordering Canada, have representation on a number of boards of control established by the International Joint Commission, to assure adherence to rules and regulations, pertaining to the utilization of boundary waters, as promulgated by the Commission. These boards are as follows: INTERNATIONAL ST. CROIX RIVER BOARD OF CONTROL Constructionand duties. The Board was organized in 1915 pur- suant to conditions in the orders of the International Joint Com- mission approving the maintenance and operation of the dam built by the St. Croix Water Power Co. and the Sprague Falls Manu- facturing Co., Ltd., across the St. Croix River at Grand Falls in the State of Maine, and subsequent agreements reached between the Governments of the United States and the Dominion of Canada. The Board is charged with the duty of formulating and ad- ministering rules under which the powerplant and accessories are to be operated to prevent as nearly as possible a level of water at the dam higher than 203.5 (mean sea level datum), and to secure the users of water below Grand Falls the flow of water to which they are entitled. The Board is also charged with the supervision of the operation of all fishways on that portion of the St. Croix River that forms the international boundary. On October 2, 1934, the International Joint Commission issued an order approving the reconstruction of the dam, by the Canadian Cottons, Ltd., extending across the St. Croix River from Milltown in the Province of New Brunswick, Canada, to Milltown in the State of Maine, United States of America, which contained the following conditions: (a) That the reconstructed dam be so oper- ated as to insure that the forebay levels rise to no higher eleva- tion than that which has heretofore obtained in the operation of the dam now being replaced. (b)That during times of flood the sluiceways of the dam shall be sufficiently open to insure passage of the riverflow. (c) That the operation of the dam, insofar as is necessary to MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL WORKS 2131 ensure the observance of the provisions of this order, be under the supervision of the International St. Croix River Board of Con- trol. Members of the Board. The members of the Board for fiscal year 1962 were Mr. J. E. Peters, district engineer, Water Re- sources Division, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Halifax, N.S., serving as Canadian member, and Brig. Gen. Seymour A. Potter, Jr., U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England, serving as United States member. Operations during fiscal year. Supervision was maintained and inspections made by representatives of the Canadian and United States members to insure that the regulations of the International Joint Commission were carried out. On July 27, 1961, the United States representatives and Canadian member made a joint in- spection of the Grand Falls and Milltown Dams and conferred with officials of the companies operating the dams. Also present were representatives of the Department of Fisheries of Canada. The Grand Falls Dam was inspected in some detail by passing through the dam noting conditions of the concrete face and curtain wall. During 1961, the St. Croix Paper Co., at the request of the Board of Control, made repairs to the Grand Falls Dam. These included repairing the buttress and spillway lip in bay 5; pressure grouted leaks in bays 3 to 13; repaired wooden curtain walls; and repaired bracket members, 45 on the Canadian side and 47 on the United States side; repaired No. 3 concrete transition structure. Repairs were also made to the penstock retaining walls at the Grand Falls generating station. The Canada Department of Fisheries attended the counting trap installed in the exit of Milltown fishway. Several species of fish were observed including gaspereau, shad, perch, brown trout and striped bass. One salmon was observed in the fishway in November. INTERNATIONAL LAKE MEMPHREMAGOG BOARD Constitution and duties. Lake Memphremagog is located in northern Vermont and southeastern Quebec and has as its outlet Magog River in Canada. In 1920, a petition filed by the city of Newport, and the towns of Derby, Coventry, and Barton, all in Vermont, alleged that they had been harmed by high-lake levels attributable to the construction and operation of powerplants on the Magog River. As a result, an international body composed of one engineer each from the United States and Canada entitled "International Lake Memphremagog Board" was appointed to con- sider the matter and to submit a joint report to each Government as to the level or levels at which Lake Memphremagog should so far as possible, be maintained. At the request of local interests, consideration of the problem was suspended until 1931 when a survey was made. Subsequently, a joint report by the two members of the Board, dated May 14, 1934, was submitted to their respective governments. This re- port recommended that the levels of the lake under normal flow conditions range between an upper elevation of 682.70 feet above 2132 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 mean sea level, (Geodetic Survey of Canada, 1923 adjustment) and a lower limit of 678.85 feet above the same datum. During flood conditions, the sluiceways of the dam shall be so operated as to reduce the floodwater elevations to the normal regulated level of 682.70 as rapidly as possible. The Board was reactivated in August 1960 as a result of a com- plaint on July 20, 1959, by a resident of Newport, Vt., concerning high lake levels due to alleged improper operation of the power- plant. Members of the Board. Mr. J. D. McLeod, Chief Engineer, Operations Division, Water Resources Branch, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Ottawa, was designated as the Canadian member on August 18, 1960. Col. Charles M. Duke, district engineer, New York District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was designated as the United States member on August 10, 1960. The Board members made a field investigation and submitted their report on March 15, 1961, in which they concluded that the lake levels were regulated during the entire period of record be- tween the prescribed upper and lower limits; except that when the lake level rose above the upper limit of regulation, due to spring thaws and heavy rainfall, all reasonable measures were taken by the Dominion Textile Co. to reduce the excess levels as provided by the regulations. Operations during fiscal year 1962. As a result of unusually high-water levels in lake Memphremagog in the spring of 1961, a meeting was held on July 11, 1961, between the Commissioner, Vermont Department of Water Resources, and the chief engineer, Dominion Textile Co. It was agreed that local officials at Newport would anticipate and report heavy flows during the spring runoff or other periods to the Dominion Textile Co. who would regulate the gates of the Magog plant accordingly. The following table contains data based on daily readings of the elevation of Lake Memphremagog at Newport, Vt., from July 1, 1961, to June 30, 1962, furnished by the Water Resources Branch of the U.S. Geological Survey. The datum of the gage is 673 feet above mean sea level, U.S. Geological Survey, 1929 ad- justment which is 0.3 feet greater than the Geodetic Survey of Canada, 1923 adjustment. Table of maximum, minimum, and monthly mean elevations of Lake Memphremagog at Newport, Vt., for the period July 1, 1961, to June 30, 1962. The plane of reference is mean sea level. Month Maximum Minimum Mean 1961: July................................ ............. 682.80 682.41 682.61 August................................ 682.59 681.86 682.24 September ........................... . .................. 681.82 680.36 681.06 October .. .................... ... ...... 680.36 679.92 680.16 November. .. ....................................... 680.45 679.99 680.18 December. ....................... 681.40 680.47 681.14 1962: January........................................ ..........1681.68 1681.31 1681.58 February ...................... 1681.56 1680.54 1681.15 March......................... .... .... .... 681.21 '680.01 1680.34 April .......................................... .... 683.54 681.43 682.73 May........... .. ................................ 682.73 682.64 682.69 June............. ........ ........... ............... 682.67 681.55 682.07 1 Gage heights for periods Jan. 4-20, Jan. 22 to Feb. 20, Feb. 27 to Mar. 14 were taken to top of ice. MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL WORKS 2133 INTERNATIONAL LAKE CHAMPLAIN BOARD OF CONTROL Constitution and duties. The Board was organized pursuant to the provisions of the orders, dated June 10, 1937, of the Inter- national Joint Commission, approving the construction and opera- tion of certain remedial works in the Richelieu River at Fryer's Island in the Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada. The Board is charged with the responsibility of ensuring compliance with the provisions of the order of approval insofar as they relate to the regulation of the levels of Lake Champlain. Members of the Board. The members of the Board for fiscal year 1962 were Mr. H. B. Rosenberg, Water Resources Branch, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, for Canada and Col. C. M. Duke, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, for the United States. Operations and results during fiscal year. Minor construction operations consisting of protection works built along the river- banks at a number of locations were undertaken during the fiscal year. The construction of the Fryer's Island control dam was completed in December 1938. Gates have been installed but have not been operated, pending excavation of the natural river channel upstream from the dam. Administrative work and inspections necessary to carry out the regulations of the International Joint Commission were performed. INTERNATIONAL ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BOARD OF CONTROL Constitution and duties. The International St. Lawrence River Board of Control was appointed in February 1954 pursuant to the provisions of the order of approval, dated October 29, 1952, issued by the International Joint Commission for the construction of certain works for the development of power in the International Rapids section of the St. Lawrence River. The Commission in- structed the Board to perform the duties assigned to it by the order of approval of October 29, 1952. These responsibilities in- clude the following items: (a) The Board of Control is to deter- mine the gages, measurements, and other services to be provided by the power authority of the State of New York and the Hydro- electric Power Commission of Ontario in order to furnish accurate records relating to water levels and the discharge of water through the works and the regulation of the flow of water through the International Rapids section. (b) Upon completion of the works, the duties of the Board shall be to insure that the provisions of the Commission's orders re- lating to water levels and the regulation of the discharge of water from Lake Ontario and the flow of water through the International Rapids section are complied with, and the Hydroelectric Power Commission of Ontario and the power authority of the State of New York shall duly observe any direction given them by the Board of Control for the purpose of ensuring such compliance. The Board of Control shall report to the Commission at such times as the Commission may determine. (c) In addition to the reports to be made to the Commission in accordance with the terms of the orders of approval, the Board 2134 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 was requested to report at the Commission's semiannual meet- ings and also to keep the Commission currently informed with regard to the discharge of water from Lake Ontario and the flow through the International Rapids section of the St. Lawrence River. At a meeting of the International Joint Commission in Toronto on January 25, 1957, studies of the regulation of Lake Ontario, in furtherance of such studies accomplished by the International Lake Ontario Board of Engineers, were assigned to the Inter- national St. Lawrence River Board of Control. Members of the Board. The Canadian members of the Board for fiscal year 1962 were: Mr. T. M. Patterson, Director, Water Resources Branch, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Chairman of the Canadian Section; Mr. J. B. Bryce, hydraulic engineer, Hydroelectric Power Commission of Ontario; Mr. Raymond Latreille, Commissioner, Quebec Hydroelectric Com- mission, until his retirement from the Board and subsequent re- placement by Mr. Y. DeGuise, Quebec Hydroelectric Commission in the spring of 1962, and Mr. D. M. Ripley, Chief Hydraulic Engi- neer, Economic Policy and Research Branch, Department of Transport. The United States members of the Board were: Brig. Gen. T. DeF. Rogers, Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Divi- sion, North Central, Chairman, ex officio, U.S. section; Mr. W. R. Farley, Chief, Division of Licensed Projects, Bureau of Power, Federal Power Commission; Mr. J. B. McMorran, superintendent of public works, State of New York; and Mr. F. F. Snyder, hydraulic engineer, Office of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Activities of the Board during fiscal year. During the fiscal year, the Board met in New York, N.Y., on September 19 and 20, 1961; in Ottawa, Ontario, on October 3 and 5, 1961; presented its Sixteenth Progress Report to the Commission on October 4, 1961; met in New York, N.Y., on November 30, 1961; met in Buffalo, N.Y., on February 27, 1962; met in Washington, D.C., on April 2, 1962; presented its Seventeenth Progress Report to the Com- mission on April 4, 1962; and met in Cornwall, Ontario, on May 24, 1962. The St. Lawrence Joint Board of Engineers referred the power entities' brief, dated October 13, 1961, on Study of Minimum Water Surface Profile and Swept Depths. Ogdensburg to Iro- quois, Method of Regulation 12-A-9, to the Board for comment. On March 15, 1962, the Board furnished its comments on this brief to the Joint Board of Engineers. The Board of Control approved the 14th and 15th reports by the Joint Working Committee on River Gaging, a joint committee established by the two Boards to provide and maintain a com- prehensive program for recording river levels and flows. The power entities have installed the necessary gages requested by the Board of Control and the Joint Board of Engineers and the required records are being obtained. The Joint Working Com- mittee on River Gaging keeps the two Boards advised regarding this program. During the past year the levels and outflows of Lake Ontario MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL WORKS 2135 have continued to be regulated in accordance with the Interna- tional Joint Commission directive of April 8, 1960, that, com- mencing on April 20, 1960, the St. Lawrence project be so operated as to conform to the criteria and other requirements of the Com- mission's Orders of Approval dated October 29, 1952, and July 2, 1956. In the exercise of discretionary authority granted the Board by the International Joint Commission, the Board stored 0.3 foot of water on Lake Ontario in addition to that which would have obtained without deviation from the regulation plan. The addi- tional storage was dissipated during the period from October through December 1961 so as to benefit navigation and power dur- ing a period of deficient supply. All of the additional storage was dissipated by December 28, 1961. One of the most significant events during the fiscal year was the completion by the Board of Control and approval by the In- ternational Joint Commission of a revised plan for the regula- tion of Lake Ontario. Regulation plan 1958-C, a revision of plan 1958-A designed primarily to reduce the frequency of low flows at Montreal during the navigation season, was placed in effect on January 6, 1962. Subsequent to December 28, 1961, the weekly regulated lake outflows adhered closely to the approved regulation plan-plan 1958-A until January 6, 1962 and 1958-C thereafter. During the fiscal year, there were no violations of the approved range of Lake Ontario stages or of any of the approved operating criteria. INTERNATIONAL NIAGARA BOARD OF CONTROL Constitution and duties. The Board was established August 19, 1953 by directive of the International Joint Commission to super- vise the construction, maintenance and operation of the Niagara remedial works, recommended by the International Joint Com- mission in its 1953 report "Preservation and Enhancement of Niagara Falls." Members of the Board. The Board consists of four members, two representing the United States and two representing Canada. During fiscal year 1962, the United States members of the Board were Brig. Gen. T. DeF. Rogers, division engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Division, North Central, Corps of Engineers, chairman, ex officio, U.S. Section; and Mr. W. R. Farley, Chief, Licensed Projects Division, Bureau of Power, Federal Power Commission. The Canadian members of the Board during the year were Mr. T. M. Patterson, Director, Water Resources Branch, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, chairman of the Canadian section and Mr. Gerald Millar, Chief Engineer, Har- bours and Rivers Engineering Branch, Department of Public Works. Activities during fiscal year. On the advice of the Govern- ments of Canada and the United States contained in letters, dated July 19, 1961, the power entities submitted, through the two governments, complementary applications dated July 21, 1961 to 2136 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 the International Joint Commission. The applications requested the Commission to approve construction of the works recom- mended in the Commission's Interim Report to the governments of June 23, 1961, namely: (a) five sluice extension to the existing control structure; (b) downstream training wall and weir; (c) upstream training wall; and (d) removal of submerged rock weir. The Commission on August 15, 1961, issued an order of ap- proval for the construction, operation and maintenance by the Hydroelectric Power Commission of Ontario of the additional re- medial works in the Niagara River recommended in the applica- tions. Construction of the additional works was commenced in August 1961 and is scheduled for completion late in the fall of 1963. The work is substantially on schedule at the end of the present reporting period. During the past fiscal year the gates in the control structure have been operated to maintain the pool within the limits set by the Board, except during the period January 9-27, 1962 and a few days in February 1962, when severe ice conditions existed in the river. It is noted that, on days when there are ice runs or storms, the normal operating limits for the Chippawa-Grass Is- land pool may be suspended temporarily and, under such circum- stances, the power entities diverting water from the pool are expected to use their best judgment in operating the gates. The Board, assisted by regular reports from its working com- mittee, has closely observed the operation of the control structure to assure that operation of the structure was in accordance with the Board's operating instructions. The Board has encountered no unusual maintenance problems during the year. INTERNATIONAL NIAGARA COMMITTEE Constitution and duties. The treaty of 1950 between Canada and the United States concerning the uses of waters of the Niagara River was signed on February 27, 1950. By its provisions, limita- tions on the diversions of Niagara River water for power in accord- ance with article V of the treaty of 1909 are terminated and temporary international agreements for the allocation of waters of the Niagara River for power purposes are replaced. In ac- cordance with provisions of article VII of the 1950 treaty, a rep- resentative was appointed by each government who, acting jointly, shall ascertain and determine the amounts of water available for the purposes of this treaty, and shall record the same and shall also record the amounts of water used for power diversions. By an exchange of notes during January 1955, the two governments officially designated the representatives appointed in conformance with article VII of the 1950 treaty as the International Niagara Committee. With regard to flows and diversions, the treaty of 1950 became effective October 10, 1950. Under terms of the treaty, all waters in excess of certain minimum flows which are required to main- tain the scenic spectacle at Niagara Falls are available for di- version for power and, with the exception of the 5,000 cubic feet per second authorized October 1940 for diversion by Canada, are to be allocated equally between both countries. However, pending MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL WORKS 2137 availability of sufficient installed capacity on one side of the river to utilize all of its share of the water, the unused portion of its share of the water may be utilized in spare capacity on the other side. Minimum flows over the falls shall be not less than 100,000 cubic feet per second between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m., e.s.t, from April 1 to September 15, and 8 a.m. to 8 p.m from September 16 to Octo- ber 31. At all other times the flow over the falls shall be not less than 50,000 cubic feet per second. A brief history regarding the measurement and supervision of diversion of waters from the Niagara River prior to the designa- tion of the representatives appointed under article VII of the 1950 treaty as the International Niagara Committee is included in annual report for the fiscal year 1955. Members of the Committee. The Committee consists of two members, one representing Canada and one representing the United States. During fiscal year 1962 the Canadian represent- ative was Mr. T. M. Patterson, Director, Water Resources Branch, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Ottawa, and the United States representative, ex officio, was the division engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Division, North Central, Corps of Engineers. Brig. Gen. T. DeF. Rogers was division engineer during fiscal year 1962. Operations during the fiscal year. The Committee received daily reports of operation of the hydroelectric generating stations on the Niagara River which diverted water from the river above the falls, and the De Cew Falls plant, which diverts water from Lake Erie through the Welland Canal. These reports submitted in the form prescribed by the Committee and showing for each hour the quantities of water diverted by each plant, were checked by the Committee. Monthly and annual summaries were prepared. On September 30, 1961, the Schoellkopf and Adams plants were closed down as the new PASNY plant was able to utilize the entire U.S. share of water available for power under the treaty of 1950. Biweekly and intermittent inspections of all plants were made by representatives of the Committee jointly and individually to obtain independent wattmeter readings of power output and to assure that all provisions of the treaty are complied with. Rec- ords of water levels in the Niagara River above and below the falls were obtained by means of self-registering gages. INTERNATIONAL LAKE SUPERIOR BOARD OF CONTROL Constitution and duties. The Board, established in pursuance of orders issued by the International Joint Commission May 26 and 27, 1914, is charged with the supervision of the operations of all compensating works and all power canals and appurtenances with a view to so controlling the outflow from Lake Superior as to maintain its level as nearly as may be between elevations 600.5 and 602 feet above mean water level at Father Point, Quebec (In- ternational Great Lakes Datum-1955) and to so controlling the outflow as to prevent the level of the St. Marys River below the locks from exceeding elevation 582.9. Members of the Board. The members of the Board for fiscal 2138 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 year 1962 were Mr. T. M. Patterson, Director, Water Resources Branch, Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, for Canada; and Brig. Gen. T. DeF. Rogers, Division Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer Division, North Central, ex officio, for the United States. Operations during fiscal year. The Board kept in touch during the year with conditions pertaining to the regulation of Lake Superior through representatives of Canada and the United States on the ground and by means of regular and systematic reports of the water levels on Lake Superior, in the St. Marys River above and below the Sault locks, and on Lake Huron. Records of dis- charge at Sault Ste. Marie through the rapids, navigation canals and powerplants were also systematically reported to the Board. Changes in the rate of outflow from Lake Superior are directed by the Board as indicated by the rule curve currently in use. Dur- ing the past year the Board has continued the use of the modified plan of operation under the rule of 1949 for the regulation of Lake Superior. Due to below-normal supply to Lake Superior, the 16-gate-control structure was set at one-half gate open during the year, and flows through the Carbide Power Canal and through unit 10 of the U.S. powerplant were restricted during 5 months of the year. A joint inspection of the compensating works was made by the Board on October 11, 1961, and the condition of the works was found to be satisfactory. LAKE OF THE WOODS WATERSHED The members of the International Lake of the Woods Control Board, the International Rainy Lake Board of Control and the International Prairie Portage Board of Control for the fiscal year were Mr. J. D. McLeod, for Canada, and Col. William B. Strand- berg, Corps of Engineers, for the United States. INTERNATIONAL LAKE OF THE WOODS CONTROL BOARD The Convention between the United States and Great Britain proclaimed July 17, 1925, provides for the regulation of the level of the Lake of the Woods in order to secure to the inhabitants of the United States and Canada the most advantageous use of the waters thereof, and of the waters flowing into and from the lake on each side of the boundary between the two countries. The Convention also provides for the establishment and mainte- nance of a Canadian Lake of the Woods Control Board to regulate and control the outflow of the waters of the lake, and for the establishment and maintenance of an International Lake of the Woods Control Board, composed of two engineers, one represent- ing the United States and the other representing Canada, to whose approval the rate of total discharge shall be subject whenever the elevation rises above elevation 1061 or falls below elevation 1056, see level datum. Operations during fiscal year. Supervision was maintained and inspections were made to ensure that every effort was being made to comply with the provisions of the Convention. MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL WORKS 2139 INTERNATIONAL RAINY LAKE BOARD OF CONTROL The Convention between the United States and Canada, rati- fied by the United States Senate August 30, 1940, provides in part that: "The International Joint Commission * * * is hereby clothed with power to determine when emergency conditions exist in the Rainy Lake watershed, whether by reason of high or low water, and the Commission is hereby empowered to adopt such measures of control as to it may seem proper with respect to existing dams at Kettle Falls and International Falls, as well as with respect to any existing or future dams or works in boundary waters of the Rainy Lake watershed, in the event the Commission shall de- termine that such emergency conditions exist." On June 8, 1949, the Commission issued an order to the owners of the dams at the outlet of Namakan Lake and Rainy Lake, which provided for a method of regulation as recommended by the In- ternational Rainy Lake Board of Control. The order provides for certain levels during the various seasons of the year as well as control of outflows, with the view to securing the most advantageous use of the water in total to the various interests. A supple- mentary order dated October 1, 1957, modifies the regulations for Namakan Lake to provide for some variation in operation based on anticipated spring runoff. Operations during the fiscal year. Inspections were made, basic data compiled, and engineering reports were submitted to the Commission. At the request of the Commission the Control Board canvassed local interests for an expression of their views with respect to continuation of the supplementary order of October 1, 1957. The key local representatives who were contacted expressed unanimous approval of the operation since 1957 and expressed their desire to see the order continued in effect. INTERNATIONAL PRAIRIE PORTAGE BOARD OF CONTROL The Prairie Portage Board of Control was formed by the In- ternational Joint Commission for the purpose of furnishing it with technical advice regarding the suitability of the dam struc- ture at Prairie Portage, Lake County, Minn. After approval of the plans by the Department of the Army, and the International Joint Commission, the Board has been retained to advise the Com- mission further regarding progress of construction and regarding any other matters which might arise concerning this project. The United States Forest Service constructed a cofferdam be- fore World War II but postponed work on the project during the war. Work has not been resumed except that repairs have been made to the cofferdam from time to time, as needed, to maintain stages on the chain of lakes above. INTERNATIONAL KOOTENAY LAKE BOARD OF CONTROL Constitution and duties. The Board was organized to secure compliance with the provisions of the orders of the International Joint Commission dated November 11, 1938, and August 5, 1949, relating to the construction and operation of control works by 2140 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, 1962 the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Co. of Canada, Ltd., through the West Kootenay Power and Light Co., Ltd., in and adjacent to the channel of the Kootenay River, and regulation of the levels of Kootenay Lake in the Province of British Columbia. Members of the Board. The members of the Board for the fiscal year were Mr. H. T. Ramsden, Water Resources Branch, Depart- ment of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Vancouver, British Columbia, chairman, and Mr. A. F. Paget, Comptroller of Water Rights, Department of Lands and Forests, Victoria, British Columbia, for Canada; and Col. R. P. Young, district engineer, U.S. Army Engineer District, Seattle, Wash., Corps of Engineers, chairman, until October 1, 1961, when he was suc- ceeded as district engineer by Col. E. L. Perry and, on an interim basis, Mr. Wayne I. Travis, District Engineer, U.S. Geological Survey, Boise, Idaho, for the United States. Operations during fiscal year. No formal meetings of the Board were held during the year. Operation of Kootenay Lake was checked in the Seattle District office for compliance with the order of the Commission and investigations and inspection visits to the area were made by individual members of the Board. The annual report was submitted to the Commission. INTERNATIONAL OSOYOOS LAKE BOARD OF CONTROL Constitution and duties. A special board of engineers was con- stituted to ensure compliance with the provisions of the order of the International Joint Commission dated July 12, 1943, di- recting investigation of high-water conditions on the Okanogan River and studies of the relationships between certain obstruc- tions, complained of in an application by the State of Washington, and the levels of Osoyoos Lake. The Board was enlarged from two to four members by an order of the Commission dated September 12, 1946, to carry out the provisions of the order relative to the operation of the Zosel Dam. Members of the Board. The members of the Board were Mr. H. T. Ramsden, Water Resources Branch, Northern Affairs and National Resources, Vancouver, British Columbia, chairman, and Mr. A. W. Walkey, Harbours and Rivers Engineering Branch, Department of Public Works, Vancouver, British Columbia, for Canada; and Mr. F. M. Veatch, Water Resources Division, United States Geological Survey, Tacoma, Wash., chairman, and Col R. P. Young, District Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer District, Seat- tle, Wash., Corps of Engineers, until October 1, 1961, when he was succeeded as District Engineer by Col. E. L. Perry, for the United States. Operationsduring fiscal year. No formal meetings of the Board were held during the year. Supervision was maintained to ensure compliance with the provisions of the International Joint Com- mission. The annual report was submitted to the Commission. INDEX A Page Abbapoola Creek, S. C.......................... ............... 432 Aberdeen Creek, Va .................... .................. 355,378 Aberdeen, Ohio..............................................1180, 1183 Abilene, Smoky Hill River, Kans. .............................. 1011 Abiquiu Reservoir, N. Mex............................... ......... 854 Absecon Creek, N. J........................................... 246 Absecon Inlet, N. J.................. ......................... 239 Accotink Creek, Va .................. ........................ 299 Acushnet, Mass................................ ................. 121 Adams Bayou, Tex........... ................................. 737 Adams, Hoosic River Basin, Mass .................................. 194 Adams levee, Ind .......................................... 1141, 1144 Addison, N. Y ................................................... 306 Adena, Ohio (Short Creek) .................................... 1236, 1238 Agate Bay (Two Harbors) Minn.................................. 1244 Alabama-Coosa River, Ala. and Ga.............................. 570, 592 Alabama River at Montgomery, Ala............................... 594 Alamo Reservoir, Bill Williams River, Ariz......................... 1660 Alamogordo Dam, N. Mex ........................................ 865 Alaska engineering district....................................... 2011 Albermale and Chesapeake Canal, N. C. and Va..................... 371 Albeni Falls Reservoir, Idaho.......... .......................... 1969 Alburquerque diversion channels, N. Mex.......................... 865 Albuquerque, N. Mex., engineering district . ..................... 847 Algiers lock, La.................................................. 609 Algoma Harbor, Wis............. ............................... 1420 Alhambra, W ash., Calif........................................... 1636 Aliso Creek, Calif................... ......... ................ .. 1672 Allatoona Reservoir, Coosa River Basin, Ga........................ 593 Allegany, N. Y............................................ 1236,1238 Allegheny River, Pa. and N. Y.: Construction of locks and dams .............................. 1189 Flood control reservoir...................................... 1202 Improvement by open channel work......... ................... 1200 Allentown, Lehigh River, Pa ...................................... 254 Alloway Creek, N. J............................................. 246 Alma Harbor, Wis.............................................. 1350 Almond Reservoir, N. Y............... ......................... 302 Aloha-Rigolette area, La ......................................... 660, 680 Alpena Harbor, Mich............................................. 1495 Altamaha River, Ga............................................. 449 A lton, Ill........................................................ 731 Alton, Ind.. ............ ............................... ... 1141, 1144 Altus (Lugert) Reservoir, Okla. .................................. 962 Alvin R. Bush Reservoir, Pa............ ......................... 321 Amazon Creek, Oreg..................................................... 1927 Ambrose Channel, New York Harbor, N. Y........................ 167 American Lake, Wash ........ ..................................... 1976 American River, Calif ........................................ 1816 Amite River, La........ .................................... 657, 676, 2043 Anacortes Harbor, Wash... ................................. 1933 Ancostia River and Flats....................................... 300 Anacostia River and tributaries, D. C. and Md..... ................. 328 Anaheim Bay Harbor, Calif ................................... 1677 2141 2142 INDEX Page Anahuac Channel, Tex........................................... 764 Anchorage Harbor, Alaska....................................... 2025 Anclote River, Fla............................................... 526 Anderson, Ind.................................................. 1144 Andover Reservoir, Conn.......................................... 125 Angelina River, Tex............................................. 804 Annapolis Harbor, Md........................................... 299 Annisquam River, Mass.......................................... 21 Anthony Shoals Reservoir, Ga.................................... 458 Apalachee Bay, Fla... ......... ...... ............................. 542 Apalachicola Bay, Fla............................................ 547 Apalachicola River, Ga. and Fla.................................. 548 Apoon Mouth of Yukon River, Alaska................................ 2025 Appleton lock and dam, Wis...................................... 1370 Appomattox River, Va.........................................376, 377 Apponaug Cove, R.I.............................................. 42 Appoquinimink River, Del........................................ 246 Aquatic plant control: Charleston District.......................................... 431 Jacksonville District........................................ 523 Mobile District...... ......................................... .... 590 New Orleans District......... ................................ 654 Savannah District........................... ................... 456 Southwestern Division........................................ 788 Wilmington District.............................................. 407 Aquia Creek, Va................................................ 299 Arcadia Harbor, Mich............................................ 1495 Arcadia W ash, Calif............................................ 1636 Arecibo Harbor, P. R............................................ 526 Arkansas River and tributaries, Ark. and Okla: Bank stabilization and channel rectification .................. 880, 916 Entrance channels......................... 877 ................ Little Rock District.......................................... 871 Locks and dams............................................. 877 Tulsa District............................................... 914 Arkansas River Basin..........................................906, 952 Arkport Reservoir, N. Y......................................... 302 Arlington, Oreg.. .... ........................................ ..... 2007 Arlington Reservoir, Mo........................................ 1011 Artesia diversion channel, N. Mex................................ 865 Ashland Harbor, W is........................................... 1252 Ashland, Ky............................................ 1180,1183 Ashley River, S. C............................................. 432 Ashtabula Harbor, Ohio......................................... 1529 Atchafalaya Basin, La....................................................... .. . 2054 Atchafalaya River, Morgan City to the Gulf of Mexico, La .......... 635 Athalia, Ohio............................................... 1180,1183 Atlantic Beach, N. C............................................. 410 Atlantic City, N. J............................................... 257 Atlantic-Gulf ship canal, Fla..................................... 526 Atlantic Intracostal Waterway between Norfolk, Va., and St. Johns River, Fla.: Charleston District........................................... 421 Jacksonville District......................................... 465 Norfolk District............................................. 370 Savannah District........................................... 439 Wilmington District........................... ............ 383 Atwood Reservoir, Ohio........................................ 1159 Auburn, N. Y .................................................. 1578 A ugusta, Ga................................................... 462 Augusta, Kans................................................. 962 Augusta, Ky.... ........................................ 1180,1183 Aurora, Colo................................................. 1051 Aurora, Ind.............................................. 1141, 1144 Au Sable Harbor, and Harbor of Refuge, Mich...................... 1482 INDEX 2143 Page Avoca, N. Y .................................................... 306 Avon Harbor, N. C.............................................. 410 B Back Creek, Md................................................. 299 Bagaduce River, Maine .......................................... 58 Baker Bay, W ash................................................ 1868 Bakers Haulover Inlet, Fla....... ........................................... 426 Badhill Dam and Reservoir, N. Dak................................ 1287 Ball Mountain Reservoir, Vt. ........... ......... ............... 94 Ballona Creek Basin and Channel, Calif............................ 1639 Baltimore, Md.: Engineering district......................................... 263 Harbor and channels..................................... 264, 345 Harbor, removal of drift.................... ................. 269 Prevention of obstructions and injurious deposits .............. 269 Banner, Ill., drainage and levee district .......................... 1425 Barataria Bay Waterway, La..................................... 630 Barbourville, Ky......................................................... 1090 Barcelona Harbor, N. Y......................................... 1569 Bardwell Reservoir, Tex.......................................... 821 Bar Harbor, Maine................................................ 58 Barkley Dam and Reservoir, Ky ................................. 1071 Barkman Creek, Tex. and Ark................................. 659,660 Banegat Bay and Inlet, N. J...................................... 246 Barnegat Light, N. J... ............................................... 1141 Barnett Creek, Ky............................................. 1141 Barre Falls Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, Mass . . .. ....... . 102 Barren River, Ky............................................... 1112 Barren River Reservoir, Ky.................................. 1125, 1142 Bartley, Missouri River Basin, Nebr.............................. 1011 Barton Creek, Utah............. ........ ....................... 1818 Bass Harbor Bar, Maine......................................... 58 Bastrop Bayou, Tex................................. .......... . 790 Batavia and vicinity, Tonawanda Creek, N. Y ....................... 1579 Bath, N. Y ...... ............................................. 306 Baton Rouge Harbor, La........................ ..................... 2053 Battle Creek, Mich............. ..... ......... ................ 1501 Battle Creek, Nebr.............................................. 1051 Baudette Harbor, Minn................ ............. ............ . 1272 Bautista Creek Channel, Calif.................................... 1656 Bayard, W. Va................. .............................. 331 Bayfield Harbor, W is............................................ ... 1272 Bay Island Drainage and Levee District No. 1, Ill................... 1336 Bay Ocean Peninsula, Oreg..................................... 1888 Bayou Bartholomew, La. and Ark.................................. 688 Bayou Bodcau, La....... .................................... 680 Bayou Bodcau Reservoir, La................................... 660, 671 Bayou Boeuf lock, La...... ...................................... 610 Bayou Bonfouca, La............. ......... .................... 657 Bayou Chevreuil, La ............................................ 678 Bayou Cocodrie, La ............................................. 2057 Bayou Coden, Ala............................................... 592 Bayou D'Arbonne and Corney, La.. ................. .............. 688 Bayou des Cannes, La ..................................... 657,658 Bayou Dorcheat, La... ........................................ 657 Bayou Dupre, La............................................... 657 Bayou Galere, Miss............................................ 592 Bayou Grand Cailloa, La....................................... 658 Bayou Grosse Tete, La........................................... 657 Bayou La Batre, Ala........................................... 581 Bayou Lacombe, La........................................... 602, 657 Bayou Lafourche, La..................................... 632,657 Bayou Le Carpe, La.........................................658 Bayou M acon, La........................... ................. 688, 2059 2144 INDEX Page Bayou Manchac, La ........................................... 657 Bayou Nezpique, La .......................................... 657,658 Bayou Pierre, La ............................................. 660,680 Bayou Pierre in the vicinity of Shreveport, La.................... 659, 680 Bayou Plaquemine Brule, La...................................... 657 Bayou Queue de Tortue, La....................................... 657 Bayou Segnette Waterway, La.................................... 657 Bayou Sorrel lock, La.... ....................................... 610 Bayou Teche, La... .......................................... 637 Bayou Teche and Vermillion River, La............................. 640 Bayou Terrebonne, La... ..................................... 657 Bayou Vermilion, La............................... ............. 657 Bayous La Loutre, St. Malo and Yscloskey, La...................... 657 Bay Ridge Channel, New York Harbor, N. Y...................... 146 Bay River, N. C.. . ............................................ 409 Bayside-Gedney Channel, New York Harbor, N. Y................... 167 Beach City Reservoir, Ohio.... .................................. 1159 Beach Erosion Board ............................................ 2103 Beach Creek, Va... ........................................... 378 Beals Harbor, Maine................ .............................. 58 Bear Creek, M iss.... ........................................... 688 Bear Creek at Hannibal, Mo .................................... 1316 Bear Creek, Pa ... ........................................... 1239 Bear Creek Reservoir, Lehigh River, Pa............................ 249 Bear Dam and Reservoir, Calif .................................... 1791 Beards Brook Reservoir, N. H.................................... 125 Beardstown, Ill....... ........................................... 1423 Beatrice, Big Blue River, Nebr.................................... 992 Beatty Clark levees, Sangamon River, Ill.......................... 1426 Beaufort Harbor and River, N. C................................ 399, 410 Beaumont turning basin, Tex..................................... 736 Beaver and Mahoning Rivers, Pa., and Ohio...................... 1200 Beaver Bay Harbor, Minn....................................... 1272 Beaver drainage district, Columbia County, Oreg. .............. 1921, 1926 Beaver Reservoir, Ark........................................ 887, 891 Belfast Harbor, Maine.. .......................... ................... 58 Beehaven Harbor, N. C.......................................... 409 Bellaire, Ohio.............................................. 1236,1238 Bellamy River, N. H............................................. 58 Bell draining district, Sangamon River, Ill .......................... 1425 Belle Fourche, Cheyenne River, S. Dak............................ 1051 Belle River, Mich............................................... 1495 Belleville locks and dams......................................... 1060 Bellevue, Ky............................................... 1141,1144 Bell Foley Reservoir, Ark......................................... 887 Bellingham Harbor, Wash................................... 1964,1965 Belpre, Ohio................................................ 1180, 1183 Belton Reservoir, Leon River, Tex.................................. 826, 829, 842 Belton Reservoir, Leon River, Tex........................ 826,829,842 Benbrook Reservoir, Tex ........................................ 817 Benedict Canyon, Callona Creek Basin, Calif ....................... 1611 Bennet Spring State Park, Mo......................................... 1012 Bennington, Hoosic River Basin, Vt................................ 199 Bennington Reservoir, N. H...................................... 125 Beresford Creek, S. C............................................ 432 Berlin lock and dam, Fox River, Wis................ ............... 1370 Berlin Reservoir, Ohio....................................... 1233, 1237 Berrien County, Mich........................................... 1507 Berwick lock, La................................................ 638 Bethlehem, Lehigh River, Pa...................................... 250 Betterton Harbor, Md............................................ 298 Beverly Harbor, Mass............................................ 58 Big Bay Harbor, Mich................................. .......... 1260 Big Bend Reservoir, S. Dak.............. ....................... 1029 Big Bend Reservoir, W. Va..................................... 1184 INDEX 2145 Page Big Black River, Miss......................................... 688, 697 Big Creek, Ark................................................. 706 Big (Cunningham) Creek, Ohio.................................... 1569 Big Darby Creek Reservoir, Ohio.................................. 1184 Big Dry Creek Reservoir and diversion, Calif ....................... 1816 Big Fossil Creek, Tex............................................. 818 Big Lake drainage and levee district, Ill............................ 1425 Big Pigeon Bayou, La........................................... 657 Big Prairie, Ill................................................. 1423 Big Sandy River, including Levisa and Tug Forks, Va., W. Va., and Ky 1154 Flood control reservoirs..................................... 1181 Big Sioux River, S. Dak. and Iowa............................... 1022 Big Stranger Creek, Kans........................................ 1012 Big Suamico River, W is.......................................... 1365 Big Sunflower River, Miss.................................... 688, 2062 Bigh Thoroughfare River, Md..................................... 287 Big Timber Creek, N. J.......................................... 234 Big Wash, Utah.................................................1818 Billings, Mont........... ........................................ 1051 Biloxi Harbor, Miss....................................... 584, 592 Binghampton, N. Y........................................... 303 Birch Hill Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, Mass................. .99 Birch Reservoir, W. Va......... ................................. 1184 Black Bayou-Pine Island Area.................................. 680 Black Bayou Reservoir, La...................................... 660, 680 Black Butte Reservoir, Calif..................................... 1756 Blackfish Bayou, Ark ......................................... 704 Blackfoot area, Idaho............................................ 2007 Blackfoot River, Idaho................. ................... ...... 1999 Black Rascal Creek, Calif........................................ 1791 Black River, Ark., and Mo................................ 885, 910 Black River below Camden, Ark................................. 683 Black River Harbor, Mich........................................ 1272 Black River Harbor, N. Y........................................ 1569 Black River, Mich...................... .......................... 1495 Black River, N. C................ ......................... 409,418 Black River Reservoir, Wis. ........ .......................... 1301 Black River, W is.................................................. 1272 Black Rock Channel, N. Y....................................... 1547 Black Rock Reservoir, Housatonic River Basin, Conn .............. 117 Blackstone River Basin, Mass. and R. I ............................ 75 Black Walnut Harbor, Md........................................ 299 Black Warrior, Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers, Ala. ............... 574 Blackwater Reservoir, Merrimack River Basin, N. H ................. 69, 71 Blackwater River, Fla.... ....................................... 592 Blackwater River, Va............... ....................... 374, 376 Blakely Mountain Dam, on Ouachita River, Ark..................... 693 Blakely Mountain Reservoir, Ark.................................. 691 Blaine Harbor, W ash................................. ... ..... 1964, 1965 Blanchard Canyon, Los Angeles River Basin, Calif .................. 1620 Blanchard Reservoir, Pa......................................... 321 Blieders Creek, Guadalupe River, Tex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839 Blind slough diking district, Clatsop County, Oreg .................. 1926 Block Island (Harbor of Refuge), R. I............................. 46 Blood River, La...... ............................................ 658 Blue Gum Canyon, Los Angeles River Basin, Calif .................. 1620 Blue Mountain Reservoir, Ark................................... 906 Blue River Reservoir, Willamette River Basin, Oreg.................. 1897 Bluestone Reservoir, W. Va.................................... 1173 Bluewater floodway, N. Mex...................................... 854 Bluff Creek, Miss......................................... 592,865 Boards: Beach Erosion............................................. 2103 Engineers for Rivers and Harbors............................ 2033 Bodega Bay, Calif........................................... 1693 2146 INDEX Page Boeuf River, La ............................................. 688,2043 Bogue Chitto, La ................................................ 592 Bogue Falls, La ............................................... 603 Bogue Lusa, La ................................................. 598 Bois de Sioux River, S. Dak. and Minn.............................. 1289 Boise River, and Valley, Idaho................................... 2001 Bolivar Reservoir, Ohio......................................... 1159 Bonneville, Oreg: Construction of dam at....................................... 1803 Restoration of Indian fishing grounds.......................... 1850 Bonpas Creek, Ill............................................... 1141 Booneville Reservoir, Ky......................................... 1142 Boothbay Harbor, Maine.......................................... 58 Boston Harbor, Mass............................................. 25 Boswell Reservoir, Boggy Creek, Okla.............................. 962 Boulder, Colo.................................................... 1051 Brackenridge, Pa................................................ 1236 Braddock, Pa................................................... 1197 Bradford, Pa................................................... 1201 Brandon Road lock and dam, Ill.................................... 1416 Branford Harbor, Conn......................................... 58 Bransons Cove, Va.............................................. 299 Brant Rock Beach, Marshfield, Mass............................... 67 Brazo Island Harbor, Tex........................................ 782 Brazo River, Tex................................................ 825 From Velasco to Old Washington.............................. 790 Brea Dam, Calif...... .......................................... 1648 Breton Bay, Md................................................. 299 Brevoort levee, Ind.............................................. 1144 Bridge Island, St. Marys River, Mich.............................. 1496 Bridgeport Harbor, Conn......................................... 52 Bridge relocation, Corpus Christi, Tex.............................. 792 Brilliant, Ohio......................................... .. 1236, 1238 Broad Creek, Md.............................................. 281 Broad Creek River, Del ......................................... 299 Broad Creek, Va................................................ 353 Broadkill River, Del............................................. 249 Broadwater Creek, Md............................................ 299 Brockway, Pa....... ........................................ 1236, 1238 Brockway Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, Vt................... 125 Broken Bow Reservoir, Red River Basin, Okla ...................... 958 Bromley, Ky............................................. 1141,1144 Bronx River, N. Y............................................. 187 Brooklyn, W. Va. .... ...................................... 1180, 1183 Brookport, Ill .............................. ............... 1141,1144 Brookville, Pa ................................................. 1208 Brookville Reservoir, Ind ...................................... 1142 Brown Creek, Okla ............................................ 962 Browns Creek, N. Y............................................ 141 Brownsville, Pa.. .............................................. 1197 Bruces Eddy Damn and Reservoir, Idaho .......................... 2002 Brunswick Harbor, Ga ......................................... 451 Buckhannon River, W. Va ...................................... 1200 Buckhannon, W. Va .......................................... 1238 Buckhorn Reservoir, Ky ................................... 1120, 1142 Bucksport Harbor, Maine ....................................... 58 Buena Vista, Ohio ......................................... 1180, 1183 Buffalo Bayou, Tex ........................................... 793 Buffalo Creek, N. Dak ........................................ 1051 Buffalo, N. Y.: Engineer district....... ............ ........................... 1511 Improvement of harbor.................................... 1542 Buffalo River, Mass........................................... 697 Buffalo, Wyo.................................................. 1051 Buffumville Reservoir, Mass.................................... 82 INDEX 2147 Page Buford Dam and Reservoir, Ga.................................. 553 Buggs Island Reservoir, Va. and N. C. See John H. Kerr Reservoir Bull Creek, Okla... .......................................... 963 Bull Creek, Pa............................................... 1239 Bull Shoals Reservoir, Ark.................................... 887, 894 Bullocks Point Cove, R. I.. .. ....................................................... 59 Burbank-Eastern system, Los Angeles River Basin, Calif ........... 1620 Burbank western system (lower) Los Angeles, Calif .............. 1620 Burbank western system (upper), Los Angeles, Calif .............. 1621 Burch Creek, Utah.... ......................................... 1818 Burial Hill Beach, Conn........................................ 67 Burleson County levee, Brazos River, Tex........................ 842 Burlington Harbor, Vt......................................... 163 Burlington, Ohio ....................................... 1180,1183 Burns Dam and Reservoir, Calif.................................. 1790 Burnsville Reservoir, W. Va.................................... 1184 Butler, Pa.................................................... 1221 Buttermilk Bay (Channel), Mass................................ 59 Buttermilk Channel, N. Y....................................... 147 Byram River, Conn............................................. 200 C Caballero Creek, Calif.......................................... 1621 Cache River diversion, Ill........................................ 731 Caddoa Reservoir. See John Martin Reservoir. Cadle Creek, Md................................................ 299 Caesar Creek Reservoir, Ohio............................. 1116,1142 Cagles Mill Reservoir, Ind................................. 1136,1143 Cahaba River, Ala.............................................. 592 Cajon Creek, Santa Ana River Basin, Calif.................... 1649, 1672 Calaveras River, Calif.......................................... 1772 Calcasieu lock, La.............................................. 610 Calcasieu River and Pass, La.................................... 650 Caledonia, N. Y............................................... 1579 Calf Pasture Beach Park, Conn.................................. 67 California Debris Commission.................................... 2107 California, Ohio....... ...................................... 1141,1144 Calion, A rk...... ............................................... 691 Calumet Harbor and River, Ill. and Ind............................ 1400 Calumet River lock, Ill........................................... 1416 Camanche Reservoir, Calif...................................... 1767 Cambridge Harbor, Md........................................... 299 Cambridgeport Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, Vt............... .125 Camden Harbor, Maine........................................... 59 Campbells Island, Ill............................................ 1341 Canapitsit Channel, Mass......................................... 59 Canaveral Harbor, Fla........................................... 479 Cane River, La................................................. 657 Caney Fork River, Tenn......................................... 1087 Canisteo, N. Y................................................. 307 Cannelton, Ind......................... .................. 1141,1144 Cannelton locks and dam ...... ................................... 1062 Canton, M ass................................................... 128 Canton Reservoir, Okla........................................... 922 Canyon Reservoir, Guadalupe River, Tex.......................... 837 Cape Charles City Harbor, Va.............................. 376, 378 Cape Cod Canal, Mass........................................... 28 Cape Fear River, N. C. above Wilmington.......................... 401 Cape Girardeau, Mo....................................... 716,731 Cape May City (Cold Spring Inlet), N. J.........................260 Cape Henry Channel, Va......................................... 346 Cape Porpoise Harbor, Maine..................................... 59 Cape Vincent Harbor, N. Y.................................... 1566 Captain Anthony Meldahl lock and dam .......................... 1061 Carbon Canyon Dam and Channel, Santa Ana River Basin, Calif...... 1648 2148 INDEX Page Carden's Bottom drainage district No. 2, Arkansas River, Ark ........ 910 Carlin Bayou, La ................................................ 642 Carlyle Reservoir, Ill............................................ 725 Carrabelle Bar and Harbor, Fla.................................. 545 Carroll County Levee and Drainage District No. 1, Ill .............. 1341 Carrollton, Ky.............................................. 1141,1144 Carters Creek, Va............................................... 376 Carthage Dam and Reservoir, Tenn.............................. 1073 Carthage, Mo................................................... 962 Carvers Harbor, Maine............................................ 59 Cascadia Reservoir, Oreg.................................... 1892,1927 Cascades Canal, Oreg........................................... 1888 Caseyville, Ky.............................................. 1141,1144 Cashie River, N. C.............................................. 409 Castle Rock, Cowlitz River, Wash.................................. 1927 Castlewood Dam and Reservoir, Colo............................... 1051 Cathance River, Maine........................................... 59 Catlettsburg, Ky............................................ 1167,1180 Cattaraugus Creek, N.Y......................................... 1569 Cave-in-Rock, Ill............................................ 1141,1144 Cave Run Reservoir, Ky..................................... 1142, 1144 Cayuga Inlet, N. Y.............................................. 1576 Cedar Bayou, Tex............................................... 790 Cedar Hill Reservoir, Mo......................................... 730 Cedar Island Bay, N. C........................................... 410 Cedar Keys Harbor, Fla.......................................... 526 Cedar Point Reservoir, Kans...................................... 962 Cedar River Harbor, Mich....................................... 1420 Cedars lock and dam, Wis............ ............ .... .... ....... 1370 Celina Dam and Reservoir, Tenn.................................. 1073 Center Hill Reservoir, Tenn...................................... 1099 Centinela Creek, Calif........................................... 1640 Central and Southern, Fla........................................ 527 Central City Reservoir, Iowa..................................... 1341 Ceredo-Kenova, W. Va...................................... 1180, 1183 Chadakoin River, N. Y...................................... 1236,1238 Chambersburg, Ohio........................................ 1180,1183 Chamita Dam and Reservoir, Rio Chama, N. Mex .................. 854 Chandlerville, Ill., east of......................................... 1425 Chandlerville No. 2 Reservoir, Ill .................................. 1426 Channel between North and South Hero Islands, Lake Champlain, Vt.. 188 Channel connecting Plain Dealing Creek and Oak Creek, Md.......... 298 Channel connecting York River, Va. with Back Creek to Slaight's wharf ................................................... 376,377 Channel from Back Sound to Lookout Bight, N. C.................... 409 Channel from Pamlico Sound to Avon, N. C....................... 393 Channel from Pamlico Sound to Rodanthe, N. C .................... 409 Channel from Phoebus, Va. to deep water in Hampton Rds........ 376, 377 Channel to Newport News, Va................................. 376, 377 Channel to Port Bolivar, Tex..................................... 790 Chariton River, Mo ..... ................................................... 1011 Charleroi, Pa........... ........................................ 1197 Charles Mill Reservoir, Ohio...................................... 1159 Charleston, S. C.: Engineering district.......................................... 421 Improvement of harbor......... ............................... 425 Charlevoix Harbor, Mich........................................... 1475 Charlotte-Amalie, V. I............................................ 525 Charlotte Harbor, Fla.......................................... 506 Chartiers Creek, Pa....................... ................... 1239 Chatfield Reservoir, Colo.... .................................... 1051 Chatham (Stage) Harbor, Mass... ................................. 33 Chattahoochee River, Ga., Ala and Fla............................ 548 Chattanooga, Tenn., and Rossville, Ga......... ................... 1106 Chattooga Reservoir, Ga. and S. C................................ 458 INDEX 2149 Page Cheat River, W. Va............................................. 1200 Cheatham Dam and Reservoir, Tenn............................... 1071 Cheboygan Harbor, Mich........................................ 1479 Cheesequake Creek, N. J.......................................... 188 Chefuncte River, La............................................. 603 Chehalis River, W ash............... ............................ 1956 Chelsea River Channel, Mass..................................... 26 Chelsea Street Highway Bridge, Mass............................ 63 Chena Slough, Alaska............................................ 2030 Cherry and Red Fork Creeks, Okla............................... 963 Cherry Creek Dam and Reservoir, Colo.......................... 1043 Cherryfield, Maine............................................... 128 Cherry Valley Reservoir, Calif................................... 1780 Cherry Valley Run, Ohio........................................ 1239 Chesapeake, Ohio........................................ 1180,1183 Cheshire, Ohio.............................................. 1180,1183 Chester River, Md........................................... 298 Chester River, Pa.... ........................................... 249 Chetco River, Oreg...................................................... 1887 Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company Bridge across the Mississippi at Quincy, Ill..................................... 1312 Chicago Harbor and River: Improvement of harbor...................................... 1396 Improvement of river.................................... 1394,1420 Shore protection................................. ...... 1428 Chicago, Ill., engineering district................................ 1361 Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Bridge at Hastings, M inn .... .. .. ............................................. 1274 Chickamauga, Tenn.............................................. 1083 Chickasawhay River, Miss........................................ 592 Chico Landing to Red Bluff, Calif................................ 1756 Chicopee Falls, Connecticut River Basin, Mass.................... 105 Chicopee, Mass............................................... 125,126 Chief Joseph Dam, Wash........................................ 1943 Chiflo Dam, N. M ex............. .......... ......................... 854 Chillicothe Reservoir, Mo........................................ 1011 Chilo, Ohio....................... ...................... 1180,1183 Chincoteague Inlet and Bay, Va................................... 339 Chino Creek channel, Calif...................................... 1650 Chippewa Harbor, Isle Royale, Mich.............................. 1272 Chittenango Creek and tributaries, N. Y.......................... .1579 Chocolate Bayou, Tex............ .. .................... ...... 790 Choctawatchee River, Fla and Ala................................ 592 Choptank River, Md...................................................... 274 Chouteau, Nameoki, and Venice drainage and levee district, Ill........ 731 Chowan River, N. C............................................ 409 Christiansted Harbor, St. Croix, V. I............................... 520 Cincinnati, Ohio.........................................1141,1144 Claiborne Harbor, Md..........................................298 Claremont Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, N. H ................ 126 Clarendon to Laconia Circle, Ark................................. 706 Clarington, Ohio....................................... .. 1180,1183 Clarion River Reservoir, Pa .................................. 1206,1237 Clark Creek, S. C.............................................432 Clark Fork at Missoula, Mont.................................... 1976 Clark Hill Reservoir, Ga. and S. C................................ 460 Clarksville, Ark................................................ 901 Clatskanie River, Oreg........................................... 1888 Clear Creek and Clear Lake, Tex................................ 768 Clear Creek drainage and levee district, Ill...................... 715, 717 Clear Lake levee, Ill...... ....................................... 1425 Clearwater Pass, Fla........................................... 526 Clearwater Reservoir, Mo...................................... 887, 897 Clearwater River, Minn............................. 1282 Clendening Reservoir, Ohio...................................... 1159 2150 INDEX Page Cleveland Harbor, Ohio........................................... 1520 Cleveland and Lakewood, Ohio.................................... 1581 Cleves, Ohio....... .......................................... 1141,1144 Clifton, W . Va....... ....................................... 1180,1183 Clinch River, Tenn. and Va....................................... 1087 Clinton Harbor, Conn............................................ 59 Clinton, Ind................................................ 1141,1144 Clinton River, Mich............................................. 1495 Cloverport, Ky.......................................... 1141, 1144 Clyde, Pawtucket River Basin, R. I............................... 126 Coal Creek Drainage and Levee District, Ill....................... 1425 Coal Creek and tributaries (Lake City), Tenn.................... 1102 Coal Grove, Ohio....................................... 1180,1183 Coan River, Va................................................. 299 Coasters Island Harbor, R. I..................................... 59 Cobscook Bay, Maine............................................. 59 Cocheco River, N. H ............................................. 59 Cochiti Dam and Reservoir, Rio Grande, N. Mex................ 854, 855 Cockrells Creek, Va............................................376 Coeur D'Alene, Idaho......................................... 1976 Coffin Creek, S. C............................................433 Cohansey River, N. J..........................................236 Cohasset Harbor, Mass..........................................59 Cold Spring Inlet, N. J.... ..................................... 237 Coldwater Canyon, Calif ...................................... 1640 Coldwater River, Miss..........................................688 Colebrook River Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, Conn...........110 Colfax, La...................................................680 Colfax, Wash................................................ 2004 Collinsville, Ala...............................................597 Colonial Beach, Va.... .......................................... 299 Colorado Springs, Fountaine que Bouille River, Colo ................ 865 Columbia drainage and levee district No. 3, Ill.................... 731 Columbia lock and dam, Ga. and Ala.............................. 557 Columbia River, Oreg. and Wash.: Baker Bay, W ash., at........................................ 1868 Bonneville, Oreg., at...................................... 1848 Bonneville, Oreg., construction of dam at...................... 1803 Cascades Canal...... ........................................ 1888 Cascades locks, bridges at.................................... 1888 Celilo Falls to Kennewick, Wash ............................. 1994 Chief Joseph Dam, W ash..................................... 1943 Chinook, Wash., and Head of Sand Island, between.............. 1888 Dalles Dam .................................................. 1846 Local flood protection ............................. 1912, 1966, 1997 McNary Dam............................ ...... . 1990 Mouth improvement............................ 1869 Vancouver, Wash., and Portland Oreg., below.................. 1859 Vancouver, Wash., and The Dalles, Oreg., between. ............ 1851 Wenatchee to Kettle Falls, Wash.................................... 1965 Columbia Slough, Oreg..................... ................. 1888 Compo Beach, W estport, Conn.................................... 66 Compton Creek, Los Angeles River Basin..................... . 1621 Compton Creek, N. J...................................180 Conant Brook Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, Mass............. 109 Conchas Dam and Reservoir, N. Mex...............................851 Concordia, Ky......................................... .. 1141,1144 Conecuh River, Ala. and Fla.....................................592 Conemaugh River Reservoir, Pa........... ............... 1216,1237 Coney Island Channel, N. Y......... .......................... 187 Coney Island Creek, N. Y...................................... 187 Congaree River, S. C.... ........................................ 432 Conneaut Harbor, Ohio... .................................... 1533 Connecticut River Basin, Vt., N. H., Mass., and Conn................. 88 INDEX 2151 Page Connecticut River, Mass. and Conn.: Above Hartford, Conn........................................ 59 Below Hartford, Conn....................................... 50 Consolidated diking and improvement district No. 1, Cowlitz County, Wash ..................................................... 1927 Contentnea Creek, N. C.......................................... 409 Conway County drainage and levee district No. 1, Arkansas River, Ark 910 Conway County levee district No. 6, Arkansas River, Ark........... .910 Conway County levee districts Nos. 1, 2, and 8, Arkansas River, Ark .. 910 Cooper River, N. J.............................................. 233 Cooper Reservoir and Channels, Tex........................... 659, 666 Coosa River, Ga. and Ala..................................... 570,592 Coos Bay, Harbor, and River, Oreg.: Improvement of entrance to bay and harbor..................1882 Improvement of river............................. .......... 1888 Copes Corner Reservoir, N. Y................................... 301 Coquille River, Oreg.................. ....................... 1884, 1927 Coralville Reservoir, Iowa...... .................................. 1333 Corapolis, Pa............................................... 1236,1238 Corbin (Lynn Camp Creek), Ky.................................1091 Cordell Hull Dam and Reservoir, Tenn............................1073 Cordova Harbor, Alaska........................................ 2018 Corea Harbor, Maine............................................. 59 Core Creek, N. C............................................... 418 Corning, N. Y ........ ........................................... 305 Cornucopia Harbor, W is...... .................................... 1251 Corpus Christi, Tex.: Bridge relocation............................................ 792 Channel to Encinal Peninsula naval seaplane base. ............ 790 Corsica River, Md.............................................. 298 Cortland, N. Y .................................................. 318 Cottage Grove Reservoir, Oreg.................................... 1908 Cottonwood Creek, Guthrie, Okla................................. 963 Cottonwood Springs Reservoir, S. Dak.............................. 1023 Contuit Harbor, M ass.... ....................................... 35 Cougar Reservoir, Oreg.....................:................... 1898 Council Bluffs, Iowa....... ...................................... 1051 Council Grove Reservoir, Kans.................................. 937 Courtableau Basin, La., and outlets............................... 2043 Courtenay Channel, Fla......................................... 526 Cove Island, Conn............................................... 67 Covington, Ky.............................................. 1117,1141 Cowanesque Reservoir, Pa....................................... 318 Cow Bayou, Tex...... ........................................... 737 Cowlitz County Diking Improvement District Nos. 2 and 13, Wash .... 1919 Cowlitz County drainage improvement districts Nos. 1 and 2, Wash.. 1927 Cowlitz River, Wash....................... ................... 1864 Coyle, Okla...... ............................................... 963 Coyote Creek, San Gabriel River Basin, Calif... .................. 1630 Coyote Valley Dam and Reservoir, Calif.......................... 1718 Crab Creek, Wash........................................... 1977 Craig Harbor, Alaska........................................... 2025 Crane Creek Drainage and Levee District, Ill...................... 1425 Crane Creek levee, Illinois River, Ill .............................. 1426 Cranes Creek, Va.......... ...................................... 376 Crawford County levee district, Arkansas River, Ark .............. 910 Creede, Willow Creek, Colo...................................... 865 Crescent City Harbor, Calif...... ................................ 1716 Criehaven Harbor, Maine......................................... 59 Crisfield Harbor, Md......................................... 279 Crooked Creek Reservoir, Pa................................ 1213,1237 Cross Rip Shoals, Mass.........................................59 Crystal River, Fla............................................526 Cucklers Creek, N. C......................................... 416 Cuivre River, Mo............................................. 713 2152 INDEX Page Cumberland, Ky................................................. 1106 Cumberland, Md................................................ 326 Cumberland River, Ky., and Tenn............................ 1069, 1087 Cummings Park, Conn........................................... 67 Current River, Ark., and Mo.................................... 885 Curwensville Reservoir, Pa.................... ................ 321 Cuttyhunk Harbor, Mass........................................ 38 Cypress Bayou and waterway between Shreveport, La., and Jefferson, Tex ....................................................... 657 Cypress Creek, Md.............................................. 299 D Dale Hollow Reservoir, Tenn. and Ky ........................... 1096 Dalles-Celilo Canal, Oreg. and Wash............................ .1888 Dalles Dam, Oreg............................................ . 1846 Dam A Reservoir, Neches River, Tex............................ 808 Dam B Reservoir, Neches River, Tex............................ 807 Damariscotta River, Maine...................... ......... ...... 59 Dansville and vicinity, Genesee River, N. Y........................ 1579 Dardanelle lock and dam, Ark...................................875 Dardanella, near, Ark............................................ 911 Darien Harbor, Ga.............................................457 Dark Head Creek, Md..................... . ......................... 298 Dark Canyon Floodway, Carlsbad, N. Mex. ........................ 865 Dashields lock and dam, Pa.................... ........ ......... 1057 Dauphin Island Bay, Ala....................................... 580 Davenport Center Reservoir, N. Y...........3... ........... 301 Davenport Harbor, Iowa....................................... 1350 Davis Creek, Va................... .............................. 354 Davis lock, St. Marys River, Mich................................ 1433 Dayton, Ky................................... ...... 1141,1144 Dayton, Touchet River, Wash............................ 2005 Dayton, Wyo.................................................... 1051 Dead Horse Canyon and Royal Blvd. channel....................... 1621 Deep Creek, Accomack County, Va............................ 376 Deep Creek (Newport News), Va...............................360 Deep River, W ash........................................... 1888,1927 Deer Creek Prairie levee, Ind................................ 1141, 1144 Deer Creek Reservoir, Ohio...................................... 1184 Deer Island area, Columbia County, Oreg......................... 1927 Deer Island thoroughfare, Maine.................................59 Degognia and Fountain Bluff levee and drainage district, Ill .. . . . . . 731 Degray Reservoir, Ark.. ................. ....................... 694 Delaware Bay and River, Pa., N. J., and Del.: At Camden.............. ........................... .......... 217 At or near mouth of Neversink River.......................... 246 Philadelphia to sea.......................................... 213 Philadelphia to Trenton...................................... 209 Delaware Reservoir, Ohio........................................ 1160 Delaware River, N. Y., N. J., Pa................................ 213 Delphi, Ind................................................. 1141,1144 Demopolis lock and dam, Ala.................................... 576 Denison, East Fork of Boyer River, Colo .......................... 1051 Denison Dam, Tex. & Okla....................................... 952 Dennis Creek, N. J.............................................. 247 De Pere lock and dam, Wis....................................... 1370 Depoe Bay, Oreg............................................... 1873 De Queen Reservoir, Rolling Fork River, Ark ...................... 962 Derby, Ind................................................. 1141,1144 Des Moines River, Iowa......................... ................... 1325 Des Moines and Mississippi levee district No. 1, Mo ....... . . . .. . . . . 1323 Detroit, Mich., engineering district............................ .... 1431 Detroit Reservoir, Oreg.......................... .............. 1893 Detroit River, Mich...........................................1443 Deushane, Parkinson, Barrows, Spoon River, Ill.................... 1426 INDEX 2153 Page Devil Creek, Calif.............................................. 1654 Dewey Reservoir, Ky........................................... 1172 Dickinson Bayou, Tex........................................... 790 Dierks Reservoir, Saline River, Ark............ ................. 962 Diking and improvement district No. 4, Wahkiakum County, Wash .... 1927 Diking and improvement district No. 5, Cowlitz County, Wash........ 1926 Diking district No. 2, Clatsop County, Oreg......................... 1927 Diking district No. 3, Clatsop County, Oreg........................ 1927 Diking district No. 5, Clatsop County, Oreg........................ 1927 Diking districts Nos. 1 and 3 (Puget Island) and Little Island, Wah- kiakum County, W ash......................................... 1927 Diking improvement district No. 2, Cowlitz County, Wash............ 1927 Diking improvement district No. 13, Cowlitz County, Wash........... 1927 Diking improvement district No. 1, Pacific County, Wash ............ 1927 Diking improvement district No. 11, Cowlitz County, Wash........... 1927 Dillingham Harbor, Alaska....................................... 2013 Dillon Reservoir, Ohio.......................................... 1162 Dillonvale, Ohio (Short Creek) .............................. 1236, 1238 Dismal Swamp Canal, Va........................................ 371 Doheny Beach State Park, Calif.................................. 1679 Donovan levee, Ill............................................... 1425 Dorchester Bay and Neponset River, Mass......................... 59 Dorena Reservoir, Oreg.......................................... 1906 Double Bayou, Tex.............................................. 763 Double Creek, N. J............................................. 247 Douglas Harbor, Alaska....................................... 2023 Dover, Ky......... ..... .......................... 1180,1183 Dover Reservoir, Ohio...... ..................................... 1159 Drainage district No. 1, Clatsop County, Oreg...................... .1927 Dresden Island lock and dam, Ill................................... 1416 Drum Inlet, N. C............................................... 409 Drury drainage district, Ill...................................... 1337 Dry Pass, Alaska...... ......................................... 2025 Dry Run, Iowa............................................... 1300 Dubuque Harbor, Iowa........................................... 1350 Duck Creek, Calif............................................... 1818 Duck Island Harbor, Conn....................................... 59 Duck Point Cove, Md................. ............................ 299 Duck River, Tenn............................................ 1087 Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minn. and Wis.......................... 1246 Dunkirk Harbor, N. Y........................................... 1540 Dunns Creek, Fla............................................... 526 Dutch Hollow Brook, Cayuga County, N. Y........................ 1580 Duxbury Harbor, Mass.......................................... 59 Dyberry Reservoir, Pa. see General Edgar Jarwin Dam and Reservoir, Pa. Dymers Creek, Va.............................................. 376 E Eagle Creek Reservoir, Ohio................................. 1237,1238 Eagle Gorge Reservoir, Wash. See Howard A. Hanson Reservoir. Eagle Harbor, Mich............................................. 1272 East Barre Reservoir, Winooski River Basin, Vt.................... 190 East Bay Bayou, Tex ........................................... 790 East Boothbay Harbor, Maine.................................... 59 East Branch, Clarion River Reservoir, Ohio River Basin, Pa..... 1206, 1237 East Branch Reservoir, Conn..................................... 114 East Brimfield Reservoir, Mass.................................... 84 East Cape Girardeau, Ill......................................... 715 East Chester Creek, N. Y....................................... 187 East Fork Reservoir, Ohio................................... 1116, 1142 East Hartford, Conn....................................... 125, 126 East Jackson, M iss........................ ................... . 596 Eastland, Leon River, Tex....................................... 842 East Liverpool, Ill.............................................. 1425 2154 INDEX Page East Lynn, W. Va............................................ 1184 East Pass Channel from Gulf of Mexico into Choctawhatchee Bay ... 565 East Pearl River, Miss........................................... 592 East Peoria, Ill................................................ 1425 East Poplar Bluff, Mo........................................... 910 Eastport Harbor, Maine........................................1 East Rainelle, W . Va............................................. 1170 East River, N. Y ................................................ 187 East Rockaway (Debs) Inlet, N. Y................................144 East St. Louis and vicinity, Ill.................................... 721 East Sidney Reservoir, N. Y...................................... 301 East Twin Creek, Calif...................................... . 1654 East Weaver Creek, Trinity County, Calif ....................... 1725 Eaton Wash, Calif............................................ 1636 Eau Galle River, Wis............................................ 1298 Eau Gallie Harbor, Fla......................................... 526 Echo Bay Harbor, N. Y........................................187 Edenton Harbor, N. C......................................... 409 Edgartown Harbor, Mass........................................ 59 Edisto River, S. C..................... ...................... 432 Edward MacDowell Reservoir, N. H .............................. 69, 74 Eel River, Calif............................................... 1717 Egegik River, Alaska........................................... 2025 Elfin Cove, Alaska............................................... 2025 Elizabeth, Pa................................................ 1197 Elizabeth River, N. J............................................ 188 Elizabethtown, Ill........................................... 1141,1144 Elk Creek, Kans........................ ................. 1012 Elk City (Table Mound) Reservoir, Kans.......................... 932 Elkins, W. Va......................................... .. 1222,1236 Elkland, Pa..................................................318 Elkport, Iowa.............................................. . 1341 Elk River, Ala. and Tenn........................................ 1087 Elk River, Md.................................................. 298 Elk River, W. Va................................................. 1154 Ellerbee Creek, N. C............................................ 418 Elmira, N. Y...................................................... 304 Elokomin slough, Wash.............................. . ..... 1888 Emerald Wash, Calif......................................... . 1630 Empire, Ohio............................................ 1236, 1238 Emsworth lock and dam, Pa................................... . 1057 Endicott, N. Y................................................313 England Pond levee, Ill................................. .. 1141,1144 Enid, Okla...................................................919 Entiat River, Wash.......................................... . 1977 Erie, Colo....................................................... 1051 Erie Harbor, Pa....................................................... 1536 Escambia River, Fla. and Ala..................................... 592 Essex River, Mass................. ......................... 59 Eufaula Reservoir, Okla........................................948 Eureka lock and dam, Wis...................,................. 1370 Evaston, Ill..................................................... 1428 Evansville, Ind............................................. 1127,1141 Everett Harbor, Wash...................................... 1940,1964 Everglades Harbor, Fla......................................... 494 Exeter River, N. H.......................... ................... 59 F Fabius River Drainage District, Mo .......................... 1320, 1341 Fairbanks, Alaska.......................................... 2027,2030 Fairhaven, Mass............................................... 121 Fair Haven State Park, Lake Ontario, N. Y ....................... 1581 Fairport Harbor, Ohio........................................ 1526 Fajardo Harbor, P. R.......................................... 526 Fall Creek Reservoir, Oreg...................................... 1901 INDEX 2155 Page Fall River Basin, S. Dak......................................... 1023 Fall River Harbor, Mass........................................39 Fall River Reservoir, Kans.... .................................. 929 Falling Spring Reregulating Dam, Va............................. 380 Falmouth Harbor, Mass......................................... 59 Falmouth Reservoir, Ky................................... 1142, 1144 Fancy Bluff Creek, Ga............................................ 457 Far Creek, N. C................................................ 392 Farm Creek, Ill............................... .............. 1422 Farmers levee and drainage district, Ill............................ 1425 Farmington, N. H.........................................128 Farmington Reservoir, Calif............. .................... 1772 Faulkner County levee district No. 1, Ark......................... 910 Feather River, Calif .......................................... 1753 Federalsburg, Marshyhope Creek, Md ......................... 330 Federal Water Power Act, investigating and supervision of projects.. 2127 Ferguson Reservoir, Navasota River, Tex........................ 826, 842 Fernandina Harbor, Fla........................................454 Fern Ridge Reservoir, Oreg...o................................1900 Ferrells Bridge Dam, Tex..................................659, 670 Fire Island Inlet, N. Y..................................... 138, 199, 204 Fishing Bay, Md.............................................. 299 Fishing Creek, Md..... ... ................................... 289 Fishing Creek, N. C..........................................409 Fishtrap Reservoir, Ky......... .................................. 1176 Fivemile River Harbor, Conn..................................... 59 Flathead Lake, Mont., improvement of Polson Bay................. .1965 Flathead River, Mont...... ...................................... 1965 Flat Rock Creek, Okla......................................... 963 Fletcher and Sunshine Gardens levee, Ind..................... 1141, 1144 Flint River, Ga. and Fla.......................................... 548 Florence, Kans...... ............................................ 963 Florida, Central and Southern.... ............................... 527 Floyd River, Sioux City, Iowa. ....... ........................ 1037 Fly Creek, Ala................................................. 592 Follansbee, W. Va....................................... 1236, 1238 Folsom Reservoir, Calif ...... .................................... 1816 Forest Heights, Md...........................................331 Forked Deer River, Tenn.........................7..............704 Forsyth, Mont. ............................................... Forsyth, Mont ''''' 15 1051 Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage Dist. No. 5, Ill.......... . .731 Fort Gibson Reservoir, Okla............... ........... ..... 944 Fort Leavenworth Bridge, Mo. and Kans.......................... 971 Fort Loudoun, Tenn......................... .. .. .............. 1083 Fort Madison Harbor, Iowa...... ................................. 1350 Fort Peck Dam, Mont...........................................1015 Fort Pierce Harbor, Fla....... ................................ 525, 526 Fort Randall Reservoir, S. Dak.................................1030 Fort Scott Reservoir, Marmaton River, Kans.....................1007 Fort Smith, Arkansas River, Ark............................ 910, 916 Fort Supply Reservoir, Okla..................................... 920 Fort W innebago lock, W is..... .................................. 1371 Fort W orth floodway, Tex....................................... 820 Fort Worth, Tex., engineering district ............................ 803 Forty Fort, Pa.................................................330 Fourche Island, Ark........... ............................... 905 Fox Point Barrier, Narragansett Bay, R. I.........................120 Fox River, Wis.............................................. 1368 Locks and dams.. .............................. .......... 1370 Frankfort Harbor, Mich...... .................................... 1473 Frankfort, Kans.............................................. 994 Frankfort, Ky............................................1141,1144 Franklin Falls Reservoir, N. H..............................7 Frazeyburg Reservoir, Ohio....................................1184 Freeport Harbor, Tex.......................................... 769 2156 INDEX Page Freeport on Pecatonica River, Ill.................................. 1339 Freeport, Pa............................................... 1236,1238 French Broad River, Tenn....................................... 1087 French Creek Reservoir, Pa................................. 1237,1238 Freshwater Bayou, La........................................... 648 Friendly, W . Va............................................ 1180,1183 Fullerton Dam, Calif........................................... 1648 Fullerton, Ky.............................................. 1180,1183 G Galax, Va.................................................. 1180,1183 Galena River, Ill................................................ 1341 Galisteo Dam and Reservoir, N. Mex............................. 854 Gallipolis, Ohio ............................................. 1180,1183 Galveston Harbor and Channel, Tex............................... 752 Galveston, Tex., engineering district.............................. 735 Garnett Reservoir, Kans...................................... . 1011 Garrison Reservoir, N. Dak....................................... 1025 Gaseconade River, Mo............................................ 972 Gastineau Channel, Alaska....................................... 2020 Gaston Reservoir, Va. and N.C................................... 412 Gate Creek Reservoir, Oreg...................................... 1927 Gathright Reservoir, Va....................................... 380 Gauley River, W. Va............................................. 1154 Gavins Point Reservoir, S. Dak. and Nebr.......................... 1032 Gaysville Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, Vt................... 126 Genegantslet Reservoir, Genegantslet Creek, N. Y .................. 330 General Edgar Jadwin Dam and Reservoir, Pa...................... 251 General Joe Wheeler Dam, Tenn................................... 1083 Georges River, Maine............................................ 59 Georgetown Harbor, S. C......................................... 423 Gering Valley, Nebr.. ......................................... 1044 Gibson Creek, Calif........................................... 1725 Gila River, Middle, channel improvements..................... 1661,1663 Giles Creek, Nebr................................................ 1051 Gill Township levee unit, Ind..................................... 1144 Gillett, Ark., N. Little Rock to.................................... 910 Gillham Reservoir, Red River Basin, Ark......................... 959 Gladstone Harbor, Mich......................................... 1420 Glasgow, Mont.................................................. 1057 Gleason Creek, Nev.............................................. 1809 Glen Cove Creek, N. Y........................................... 187 Glen Cove Harbor, N. Y.......................................... 187 Gloucester Harbor, and Annisquam River, Mass.................... 21 Goat Island Reservoir, Ga. and S. C............................... 458 Golconda, Ill.... ........................................ 1141,1144 Goldsboro, Neuse River, N. C.................................... 417 Gold Creek, Alaska........................................... 2028 Gonzales Reservoir, San Marcos River, Tex........................ 842 Gordons Landing, Lake Champlain, Vt............................ 188 Goshen Creek, N. J........... ................................ 247 Governor Bend lock and dam, Wis......... ...................... 1371 Governors Run, Md.... ......................................... 299 Gowanus Creek Channel, New York Harbor, N. Y................... 187 Grand Bayou Pass, La........................................... 657 Grand Calumet Channel and lock, Ind............................ 1416 Grand Haven Harbor, Mich..................................... 1461 Grand Marais, Mich............................................ 1448 Grand Marais Harbor, Minn..................................... 1272 Grand (Neosho) River Basin, Kans............................... 937 Grand River, Mich............................................. 1461 at Lansing................................................. 1500 Grand River lock and dam, Wis................................... 1372 Grand Tower drainage and levee district, Ill...................... 731 Grand Traverse Bay Harbor, Mich.............................. 1259 INDEX 2157 Page Grand View Bay, N. Y.......................................... 1569 Grandview, Ind............................................. 1141,1144 Grande Ronde Valley, Oreg....................................... 2007 Grant and Rapide Parishes, La............................... 660, 680 Grant Parish below Colfax, La................................... 660, 680 Grapevine Reservoir, Tex......................................... 815 Grasse River (Massena), N. Y.................................... 1569 Grayson Reservoir, Ky.......................................... 1169 Grays Harbor, Wash............................................ 1956 Grays River, W ash............................................. 1888 Grays Reef Passage, Mich....................................... 1495 Great Chazy River, N. Y.......................................... ..... 188 Great Falls, Mont.............................................. 1051 Great Kills Harbor, N. Y........................................ 176 Great Lakes: Basic hydraulic and hydrologic data and subcommittees. ......... 1592 Waterway to Hudson River................................... 158 Great Pee Dee River, S. C......................................... 432 Great Salt Plains Reservoir, Okla ................................. 923 Great Salt Pond, Block Island, R. I................................ 59 Great Sodus Bay Harbor, N. Y................................... 1561 Great South Bay, N. Y.......... .. ........... .................... 139 Green Bay Harbor, Wis......................................... 1366 Green Bay Levee and Drainage District No. 2, Iowa............ 1328,1341 Green Brook, Raritan River Basin, N. J........................... 200 Greenfield Bayou levee, Ind.................................. 1141,1144 Green Island Levee and Drainage District No. 1, Iowa. . ............. 1341 Green Peter Reservoir, Oreg.................................... 1895 Greenport Harbor, N. Y...................................... 187 Green River, Ky................................................ 1112 Green River Reservoir, Ky.................................. 1123,1142 Greensboro, Pa.................................................. 1197 Greenup, Ky............................................... 1180,1183 Greenup locks and dam......................................... 1061 Green Valley Creek, Calif............................ ............ 1818 Greenwich Bay, R. I............................................. 59 Greenwich Harbor, Conn......................................... 59 Greenwich Point Park, Conn..................................... 67 Greers Ferry Reservoir, Ark................................... 887, 899 Gregory Drainage District, Mo.................................... 1341 Greybull, W yo... ... . ........................................ 1051 Guadalupe River, Tex........................................... 840 Guayanes Harbor, P. R.......................................... 526 Guilford Harbor, Conn.......................................... 59 Guilford Point Public Beach (Jacobs Beach), Conn................ 67 Gulf Beach, Conn.............................................. 59,67 Gulf Coast Shrimp Boat Harbors, Fla.................................. 526 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway between Apalachee Bay, Fla., and the Mex. border: Galveston District.........................................742 Mobile District.............................................. 542 New Orleans District....................... ................. 606 Gulfport Harbor, Miss.. ......... ................. .................... 585 Gull Lake Reservoir, Minn.................................... 1265 Guntersville, Ala...................................................... 1083 Guyandot River, W. Va............ .. ..................... ... 1154 H Hackensack River, N. J.......................................... 172 Hackleman Corners Reservoir, Mo.............................. 1011 Haines Canyon, Los Angeles River Basin.......................... 1621 Hales Bar, Tenn................................................ 1083 Halfmoon Bay, Calif.......................................... 1711 Hall Meadow Brook Reservoir, Conn............................... 113 Hamlin Beach State Park, Lake Ontario, N. Y.................... 1581 2158 INDEX Page Hammersley Inlet, Wash.................................... 1964,1965 Hammond Bay Harbor, Mich..................................... 1481 Hammondsport, Oswego River Basin, N. Y ........................ 1579 Hammonasset Beach, Conn........................................ 67 Hampton Beach, N. H............................................ 67 Hampton Creek, Va............................................ 376,377 Hampton Roads, Va. Prevention of obstructive and injurious deposits................. .369 Removal of drift........................................... 368 Hanapepe Bay, Hawaii.......................................... 1842 Hanapepe River, Hawaii......................................... 1838 Hancock Brook Reservoir, Housatonic River Basin, Conn............ 118 Hanging Rock, Ohio.......................................... 1180, 1183 Hannibal Harbor, Mo........................................... 1350 Hansen flood control reservoir, Los Angeles River Basin.............. 1622 Harbor at Flushing Bay, N. Y.................................... 187 Harbor of Refuge, Cape Lookout, N. C............................. 409 Harbor of Refuge, Chincoteague, Va............................ 342, 378 Harbor of Refuge, Delaware Bay, Del................................ 229 Harbor of Refuge at Harbor Beach, Lake Huron, Mich............ 1485 Hardwick Dam, Vt............................................. 199 Harlan County Reservoir, Nebr......... ............................... ... 984 Harlem , Mont.................................................. 1051 Harlem River, N. Y........................................... 187,188 Harpers Ferry, W. Va........................................... 330 Harraseeket River, Maine......................................... 59 Harrisburg, Ill............................................. 1141,1144 Harrison County, Miss............................................... 592 Harrisonville and Ivy Landing drainage and levee district No. 2, Ill.. 731 Harrisville Harbor, Mich........................................ 1495 Harry L. Englebright (Upper Narrows) Reservoir, Calif ............ 2112 Harford, Conn................................................ 125,126 Hartford, W . Va............................................ 1180,1183 Hartwell Reservoir, Ga., and S. C................................ 458 Harvey lock, La................................................. 609 Hastings Harbor, Minn......................................... 1350 Havre, Mont................................................... 1051 Hawesville, Ky.............................................. 1141,1144 Haysi Reservoir, Va.............................. ............... 1184 Hay, (West) Harbor, Fishers Island, N. Y......................... 59 Heise-Roberts area, Snake River, Idaho........................... 2007 Hellens Creek, Md............................................... 299 Hempstead County levee district No. 1, Ark. ................... .. 660, 680 Hempstead Harbor, N. Y....................................... 187 Henderson County Drainage District Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Ill.... 1329, 1330, 1341 Henderson River, Ill............................................ 1332 Henderson, W. Va....................................... 1180,1183 Hendricks Harbor, Maine.................... ................. 59 Hennepin, Ill................................................... 1425 Henson Creek, Md......... ..................................... 331 Herkimer, Mohawk River, N. Y............................................ 196 Herreid, S. Dak...... ........................................... 1051 Herring Bay and Rockhold Creek, Md.............................. 299 Herring Creek, Md........... ............................. ..... 299 Heyburn Reservoir and Channel Improvements, Okla ................ 928 Higgins Canyon, Calif.......................................... 1640 Higginsport, Ohio........................................ 1180,1183 Hildebrand lock and dam, W. Va.................................. 1197 Hills Creek Reservoir, Oreg .................................. 1902 Hillsdale Reservoir, Big Bull Creek, Kans......................... 1011 Hilo Harbor, Hawaii...... ....................................... 1835 Hingham Harbor, Mass.......................................... 59 Hiwassee River, Tenn........................................... 1087 Hockingport, Ohio......................................... 1180, 1183 Hocking River, Ohio........................................... 1187 INDEX 2159 Page Hodges Dam, Calif............................................. 1672 Hodges Village Reservoir, Mass..................................81 Holbrook levee, Little Colorado River, Ariz....................... 1672 Holla Bend Bottom Arkansas River, Ark.......................... 902 Holland Harbor, Mich........................................... 1458 Holley Reservoir, Oreg.......................................... 1896 Holmes River, Fla...... ......................................... 592 Holston River, Tenn............................................. 1087 Holt lock and dam, Ala.... ...................................... 577 Holyoke, Mass......................... ................... 125,126 Homer Harbor, Alaska..........................................2015 Homme Reservoir and Dam, N. Dak............................. 1285 Homochitto River, Miss......................................... 688, 697 Homosassa River, Fla............................................ 526 Honey Creek levee, Ind....... ............................. 1141,1144 Honey Hill Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, N. H................ 126 Honga River, Md... .......................................... 299 Honolulu, Hawaii, engineering district............................. 1825 Honolulu Harbor, Hawaii........ ................................. 1828 Hoosick Falls, N. Y.......... ......................... 199 Hop Brook Reservoir, Housatonic River Basin, Conn................. 119 Hopkinton-Everett Reservoir, N. H................................ 62, 72 Hoquiam River, Wash................................ 1964, 1965,1977 Hords Creek Reservoir, Tex...................................... 835 Hornell, N. Y...... ...................... ............ 307 Horn Harbor, Va....... ....................................... 376,378 Horseshoe Cove, Fla.......................................... 517 Hoskins Creek, Va...... ......................................... 349 Houghton-Hancock Bridge, Mich.............................. 1274 Hout, W. Va................................................. 1197 Housatonic River, Conn.... ...................................... 59 Houston Ship Channel, Tex....................................... 758 Howard A. Hanson Reservoir, Wash............................. 1972 Hubly Bridge, east of, Ill...... ................................... 1425 Hudson River, Fla............................................526 Hudson River, N. Y............................................ 153 Channel... ............................................... 149 Hugo Reservoir, Kiamichi River, Okla ............................. 962 Hulah Reservoir, Okla.............. .............................. 935 Hull Creek, Va............................................... 299 Humboldt Bay, River and Harbor, Calif ........................ 1687, 1727 Humboldt River and tributaries, Nev............................. 1816 Hunt drainage district, Ill...... .................................. 1322 Huntington Harbor, N. Y......................................187 Huntington Reservoir, Ind...... .................................. 1129 Huntington, W. Va.: Engineering district......................................... 1151 Flood control............... ......................... 1181,1183 Huron Harbor, Ohio............................................. 1514 Hutchison, Kans................................................ 962 Hyannis Harbor, Mass........................................... 34 Hydraulic mining, regulation of................................. 2107 I Ice Harbor at Marcus Hook, N. J.................................. 247 Ice Harbor at New Castle, Del..................................... 247 Ice Harbor lock and dam, Snake River, Wash....................... 1987 Iliuliuk Harbor, Alaska ........................................... 2025 Illinois and Mississippi Canal, Ill................................. 1306 Locks.................... ............................... 1307 Illinois Waterway, Ill. and Ind...... .............................. 1409 Imperial Beach, Calif ................ ............................. 1682 Indiana Harbor, Ind......................................... 1404 Indianapolis, Ind............................................. 1144 Indian Ford Dam, Wis.......................................... 1341 2160 INDEX Page Indian Grave drainage district, Ill............................... 1341 Indian River Inlet and Bay, Del................................... 230 Indian River Inlet to Rehoboth Bay, Del., Waterway.................247 Indianola, Republican River, Nebr .. . . . . . . . . . . . ................. 1011 Industry, Pa.............................................. 1236,1238 Ingersol levee, Spoon River, Ill.................................... 1426 Inland Waterway from: Chicoteague Bay, Va. to Delaware Bay, Del..................... 232 Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay............................ 223 Franklin to Mermentau River, La ............... ........... 658 Indian River Inlet to Rehoboth Bay, Del ..................... 247 Port Aransas-Corpus Christi, Tex....................... .. 776, 792 Rehoboth Bay to Delaware Bay, Del ............................ 227 Sebine-Neeches, Tex........................ ............... 736 Inner Harbor navigation canal lock, La ............................ 609 International Boundary Waters................................... 2130 International Joint Commission............................... .. 1590 International Kootenay Lake Board of Control..................... 2139 International Lake Champlain Board of Control................... 2133 International Lake Memphremagog Board......................... 2131 International Lake of Woods The Control Board......... ......... 2138 International Lake Superior Board of Control................. 1590, 2137 International Niagara Board of Control and Working Committee.. 1590, 2135 International Niagara Committee.................................. 2136 International Osoyoos Lake Board of Control. . . . . ................. 2140 International Prairie Portage Board of Control ..................... 2139 International Rainy Lake Board of Control ........................ 2139 International St. Croix River Board of Control...................... 2130 Int. St. Lawrence River Board of Control and Working Committee 1590, 2133 Intracostal Waterway: Bayou Dulac, La., to (Bayous Grand Caillou and Le Carpe, La.).. 658 Caloosahatchee River and Onclote River, Fla ................... 503 Cross-Florida Barge Canal................................... 526 Gulf Intracostal Waterway............................ 742, 542, 606 Jacksonville to Miami, Fla.................................... 475 Long Island, N. Y.......................................... 137 Miami to Key West, Fla...................................... 526 Mississippi River to Bayou Teche, La.......................... 657 New Jersey................................................ 244 Norfolk, Va., and St. Johns River, Fla.......................... 370 Okeechobee Waterway...................................... 498 Iola, Kans....................................................962 Iowa River-Flint Creek levee district No. 16, Iowa................... 1331 Ipswich River, Mass............................................. 59 Irondequoit Bay, N. Y........................................ 1559 Ironton, Ohio............................................... 1181,1183 Irvington, Harbor, N. Y........................................ 188 Isabella Reservoir, Calif......................................... 1803 Island Creek, St. George Island, Md............................. 294, 299 Island levee, Ind............................................... 1141 Isle au Haut thoroughfare, Maine............................ 59 Isle of Shoals Harbor, Maine and N. H....... .............. 59 Ithica, N. Y .............. ............................ . . ...... 1576 Ithaca, Oswego River Basin, N. Y................................. 1579 J Jackson and East Jackson, Miss................................... 596 Jackson Creek, Va................................... .......... 376 Jackson Hole, Wyo.............................................. 1998 Jackson, Ky................................................. 1141,1145 Jackson lock and dam, Ala...................................... 576 Jacksonville Fla.: Engineering district.........................................465 Harbor .................................................... 467 Jacksonville to Miami Intracostal Waterway.......... .............. 475 INDEX 2161 Page Jamaica Bay, N. Y............................................ 187 James River, Va............................................... 357,380 Jamestown Reservoir, N. Dak..................................... 1051 Janesville Dam, W is.............................................. 1341 Jeffersonville-Clarksville, Ind ................................ 1141, 1145 Jemez Canyon Dam and Reservoir, N. Mex...................... 854, 858 Jenks, Okla..................................................... 962 Jennings Beach, Conn..........................................67 Jessamine Creek Reservoir, Ky................................ 1142, 1145 Jim Woodruff lock and dam, Ga. and Fla............................ 558 Joanna Reservoir, Mo......................................... 730 John Day lock and dam, Oreg, and Wash........................... 1992 John Day River Area Clatsop County, Oreg....................... 1927 John W. Flannagan Dam and Res., Va.......................... 1177 John H. Kerr Dam and Res.................. ............ 412, 413 John Martin Reservoir, Arkansas River, Colo.......................847 John Redmond Dam and Reservoir, Kans.......................... 939 Johnson City, N. Y............. ..................... ....... ... 313 Johnson Creek, Oreg......................................... 1910 Johnson Gorge, Vt............................................... 199 Johnsonburg, Pa. (Allegheny River Basin) ........................ 1236 Johnsons Bayou, La...........................................790 Johnstown, Pa.................................. .. .......... 1215,1236 Jones Inlet, N. Y ... . .. ................... ....... .................. 142 Jordan River, Miss............................................ 592 Josias River, Maine........................................... 59 J. Percy Priest Reservoir, Tenn.................................... 1106 Juneau Harbor, Alaska......................................... 2021 K Kahoma Stream, Maui, Hawaii................................... 1841 Kahului Harbor, Hawaii....................................... 1832 Kalamazoo River, Mich. Kalamazoo and vicinity............... 1456, 1504 Kanawha River, W. Va......................................... 1151 Flood control reservoirs.................................... 1182 Kanopolis Reservoir, Kans....................................... 987 Kansas City, Mo., engineering district.............................. 967 Kansas Citys, Mo. and Kans............... ..................... 977 Karlson Island, Clatsop County, Oreg............................. 1927 Kaskaskia Island drainage and levee district, Ill................... 731 Kasaskia River, Ill....................................... .. 713, 724 Kaukauna, Wis., locks and dam.... .................................... 1370 Kaunakakai Harbor, Hawaii.. ................................. 1830 Kawaihae Harbor, Hawaii........................................ 1833 Kawainui Swamp, Hawaii...................................... 1840 Kaweah River, Calif............................................1797 Kays Creek, Utah............................................... 1818 Kaysinger Bluff Reservoir, Mo................................. 1010 Keehi Lagoon, Hawaii.......................................... .. 1836 Keitsburg Drainage District, Ill................ ............ ..... 1341 Kelly Lake, Ill................................................. 1425 Kendrick, Idaho................................................ 2007 Kenedy Channel improvement, Tex ................................ 842 Kenilworth, Ill................................................. 1428 Kennebec River, Maine.........................................59 Kennebunk River, Maine........................................12 Kenosha Harbor, Wis......................................... 1390 Kenslers Bend, Nebr., to Sioux City, Iowa........................ 1035 Kentucky River, Ky............................................. 1109 Kentucky lock and dam, Gilbertsville, Ky.......................... 1083 Ketchikan Harbor, Alaska....................................... 2025 Kettle Creek Dam and Reservoir, Pa see Alvin R. Bush Reservoir.... Kewanuee Harbor, Wis......................................... 1375 Keweenaw Waterway, Mich................................... . 1257 Keyport Harbor, N. J........................................... 188 2162 INDEX Page Keystone lock and dam, La....................................... 637 Keystone Reservoir, Okla......................................... 925 Key W est, Fla................................................ 492,538 Kings Creek, Va................................................ 376 Kings River, Calif.............................................. 1793 Kingston-Edwardsville, Pa........................................ 330 Kingston Harbor, Mass. (North Plymouth Harbor) .................. 59 Kissimmee River, Fla............................................ 526 Kittanning, Pa...............................................1236, 1238 Kitzmiller, Md................................................ 331 Knappa area, Clatsop County, Oreg................................ 1927 Knapps Narrows, Md...........................................273 Knife River Harbor, Minn..................................... . 1245 Knightville Reservoir, Mass....................................... 103 Knobbs Creek, N. C!.......................................... 376,377 Kodiak Harbor, Alaska.......................................... 2025 Kootenai River, Idaho and Mont................................... 1965 Kootenay Lake Board of Control................................... 2139 L Lacey, Langellier, West Matanzas, and Kerton Valley, Ill............ 1425 Lackawana, N. Y. Smokes Creek.................................. 1573 Lac La Belle Harbor, Mich...................................... 1272 Lac qui Parle Reservoir, Minn..................................... 1291 Lafayette River, Va....................................... 376, 377, 378 Lafourche-Jump Waterway, La.................................. 632 La Grange Bayou, Fla............................................ 564 La Grange lock and dam, Ill.......r................................ 1416 Lake Ashtabula, N. Dak......................................... 1287 Lake Bisteneau, La............................................... 657 Lake Bluff, Ill.................................................. 1428 Lake Brownwood Reservoir, Tex.................................. 842 Lake Calumet, Ill............................................... 1398 Lake Champlain Board of Control................................. 2133 Lake Charles deep water channel, La .............................. 657 Lake Chautaugua, N. Y..................................... 1236, 1238 Lake City Harbor, Minn........................................ 1350 Lake Crescent, Fla............................................... 526 Lake Crockett, W ash........................................ 1964,1965 Lake Cumberland (Wolf Creek Dam), Ky.......................... 1094 Lake Disteneau, La.............................................. 657 Lake Douglas, Decatur Co., Ga................................... 598 Lake Forest, Ill................................................ 1428 Lake Greeson, Ark see Narrows Reservoir, Ark.................... Lake Michigan ship canal, Wis.................................... 1373 Lake Montauk Harbor, N. Y...................................... 135 Lake Ogleton, Md............................................... 299 Lake of the Woods, International Control Board..................... 2138 Lake of the Woods Watershed.................................... 2138 Lake O' the Pines, Tex........................................... 670 Lake Pontchartrain, La..................................... 2043,2057 Lake River, W ash............................................... 1888 Lake St. Clair, Mich., Channels in.................................. 1441 Lakes, Great. See Great Lakes Lake Seminole. See Jim Woodruff lock and dam, Ga. Lake Sidney Lanier. See Buford Dam and Reservoir, Ga. Lake Superior Board of Control................................... 2137 Lake Survey,T. U ................................................ 1583 Lake Texoma, Red River, Tex. and Okla............................ 952 Lake Traverse, Minn. and S. Dak............................. 1272,1289 Lake Washington ship canal, Wash................................ 1948 Lake Winnipesaukee, N. H.......................................59 Lamoille River, Vt.............................................. 199 Lamprey River, N. H........................................... 59 INDEX 2163 Page Lampasas Channel, Sulphur Creek, Tex ........................... 842 Lancaster, Cayuga Creek, N. Y................................... 1579 Laneport Reservoir, San Gabriel River, Tex...................... 826, 842 L'Anguille River, Ark............................................ 704 Lansing Harbor, Iowa......................................... 1350 Larchmont Harbor, N. Y......................................... 187 Las Vegas Wash, Colorado River Basin, Nev....................... 1668 La Trappe River, Md............................................ 299 Latrobe, Pa.................................... ........ 1236,1238 Laurel River Reservoir, Ky...................................... 1092 Lavaca-Navidad Rivers, Tex...................................... 799 Lavon Reservoir, Tex........................................810 Lawrence, Kans.................................................. 1002 Lawrence, Mass................................................. 69,126 Lawrenceburg, Ind.......................................... 1141,1145 Leaf River, Miss........................................................ 592 Leavenworth, Ind........................................... 1141,1145 Le Claire lock, Iowa............................................. 1349 Leech Lake Reservoir, Minn......... ............. ..................... 1265 Leech River, Minn.............................................. 1272 Leesville Reservoir, Ohio.......... .............................. ..... 1159 Leesville Reservoir, Va.... ................. ..... ............... 412 Leetsdale, Pa.................... 1236,1238 Leipsic River, Del.................... ........................... 247 Leland Harbor, Mich........................................... 1474 Lemon Creek, Staten Island, N. Y.............................. 188 Letart Falls, Ohio................... ... .................. 1181,1183 Letart, W. Va......................................................... 1181,1183 Levee Units: 3, East Fork of White River, Ind.... ...................... .... 1145 1, Eel River, Ind....................................... 1141,1145 2, Eel River, Ind....................................... 1141,1145 1, Little W abash River, Ill.................................. 1141 2, Little W abash River, Ill.................................. 1141 1, W abash River, Ill........................................ 1145 2, W abash River, Ind...................................... 1145 3 and 4, Wabash River, Ill................................... 1145 5, Wabash River, Ind.................................. 1138,1145 6, Wabash River, Ill.................................... 1141,1145 17, Wabash River, Ind..................................... 1141 1, W hite River, Ind........................................ 1141 2, White River, Ind..................................... 1141,1145 7, W hite River, Ind........................................ 1141 8, White River, Ind........................................ 1145 9, White River, Ind........................................ 1145 10, White River, Ind....................................... 1145 Lewis and Clark River area, Clatsop County, Oreg.............. .. 1927 Lewisport, Ky.............................................. 1141,1145 Lewis River, W ash............................................. 1863 Lewiston-Clarkston levees ........................................ 2007 Lewisville Dam, Tex........................................... 812 Libby Dam , Mont.............................................. 1967 Lick Creek, Va................................................. 418 Licking River, Ky............................................. 1115 Lighthouse Point Park, Conn.................................... 67 Lightning Creek, Idaho......................................... 1977 Lima Lake Drainage district, Ill .................................. 1322 Lincoln, N. H .................................................. 128 Lisle, N . Y .................................................... 302 Little Bay, Tex................................................. 790 Little Blue River, Nebr......................................... 1012 Little Caillou Bayou, La.......................................... 657 Little Calumet River and tributaries, Ill. and Ind.................. 1421 Little Cedar Creek, Cave Springs, Ga.............................. 598 Little Chute lock and dam, Wis................................... 1370 2164 INDEX Page Little Conemaugh River, Pa..................................... 1239 Little Cove Creek, Glencoe, Ala.................................. 598 Little Creek, Kent Island, Md..................................... 298 Little Dell Reservoir, Utah................................. ..... 1814 J Little Egg Harbor, N. .......................................... Little Elk River, Md............................................ 247 298 Little Goose Lock and Dam, Wash................................. 1985 Little Harbor, N. H.............................................. 59 Little Harbor, Woods Hole, Mass.................................. 59 Littlejohn Creek, Calif......................................... 1772 Little Kanawha River, W. Va..................................... 1154 Flood control reservoirs...................................... 1182 Little Kaukauna lock and dam, Wis.............................. 1370 Little Lake Harbor, Mich........................................ 1447 Little Machipongo River, Va...................................... 376 Little Manatee River, Fla........................................ 526 Little Mill Creek, Del............................................ 254 Little Missouri River and Basin, Ark .............................. 688 Little Pass, Fla................................................. 525 Little Pee Dee River, S. C........................................ 432 Little Pigeon Bayou, La......................................... 657 Little Pigeon River, Tenn........................................ 1087 Little River, Cayuga Island, N. Y................................ 1569 Little River, Del................................................ 247 Little River, La................................................. 688 Little River, Mo................................................ 706 Little River, Va.............................................. 376, 377 Little Rock, Ark.. Arkansas River.............................................. 910 Engineering district......................................... 871 Little Sioux River, Iowa......................................... 1041 Little Sodus Bay Harbor, N. Y................................... 1569 Little Tallahatchie River, Mass...8............................ 688 Little Ten Mile Creek, W. Va.................................... 1239 Little Tennessee River, Tenn................................... 1087 Little Valley Wash, Utah....................................... 1816 Littleville Reservoir, Mass...................................... 108 Little Wicomico River, Va......................................... 295 Little Wood River, Idaho........................................ 2007 Live Oak Wash, Calif........................................... 1630 Locklies Creek, Va............................................... 376 Lockport lock and dam, Ill........................................ 1416 Lockwoods Folly River, N. C...................................... 406 Logan Reservoir, Ohio........................................... 1184 Loggy Bayou, La......................................... 657,660,680 Lone Rock Reservoir, Ark........................................ 887 Long Beach Harbor, Calif........................................ 1607 Long Beach Island, N. J .......................................... 260 Long Island Intracoastal Waterway, N. Y. ...................... 137 Lookout Point Reservoir, Oreg.................................... 1904 Lopez Canyon diversion, Calif.................................... 1622 Lopez flood control reservoir, Calif................................. 1622 Lorain Harbor, Ohio...........................................1516 Los Angeles, Calif.: Engineering district......................................... 1595 Improvement of harbor....................................... 1607 Los Angeles County, Calif................................... 1618,1675 Los Angeles River Basin and channel, Calif ............... 1620, 1622, 1623 Los Esteros Reservoir, Pecos River, Santa Rosa, N. Mex............. .865 Lost Creek, Ill.................................................. 1425 Lost River, Minn............................................... 1284 Louisville, Ky............................................... 1121,1141 Engineering district................................. .. . 1109 Lowell, Mass.........................................69, 126 Lowell Creek, Alaska........................................... 2030 INDEX 2165 Page Lower Arkansas River and Basin, Ark........................ 2044, 2059 Lower Columbia River Basin, Oreg. and Wash ...................... 1914 Bank protection works...................................... 1924 Lower Granite lock and dam, Wash.............................. 1984 Lower Heart River, N. Dak..................................... 1033 Lower Machodoc Creek, Va...................................... 299 Lower Monumental lock and dam, Snake River, Wash.............. 1986 Lower Red River, La.............................. ........... 2043, 2058 Lower San Francisco Bay, Calif................................... 1716 Lower San Joaquin River, Calif.................................. 1779 Lower Thoroughfare, Deal Island, Md ........................... 278 Lower White River and Basin, Ark.......................... 2045, 2063 Lower Williamette River, Oreg.................................. 1859 Lower Woonsocket, Blackstone River Basin, R. I.................. 75, 79 Lowes wharf, M d................................................ 298 Lowsville, W. Va................................................. 1197 Loyalhanna Reservoir, Pa.................................... 1219,1237 Lubec Channel, Maine........................................... 59 Lucky Peak Reservoir, Idaho.................................... 2000 Ludington Harbor, Mich........................................ 1468 Ludlow, Ky.................................................. 1141,1145 Ludlow Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, Vt..................... 126 Lugert Reservoir, Okla.......................................... 962 Lukfata Reservoir, Red River Basin, Okla.......................... 957 Lumber River, N. C., and S. C..................................... 432 Lussenhop levee, Ill................................... .................................... 1425 Lutsen Harbor, Minn............................................ 1272 Lyford levee, Ind................................................ 1145 Lynches River, S. C............................................ 432 Lynn Harbor, Mass.............................................. 59 Lynn-Nahant Beach, Mass....................................... 67 Lytle Creek, Calif.......................................... 1649,1672 Lytle Creek levee, Calif.......................................... 1654 M MacArthur lock, St. Marys, Mich................................. 1433 Machias River, Maine ...... ................................... 59 Mackay Creek, N. C............................................. 409 Mackinac Harbor, Mich......................................... 1478 Macon, Ga....................................................... 462 M adison, Ind............................................... 1141,1145 Mad River, Calif............................................... 1725 Mad River Reservoir, Conn....................................... 111 Magruder drainage district, Columbia County, Oreg................ 1926 Mahoning Creek Reservoir, Pa.......................... 1210,1237,1239 Malden River, Mass.............................................. 59 Malheur improvement district, Snake River, Oreg................... 2007 Malheur River, Oreg............................................ 2007 Mamaroneck Harbor, N. Y........................................ 132 Manatee River, Fla.............................................. 526 Manchester Harbor, Mass........................................ 59 Manchester, Ohio........................................... 1181,1183 Mandan, N. Dak................................................ 1051 Manhattan, Kans............................................... 991 Manhasset Bay, N. Y............................................ 187 Maniece Bayou, Ark........................................... 659,663 Manistee Harbor, Mich........................................... .... 1470 Manistique Harbor, Mich.............................................. 1451 Manitowoc Harbor, Wis......................................... 1379 Mankato-North Mankato, Minn.................................. 1301 Manns Harbor, N. C............................................ 410 Manokin River, Md............................................. 299 Mansfield Hollow Reservoir, Conn................................ 87 Mansfield Reservoir, Ind.................................... 1132,1143 2166 INDEX Page Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay, N. C.................................. 389 Mantau Creek, N. J............................................235 Mapleshade, Ohio........................................... 1181,1183 Marblehead Harbor, Mass......................................... 59 Mare Island Strait, Calif........................................ 1701 Marietta, Ohio.............................................. 1181, 1183 Marina del Rey, Calif........................................... 1603 Marion County drainage district, Mo............................... 1319 Marion Reservoir, Kans.......................................... 938 Mariposa Dam, Calif ............................................ 1790 Markham Ferry Reservoir, Okla................................... 942 Markland locks and dams, Ind...................................... 1061 Markland, McAlpine and locks and dams 43 to 53, Ohio River........ 1055 Marmarth, N. Dak.............................................. 1051 Marquette Bay Harbor, Mich. See Presque Isle Harbor. Marquette Harbor, Mich....................................... 1263 Marshall Creek, San Gabriel River Basin, Calif .................... 1630 M arshall, M inn................................................. 1293 Marsh Creek, Idaho .............................................. 2007 Marshland drainage district, Columbia County, Oreg. ............... 1926 Marseilles lock and dam, Ill...................................... 1416 Martins Ferry, Ohio........................................ 1236,1238 Marys River, Oreg....... ..... ........................ 1925 Marysville, Kans................................................ 993 Mason and Menard drainage district, Ill........................... 1425 Mason J. Niblack levee, Ind................................ 1134,1141 Mason, W. Va.......................................... 1181,1183 Massillon, Ohio............................................. 1156,1181 Matagorda Ship Channel, Tex.................................... 772 Matawan Creek, N. J............................................ 188 Mathews Canyon Reservoir, Nev................................... 1667 Matinicus Harbor, Maine......................................... 7 Mattapoisett Harbor, Mass....................................... 60 Mattaponi River, Va............................................ 376 Mattituck Harbor, N. Y......................................... 134 Matunuck Beach, South Kingstown, R. I......................... 67 Mauckport, Ind.......................................... 1141,1145 Maumee River, above Toledo, Ohio............................... 1495 Maurice River, N. J.............................................. 247 Maxwell locks and dam, Maxwell, Pa............................. 1197 Mayaguez Harbor, P. R........................................... 526 Maysville, Ky.............................................. 1181,1183 McAlpine lock and dam......................................... 1061 McClure Creek, Calif............... ....... .................. 1818 McCook Lake, S. Dak........................................... 1051 McGee Bend Reservoir, Tex...................................... 805 McGee Creek Levee and Drainage District, Ill..................... 731 McGinnis levee, Ind......................................... 1141, 1145 McKees Rocks, Pa........................................... 1236, 1238 McKinney Bayou, Tex. and Ark............ ................. 659, 660 McLean Bottom levee district No. 3, Arkansas River, Ark........... 910 McNary lock and dam, Oreg. and Wash.......................... 1990 Medomak River, Maine.......................................... 60 Meherrin River, N. C..................................... 377, 380, 409 Meherrin River, Va............................................. 380 Melbourne Harbor, Fla......................................... 526 M ellen, W is.................................................... 1301 Melrose Reservoir, Va............................................ 412 Melvern Reservoir, Kans......................................... 1004 Memphis, Tenn.: Engineering district......................................... 701 Wolf River, and Nonconnah Creek............................ 706 Menasha lock and dam.......................................... 1370 Menemsha Creek, Marthas Vineyard, Mass........................ 60 INDEX 2167 Page Menominee Harbor and River, Mich. and Wis ....................... 1361 Meramec Res., Mo.............................................. 730 Merced County stream group,Calif................................. 1790 Merced River, Calif....... ....................................... 1788 Meredosia Lake and Willow Creek Drainage and Levee Districts, Ill.. 731 Mermentau River, La....... ............................... 645, 657, 658 Merriam, Turkey Creek, Kans.................................. 1002 Merrimack River, Mass.......................................... 60 Merrimack River Basin, Mass. and N. H......................... 67 Metlakatla Harbor, Alaska ...................................... 2025 Metamora Reservoir, Ind..................................... 1142, 1145 Methow River, W ash....... ....................................... 1977 Metropolis, Ill....................... .................... 1141,1145 Meyers Chuck Harbor, Alaska.................................... 2025 Miami Harbor and River, Fla.: Improvement of harbor...................................... 488 Mianus River, Conn............................................. 60 Michigan City Harbor, Ind....................................... 1407 Middle Beach, Conn.............................................. 67 Middle Creek, Calif............................................. 1765 Middle Decatur Bend, Missouri River, Iowa and Nebr ................ 1021 M iddlefield, Ohio................................................ 1580 Middle Gila River Channel improvements, Ariz.................... 1661 Middleport, Ohio....... ...................................... 1181, 1183 Middle River and connecting channels, Calif.......................1753 Middle River, Md............................................... 298 Middlesboro, Ky................. ............................ 1088, 1106 Middleton Shoals Reservoir, Ga. and S. C......................... 458 Midland drainage district, Columbia County, Oreg.............. 1922, 1926 Miles City, M ont....... .......................................... 1051 Milford Harbor, Conn....... ..................................... 60, 62 M ilford Haven, Va...... ........................................ 376 Milford Reservoir, Kans.......................................... 986 Mill Creek Dam and Reservoir, Wash.............................. 2005 M ill Creek, Ill.......... ......................................... 1310 Mill Creek levees, Santa Ana River Basin, Calif ................... 1672 M ill Creek, M d...... ............................................ 299 Mill Creek, Tex................................................. 799 Mill Creek, Utah................................................ 1818 M ill Creek, Va.................................................. 376 M iller, Ohio.......... ....................................... 1181, 1184 Miller Pond, drainage district, Ill................................. 731 Millersburg Reservoir, Ohio..................................... 1184 Mill Four drainage district, Yaquina River, Oreg ................... 1927 Millicoma River, Oreg..... ..................................... 1888 Mill Landing (Wanchese Harbor), N. C........................... 410 Millwood Reservoir, Red River Basin, Ark.......................... 960 Millwood, W. Va....... ...................................... 1181, 1184 Milton-Freewater, Walla Walla River, Oreg........................2007 Milton, Ky........ .......................................... 1141, 1145 Milwaukee, Wis., improvement of harbor.......................... 1385 Mingo Creek, S. C............................................... 433 Mingo Junction, Ohio....... ................................. 1236,1238 Mining City Reservoir, Ky....... ............................. 1142, 1145 Minnesota River, Minn...... ..................................... 1268 Miscellaneous civil works........................................ 2129 Mispillion River, Del............................................ 247 Misquamicut Beach, Westerly, R. I............................... 67 M ission Bay, Calif.............................................. 1612 Mission Creek, W ash............................................ 1977 Missisquoi River, Vt......................... .. .... ............. 200 Mississinewa Reservoir, Ind...................................... 1131 Mississippi River: Aitkin, Minn., near......................................... 1301 2168 INDEX Page Baton Rouge to Gulf of Mexico, La............................ 617 Brainerd and Grand Rapids, Minn.............................. 1272 Canton, M o., at.............................................. 1321 Gulf Outlet, La............................................. . 626 Leech Rivers, Minn., and..................................... 1272 Locks and dams............................................. 1348 Missouri River to Minneapolis..................... ...... 1347 Ohio and Missouri Rivers, between........................... 709 Reservoirs at headwaters..................................... 1265 St. Louis, Mo., at..........................................720 St. Paul and South St. Paul, Minn., at ......................... 1294 Winona, Minn., at....................................... . 1296 Mississippi River Commission: Report of the President...................................... 2037 Flood control on lower Mississippi River: Atchafalaya Basin, La........................... 2041, 2054 Bayou Cocodrie and tributaries, La................... 2057 Below Cape Girardeau, Mo ........................... 2039 Channel improvement.............................. 2051 Existing project................................... 2040 Floods .......................................... 2064 Lake Pontchartrain, La.......................... 2043,2057 Levees .......................................... . 2050 Lower Arkansas River and Basin, Ark ........... 2044, 2059 Lower Red River, La.......................... 2043, 2058 Lower White River and Basin, Ark................ 2045, 2063 Mississippi River improvements ....................... 2021 Mississippi River tributary and outlet improvements.. 2041 Mississippi River tributary dams and reservoirs......... .2046 Navigation harbors..................................2053 Old River, La....................................... 2057 Previous projects.................................... 2039 St. Francis River and Basin, Ark. and Mo........ 2045, 2063 Tensas Basin, La. and Ark ........................ 2043, 2059 West Tennessee tributaries, Tenn ................. 2045, 2064 Yazoo Basin, Miss............................... 2044,2059 Missisquoi River, Vt.............................................. 200 Missouri River: Agriculture levees....................................... 975,1048 Aten, Nebr........................... ........................ 1051 Fort Peck, Mont., at.......................................1015 Kansas City District........................................ 973 Kansas City to mouth....................................... 967 Kansas City to Sioux City ..................................... 1017 Kenslers Bend, Nebr. to Sioux City, Iowa..................... 1035 New Haven, Mo.............................. ............. 1012 Niobrara, Nebr...........................................1051 Omaha District........................................... 1024 Sioux City, Iowa, to Fort Benton, Mont........................ 1022 Sioux City to mouth....... .................................... 1048 Mobile, Ala., engineering district................................... 541 Mobile Bay, Harbor and River, Ala................................ 567 Mohawk Reservoir, Ohio......................................... 1159 Mohicanville Reservoir, Ohio..................................... 1159 Mokelume River, Calif......................................... 1753 Monarch, W yo............... ................. . .......... 1051 Monogahela River, W. Va. and Pa................................ 1195 Flood control reservoirs....................................... 1237 Locks and dams............................................. 1197 Monroe Bay and Creek, Va......................... ............ 299 Monroe Harbor, Mich............................................ 1490 Monroe Reservoir, Ind ....................................... 1137, 1143 Montello lock and dam, Wis..................................... 1371 Monterey Harbor, Calif.......................................... 1716 INDEX 2169 Page Montgomery locks and dam, Pa.................................... 1057 Montour Falls, Oswego River Basin, N. Y........................ 1579 Moorefield, W . Va................................................ 330 Moores Ferry Reservoir, Va...................................... 1184 Mooringsport Reservoir, La. and Tex............................ 659, 680 Moosabec Bar, Maine...........................................60 Morehead City Harbor, N. C...................................... 397 Morgantown lock and dam, W. Va................................. 1197 Morganza floodway............................................... 2054 Moriches Inlet, N. Y.............................................. 188 Mormon Channel, Calif.......................................... 1751 Morrilton, west of, Ark........................................... 903 Morrison, Colo................................................ 1051 Morristown Harbor, N. Y... ................................... 1569 Morro Bay Harbor, Calif ......................................... 1596 Moscow, Ohio............................................... 1141,1145 Mosquito Creek Reservoir, Ohio............................... 1228, 1237 Moss Landing Harbor, Calif................................. 1715, 1716 Mott, N. Dak............................. ................... 1051 Mounds and Mound City, Ohio River Basin, Ill...................... 706 Moundsville, W . Va......................................... 1236,1238 Mountain Brook Reservoir, Merrimack River Basin, N. H........... 69, 126 Mount Clemens, Clinton River, Mich................................ 1505 Mount Holly, Rancocas Creek, N. J...............................254 Mount Morris Reservoir, N. Y...... ............................... 1575 Muck Reinhart levees, Salt Creek, Ill............................... 1426 Mud Mountain Reservoir, Wash................................... 1975 Mud River Reservoir, W. Va..................................... 1184 Mulberry Creek, Va............................................. 376 Multonmah Channel, Oreg....................................... 1888 Multnomah diking district 1, Oreg................................1927 Multnomah drainage district No. 1, Multnomah County, Oreg......... 1916 Muncie, Ind.....,........... .. .......... ......... ................ .... 1145 Murderkill River, Del.......................................... 246, 247 Muscatine Harbor, Iowa...... .................................... 1350 Mucatine, Iowa (Mad Creek)..................................... 1338 Muscatine Island levee district and Muscatine-Louisa County Drainage District No. 13, Iowa.......................................... 1335 Muskegon Harbor, Mich......................................... 1463 Muskingum River, Ohio......................................... 1154 Flood control reservoirs................................. 1157,1182 Mystic River, Conn............................................... 60 Mystic River, Mass...... .... . .... .............................. ............... 60 N Naknek River, Alaska........................................... 2025 Nan Cove, Md.................................................. 298 Nandua Creek, Va.............................................. 376 Nansemond River, Va......................................... 376, 377 Nanticoke River, Md............................................ 299 Nanticoke River (including Northwest Fork), Del. and Md........... 299 Nantucket (Harbor or Refuge), Mass.............................. 37 Napa River, Calif.................. ........................ . 1700,1724 Napatree Beach, R. I............................................. 67 Naples Creek, N. Y ............................................... 1580 Naples, Fla., to Big Marco Pass, Fla.: Channel improvement......................................... 496 Narragansett pier, R. I........................................... 67 Narraguagus River, Maine........................................ 60 Narrows of Lake Champlain, N. Y. and Vt. ...................... .. 161 Narrows Reservoir, Ark......................................... 695 Naselle River, W ash............................................. 1961 Nashua, Merrimack River Basin, N. H........ ................... 69, 126 Nashville, Tenn., engineering district............................. 1069 Natalbany River, La............................................ 658 2170 INDEX Page Natchitoches Parish, La....................................... 660, 680 Naticoke River, Md............................................... 298 Navarro Mills Reservoir, Tex..................................... 821 Nawiliwi Harbor, Hawaii........................................ 1825 Neabsco Creek, Va.............................................. 299 Neah Bay, W ash............................................ 1964, 1965 Neale Sound, Md................................................ 299 Near Springfield on Sangamon River, Ill ........................... 1425 Neches, Tex.................................................... 804 Nehalem Bay and River, Oreg................................ 1888,1927 Neodesha Reservoir, Kans........................................ 962 Neshannock Creek, Pa........................................1239 Neuse River, N. C............................................ 409, 410 Neva Strait, Alaska............................................. 2025 Neville Island, Pa........................................... 1236,1238 New Albany, Ind........................................... 1141,1145 New Amsterdam, Ind........................................ 1141,1145 Newark Bay, N. J... ........................................... 172 Newark, Ohio............................................ 1161,1181 New Bedford, Mass.............................................. 121 New Bedford and Fairhaven Harbor, Mass......................... 60 Newbegun Creek, N. C........................................... 409 New Buffalo Harbor, Mich........................................ 1420 Newburyport Harbor, Mass................... ................... 20 New Cumberland locks and dams, W. Va., and Ohio.... 1057,1060,1236,1238 New Don Pedro Reservoir, Calif................................... 1780 New England Division........ .................................... 1 New Harbor, Maine............................................. 60 New Harmony Bridge, Ind. and Ill............................ 1141, 1145 New Harmony, Ind....... .................................... 1141, 1145 New Haven, Conn., breakwater. .................................... 60 New Haven Harbor, Conn....................................... 60 New Hogan Reservoir, Calif ...................................... 1772 New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway .............................. 244 New Kensington, Pa...................................... 1236,1238 New London Harbor, Conn........................................ 60 Newmarket Creek, Va..........................................380 New Martinsville, W. Va.................................. 1181, 1184 New Matamoras, Ohio...... .................................. 1181, 1184 New Melones Reservoir, Calif...................................... 1780 New Orleans, La, engineering district............................. 601 Newport, White River, Ark....................................... 911 Newport Bay Harbor, Calif.... .................................. 1612 Newport Harbor, R. I............................................. 60 Newport, Ky............................................ 1141,1145 Newport News Creek, Va...... ................................. 362, 376 Newport News Harbor, Va.-Removal of drift...................... 368 Newport, Ohio....... ........................................ 1181, 1184 New Richmond, Ohio............... ..................... 1142, 1145 New River, Fla....... ......................................... 525,526 New River, Va. and W. Va....................................... 1154 New Rochelle Harbor, N. Y ...................................... 187 Newry-Old Pickens Reservoir, S. C................................. 458 New Savannah Bluff lock and dam, Ga............................. 447 New Second lock, Mich.......................................... 1433 Newton Creek, N. Y........................................... 187, 188 New York and New Jersey Channels............................... 168 New York Bay and Harbor, N. Y.: Drift, collectional and removal................................ 167 Entrance channels and anchorage areas........................ 164 Supervision................................................. 185 New York engineering district.................................... 131 New York (Southern) flood control project......................... 301 New York River, Va........................................... 377 INDEX 2171 Page Niagara remedial works, N. Y ..................................... 1552 Niagara River, N. Y.......................................... 1569 Niagara International Board of Control............................ 2135 Niagara International Committee................................ 2136 Nichols, N. Y................................................. 318 Nimrod Reservoir, Ark........................................... 908 Ninilchik Harbor, Alaska.............. ........................... 2014 Niobrara, Nebr.................................................. 1051 Nishnabotna River, Iowa......................................... 1051 Nolin Reservoir, Ky.......................................... 1124, 1142 Nome Harbor, Alaska...................................... 2011,2025 Nomini Bay and Creek, Va.................................... 299 Nonconnah Creek, Tenn... ...................................... 706 Norfolk Harbor, Va.............. ............................. 364 Norfolk Harbor, Va.-Removal of drift........................ 368 Norfolk, Elkhorn River Basin, Nebr ............................. 1051 Norfolk, Va., engineering district.................................. 339 Norfolk Reservoir, Ark................................ ... 887, 896 Normal, Ky.................... ......................... 1181,1184 North Adams, Hoosic River Basin, Mass............................ 192 North Alexander Drainage and Levee District, Ill...................731 Northampton, Mass....... ..................................... 125, 126 North Andover, Merrimack River Basin, Mass..................... 69,126 Northeast Harbor, Maine.... .................................... .60 Northeast River, Md... ....................................... 272 Northeast River, N. C............................................ 409 Northfield Brook Reservoir, Housatonic River Basin, Conn........... . 116 North Fork Dam, Calif...... ................................... 2112 North Fork, Forked Deer River, Tenn............................. 707 North Fork of Pound Reservoir, Ohio River Basin, Va............... 1178 North Hartland Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, Vt .............. 92 North Little Rock, Ark....... .................................. 910, 911 Northport Harbor, N. Y................... ................... 187 North River, Ga................................................. 457 North Scituate Beach, Scituate, Mass............................... 67 North Springfield Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, Vt ............. 93 North W ildwood, N. J............................................ 260 Norwalk Harbor, Conn........................................... 60 Norwich, Thames River Basin, Conn............................... 126 Noxubee River, Miss.... ....................................... 592 Noyo River and Harbor, Calif.................................... 1689 O Oahe Reservoir, S. Dak. and N. Dak............................... 1027 Oak Bay, Wash.... ......................................... 1939 Oakford, Ill....... ............................................... 1425 Oak Harbor, Wash....... ........................................ 1965 Oakland Harbor, Calif ....... ..................................... 1705 Oak Orchard Harbor, N. Y..................................... 1569 Oatka Creek, Warsaw, N. Y....................................1580 Obey River, Tenn............................................ 1087 Obion River, Tenn.............................................. 704 0. Burrows levee, Ill............................................. 1426 Occohannock Creek, Va.......................................... 376 Occuquan Creek, Va.......................................... 297 Ocean Beach, Calif.............................................. 1684 Ocean City Harbor and Inlet, Md ................................. ... 284 Ocean City, N. J................................................ 258 Oceanside, Ocean Beach, San Diego County, Calif.............. 1680,1684 Ochlockonee River, Ga. and Fla................................... 592 Ocmulgee River, Ga............................................ 449 Oconee River, Ga ............................................... 449 Oconto Harbor and River, Wis................................... 1420 Ocracoke Inlet, N. C............................................ 396 2172 INDEX Page Odanah, W is................................................... 1277 Ogdensburg Harbor, N. Y....................................... 1511 Ohio River: Flood control in basin: Huntington district....................................... 1179 Louisville district........................................ 1139 Nashville district....................................... 1104 Pittsburgh district...................................... 1235 Improvements: Locks and dams, construction............................. 1055 Open channel work................................... . 1064 Ohio Street Bridge, Buffalo, N. Y.................................. 1571 Oil Creek, Pa.................................................... 1239 Okanogan River, Wash.......................................... 1977 Okeechobee Waterway, Fla....................................... 498 Oklahoma City, Okla............................................. 962 Oklawaha River, Fla.............................................. 472 Olcott Harbor, N. Y............................................... 1555 Old Hickory Dam and Reservoir, Tenn............................ 1073 Oldmans Creek, N. J............................................. 247 Old River, Calif.................................................. 1742 Old River, La................................................. 2057 Old Town Creek, Miss............................................ 592 Olean on Allegheny River, N. Y.............................. ...... 1236,1238 Olympia Harbor, Wash..................................... 1964,1965 Omaha, Nebr.: Engineering district......................................... 1015 Flood control............................................... 1051 Missouri River Basin........................................ 1024 Onancock River, Va........................................... 376 Onondaga Creek, Nedrow, N. Y................................... 1580 Ontonagon Harbor, Mich......................................... 1256 Oologah Reservoir, Okla.......................................... 933 Oostanaula River, Ga................ .......................... 592 Opekiska lock and dam, W. Va.................................... 1197 Optima Reservoir, North Canadian River, Okla. ................... 919 Orange River, Fla.............................................. 498 Oregon Slough, Oreg............................................ 1888 Orleans, Ind..................................................... 1145 Oroville Reservoir, Calif......................................... 1763 Orowoc Creek, N. Y.............................................. 187 Orr Creek, Calif.. ............... ....... ........................ 1725 Orwell Reservoir (Otter Tail River), Minn........................ 1279 Osage River, lock and dam, Kans. and Mo.......................... 972 Osawatomie, Kans...... ......................................... 1011 Osoyoos Lake Board of Control.................................... 2140 Oswego Harbor, N. Y......................................... 1563 Ottawa, Kans................................................... 1006 Otter Brook Reservoir, N. H...................................... 98 Otter Creek, Vt.................................................. 188 Ouachita and Black Rivers below Camden, Ark................ .. . . . . 683 Ouachita River and tributaries, Ark. and La...................... .690 Overton-Red River Waterway, La................................ 658 Owasco Outlet, N. Y............................................ 1578 Owensboro, Ky............................................. 1142, 1145 Owens Dam and Reservoir, Calif.................................. 1790 Owls Head Harbor, Maine........................................ 60 Oxford, N. Y ................................................... 302 Oyster Channel, Va.............................................. 344 Oyster Creek, Tex............................................... 790 Ozark lock and dam, Ark......................................... 875 Ozona, Fla., Channel and turning basin............................ 512 INDEX 2173 Page P Pacoima Wash Channel, Los Angeles, Calif ........................ 1623 Paducah, Ky................................................ 1142,1145 Pagan River, Va.............................................377 Paint Creek Reservoir, Ohio..................................... 1184 Painted Post, N. Y........................................... 305 Painted Rock Reservoir, Ariz.................................... 1666 Paint Rock River, Ala........................................... 1102 Pajaro River, Calif.......................................... 1724 Palm Beach County from Lake Worth Inlet to So. Lake Worth Inlet, Fla. 537 Palm Beach, Fla.: Channel.................................................. 526 Harbor..................................................... 481 Pamlico River, N. C.............................................. 394 Pamunkey River, Va.............................................. 377 Panama City Harbor, Fla......................................... 562 Pantego Creek, N. C.............. ............................ 416 Panther Creek levee, Ill......................................... 1425 Parish Creek, M d...... .......................................... 290 Parkersburg, W . Va........................................ 1181,1184 Parnassus, Pa........................................... 1236,1238 Parrots Creek, Va... ......................................... 376 Pascagoula Harbor and River, Miss.............................. 582, 592 Pasquotank River, N. C... .................................... 417 Passaic River, N. J..... .......................................... 172 Passamaquoddy tidal power project, Maine......................... 60 Pass Christian Harbor, Miss..................................... 592 Pass Manchac, La... .......................................... 658 Patchogue River, Conn.... ...................................... 60 Patriot, Ind................................................ 1142,1145 Patuxent River, Md............................................. 299 Pawcatuck, Conn ...... .......................................... 122 Pawcatuck River, R. I., and Conn................................. 47 Pawtucket, R. I................................................ 75,126 Pearl River, Miss. and La.................................. 587, 592, 597 Pecan Bayou, Miss.. . ......................................... 697 Peconic River, N. Y.... ....................................... 187 Pecos, Tex., flood control project, Pecos River, Tex................. .865 Peekskill Harbor, N. Y......................................... 188 Pekin La Marsh drainage and levee district, Ill..................... 1425 Pekin La Marsh levee, Illinois River, Ill............................ 1426 Pelican Harbor, Alaska ......................................... 2026 Pembina River Reservoir, N. Dak................................ 1301 Pembroke Creek, N. C.... ...................................... 409 Pendleton, Umatilla River, Oreg...... ............................. 2007 Peninsula drainage dist. Nos. 1 & 2, Multnomah County, Oreg........ 1927 Pennington Bayou, Ark......................................... 905 Penny Slough, Rock River, Ill.................................... 1341 Penobscot River, Maine....................... .................... 4 Pensacola Harbor, Fla... ...................................... 566 Pensacola Reservoir, Okla.... ................................... 941 Pensaukee Harbor, W is.......................................... 1364 Pentwater Harbor, Mich...... .................................... 1467 Peoria lock and dam, Ill......................................... 1416 Pepperell Cove, Maine... ....................................... 17 Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses....... .2123 Perquimans River, N. C.......................................... 409 Perry County drainage and levee districts Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Mo ........ 718 Perry Reservoir, Kans..... ...................................... 1001 Petaluma River, Calif ....... ..................................... 1698 Petersburg Harbor, Alaska...................................... 2026 Petit Anse Bayou, La............................................ 642 Petoskey Harbor, Mich........................................... 1477 Philadephia, Pa., engineering district............................. 209 2174 INDEX Page Philpott Reservoir, Va........................................ 412,414 Pickwick Landing, Tenn......................................... 1083 Piedmont Reservoir, Ohio........................................ 1159 Pierce, Nebr..................................................... 1050 Pigeon Creek, Pa................................................. 1239 Pike Island locks and dam, W. Va.................................. 1060 Pilot Rock, Birch Creek, Oreg...................................... 2007 Pine Canyon Reservoir, Nev..................................... 1667 Pine Creek Reservoir, Red River Basin, Okla........................956 Pine Flat Reservoir, Calif..................................... . 1793 Pine River, St. Clair City, Mich................................. 1495 Pine River Reservoir, Minn...................................... 1265 Pineville, Ky... ....... ...................................... 1089 Pineville, Red River, La....................................... 660, 680 Pinole Creek, Calif ... ....................................... 1725 Pioneer Reservoir, Kans.......................................... 1011 Piscataque River, Maine and N. H................................. 60 Pithlachascotee River, Fla ........................................ 526 Pittsburgh Harbor, Pa................... ......................... 1200 Pittsburgh, Pa.............................................. 1236,1238 Pittsburgh, Pa., engineering district.............................. 1189 Plaquemine lock, La............................................. 610 Platte River, Nebr................................................ 1052 Plattsburg Harbor, N. Y ........................................ 188 Playa Del Rey Inlet and Basin, Calif See Marina del Rey........... Pleasant Hill Reservoir, Ohio.................................... 1159 Pleasant River, Maine........................................... 60 Plum Creek, Tex ............................................. 963 Plymouth Harbor, Mass.......................................... 60 Plymouth, Pa................................................... 330 Poca Reservoir, W. Va........................................... 1184 Pokegama Reservoir, Minn..................................... 1265 Pocomoke River and Sound, Md.................................. 282 Point Comfort channel, Tex......................................772 Point Judith Harbor of Refuge and Pond, R. I.......................43 Point Lookout Harbor, Mich..................................... 1495 Point Marion, Pa...........................................1197 Point Pleasant, W. Va..................................... 1181, 1184 Polecat Creek, Okla...... ......................................... 927 Pollock Rip Shoals, Nantucket Sound, Mass ........................ 60 Polson Bay, Flathead Lake, Mont.................................1965 Pomeroy, Ohio....... ........................................ 1181, 1184 Pomme de Terre Reservoir, Mo.................................. 1008 Pomona Reservoir, Kans...................... ................. 1005 Ponce Harbor, P. R............................................ 525,526 Ponchatoula Creek and River, La.................................. 658 Pontiac diversion, Pawtuxet River Basin, R. I....................... 126 Popes Creek, Va..... ........................................... 298 Poplar Bluff, M o...... ........................................... 910 Poplar Branch, N. C....... ....................................... 410 Portage Lake, Mich ........ ...................................... 1495 Portage lock, Fox River, Wis................................... 1371 Port Alexander, Alaska......................................... 2026 Port Allen Harbor, Hawaii....................................... 1826 Port Allen lock, La.............................................. 610 Port Angeles Harbor, Wash................................. 1964, 1965 Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway, Tex ..................... 776, 792 Port Arthur Canal, Tex.....:..................................... 736 Port Austin Harbor, Mich........................................ 1495 Port Bay, N. Y.................................................. 1570 Port Chester Harbor, N. Y....................................... 187 Port Clinton Harbor, Ohio......................................... 1495 Port Everglades Harbor, Fla...................... .............. . 485 Port Gamble Harbor, Wash................................... 1964,1965 INDEX 2175 Page Port Henry Harbor, N. Y....................................... 188 Port Hueneme Harbor, Calif...................................... 1600 Port Jefferson Harbor, N. Y..................................... 187 Portland Harbor, Maine.......... .... ........................... 6 Portland, Ohio.............................................. 1181,1184 . Portland, Oreg., engineering district. .............................. 1845 1927 Portland, Oreg., floodwall and levees.............................. Port Lavaca, Tex................................................ 772 Portneuf River, Idaho........................................... 2007 Port Ontario Harbor, N. Y...... ... ............................................ 1570 Port Orchard Bay, Wash..................................... 1964,1965 Port Royal Harbor, S. C........................................... 430 Port St. Joe Harbor, Fla.......................................... 561 Port Sanilac Harbor, Mich..................................... 1486 Portsmouth Harbor, Maine & N. H................................ 60 Portsmouth Harbor, Va., channel to Nansemond Ordnance Depot..... .377 Portsmouth-New Boston, Ohio................................ 1181, 1184 Port Towsend Bay and Oak Bay, Wash. Waterway.................. 1939 Port Towsend, W ash............................................ 1938 Portville, N. Y ............................................... 1236,1238 Port Washington Harbor, Wis.................................... 1383 Port Wing Harbor, Wis......................................... 1250 Posten Bayou, La. and Ark.................................... 659, 680 Potomac River: Improvement at Alexandria, Va............................... 299 Improvement at Lower Cedar Point, Md.................... 299 Improvement at Mount Vernon, Va............................ 299 Improvement at Washington, D. C......................... .299 Improvement below Washington, D. C....................... 298, 299 North side of Washington Channel, D. C....................... 299 W aterchestnut, elimination of.................................. 293 Potowomut River, R. I............................................ 60 Pound Reservoir, Va. See John W. Flannagan Dam and Reservoir, Va. Powhatan Point, Ohio........................................ 1181,1184 Prado Dam, Calif............................................... 1649 Prairie du Chien Harbor, Wis.................................... 1350 Prairie du Rocher and vicinity, Ill................................ 731 Prairie Portage Board of Control.................................. 2139 Prattville, Autauga Creek, Ala................................ ... 597 Prescott area, Columbia County, Oreg.............................. 1927 Presque Isle Harbor, Mich........................................ 1262 Presque Isle Peninsula, Erie, Pa.................................. 1581 Preston drainage and levee district, Ill............................ 731 Prestonville, Ky................................................. 1142,1145 Priest Rapids Dam, W ash............................................. 1977 Princeton lock and dam, Wis...................................... 1371 Princeton, Ohio River Basin, W. Va................................ 1175 Proctor and Eskridge levee, Spoon River, Ill.......................... 1426 Proctor, Otter Creek Basin, Vt .................................. 199 Proctor, W . Va.... .......................................... 1181,1184 Proctor Reservoir, Leon River, Tex.................................. 826, 828 Proctorville, Ohio............... ............................. 1181,1184 Prompton Reservoir, Lackawaxen River, Pa ........................ 252 Prospect Beach, Conn............................................... 67 Providence Harbor and River, R. I.................................. 60 Provincetown Beach, Provincetown, Mass .......................... 67 Provincetown Harbor, Mass........................................ 60 Pudding River, Oreg.........................................1927 Pueblo, Colo.......................................................... 865 Puget Sound and its tributary waters, Wash ......................... 1933 Pullm an, W ash....................................................... 2007 Pultneyville Harbor, N. Y.......................................... 1570 Punxsutawney, Pa........................................... 1209, 1236 Put-in-Bay Harbor, Ohio......................................... 1495 2176 INDEX Q Page Quail Wash, Calif............................................... 1673 Queens Creek, Va............ ................................... 378 Queenstown Harbor, Md.......................................... 298 Quillayute River, Wash........................................... 1945 Quniby Creek, Va................................................ 376 Quincy Shore Beach, Mass........................................ 64 R Raccoon Creek levee, Ind......................................... 1145 Raccoon Creek, N. J............................................ 246, 247 Racoon levee, Ind............................................... 1142 Racine Harbor, Wis............................................. 1389 Racine lock and dams............................................ 1061 Racine, Ohio................................................ 1181,1184 Rahway River, N. J........................................... 188,200 Ranier drainage district, Columbia County, Oreg................ 1918, 1927 Rainy Lake Board of Control...................................... 2139 Rancocas River, N. J........................................... 247 Randolph Reservoir, Va.......................................... 412 Rapide Croche lock and dam, Wis................................ 1370 Rappahannock River, Va........................................ 347 Rappahannock River Bowlers, Wharf, Va.......................... 376 Rappahannock Shoal channel, Va.................................................. 345 Raritan River, N. J.............................................. 178 Improvement of channel to Arthur Kill..................... 187, 188 Rathbun Reservoir, Iowa........................................ 1003 Ravenswood, W. Va.......................................... 1181,1184 Raymond, W ash......... ........................................ 1977 Redbank Creek Reservoir, Pa....,............................ 1237,1238 Red Bluff Channel, Tex........................................... 772 Reddies River Dam, N. C......................................434 Red Chute, La................................................ 660,680 Red Dale Gulch, S. Dak......................................... 1052 Red Hook Channel, N. Y........................................ 146 Red Lake and Red Lake River, Minn........................... 1272,1282 Redondo Beach Harbor, Calif.................................. 1612 Red River at East Point, La................................... 659, 680 Red River at Garland City, Ark................................ 659, 665 Red River from Fulton, Ark., to mouth of Washita River, Okla....... .918 Red River, La., Ark., Tex., and Okla.: Below Denison Dam: New Orleans District... .............................. 659, 675 Tulsa District........................................... 955 Below Fulton, Ark............. ..................... ............ 657 Vicinity of Shreveport, La.................................. 660, 680 Red River of the North Drainage Basin, Minn., S. Dak, and N. Dak. 1272, 1278 Red River Parish, La......... ............................... 660, 680 Red River, Tenn................................................. 1087 Red Rock Reservoir, Iowa...................................... 1326 Red Run, Clinton River, Mich...................................... 1505 Red Wing Harbor, Minn........... ............................... 1350 Redwood City Harbor, Calif...................................... 1709 Reelfoot Lake area, Ky. and Tenn................................ 2045 Reevesville, Ill............................................... 1142,1145 Regulation of hydraulic mining and preparation of plans ............ 2107 Rehoboth Bay to Delaware Bay, Del................................ 223 Rehoboth Beach to Indian River Inlet, Del.......................... 256 Reno Beach, Lucas County, Ohio.................................... 1505 Revere Beach, Mass.............................................. 67 Reynoldsville, Pa.............................................1238 Rheem Creek, Calif............................................ 1721 Rhodes Point to Tylerton, Md...................................... 299 Rice Creek, Fla............................................... 525, 526 Rices Landing, Pa.............................................. 1197 INDEX 2177 Page Richland Reservoir, Mo.......................................... 1011 Richmond Harbor, Calif......................................... 1703 Richmond Harbor, Maine........................................ 60 Richmonds Island Harbor, Maine.................................. 60 Ridgeway, W . Va............. ................................... 326 Ridgway, Pa................................................ 1236 Rio Grande Basin, N. Mex....................................... 853 Rio Grande Floodway, N. Mex.................................. 854,859 Rio Hondo basin and channel, Calif................................ 1636 Ripley Ohio................................................ 1181, 1184 Rising Sun, Ind............................................. 1142,1145 Riverdale, Connecticut River Basin, Mass........................ .126 Riverland drainage district, Mo.................................... 731 Riverside levees, Calif........................................... 1672 Riverview, W. Va....... .................................. 1181,1184 Roanoke Rapids Reservoir, N. C.................................. 412 Roanoke River, Va.............................................. 388 Roanoke River Basin, N. C. and Va................................ 411 John H. Kerr Reservoir..................................... 411 Robinson Run, Pa......... ................... ...... 1239 Rochester and McCleary's Bluff levee, Ill.......................... 1142 Rochester Harbor, N. Y......................................... 1556 Rochester, Pa............................................... 1237,1238 Rochester Reservoir, Iowa........................................ 1342 Roch Hall Harbor, Md......................................... 298 Rock Island Harbor, Ill........................................ 1350 Rock Island, Ill., engineering district............................... 1305 Rockland Harbor, Maine......................................... 60 Rockland Reservoir, Neches River, Tex............................ 808 Rockport Harbor, Maine.......................................... 60 Rockport Harbor, Mass......................................... 60 Rockport, Ind............................................... 1142,1145 Rock River agricultural levees, Ill............................... 1342 At South Beloit, Ill..................................... . 1342 Rocky Ford drainage and levee district, Ill ......................... 1425 Rocky Fork Reservoir, Ohio..................................... 1184 Rocky Pass, Alaska................................................ 2026 Rocky River Harbor, Ohio ..................................... 1570 Rocky River, Ohio............................................... 1580 Rodeo Creek, Calif.............................................. 1725 Rogers City Harbor, Mich ........................................ 1495 Rogue River at Gold Beach, Oreg.................................. 1885 Roland drainage district, Arkansas River, Ark..................... 911 Rollinson Channel, N. C......................................... 409 Rom e, Ga...................................................... 597 Rome, Ind.................................................. 1142,1145 Rome (Mohawk River) N. Y...................................... 199 Roseville, Ohio............................................. 1163,1181 Rosiclare, Ill................................................... 1145 Rossview Reservoir, Tenn. and Ky................................ 1106 Rough River, Ky.......................................... 1115,1142 Reservoir and channel improvement....................... 1126, 1142 Rouge River, Mich ............................................. 1487 Roundout Harbor, N. Y........................................... 151 Rouses Point, Lake Champlain, N. Y.............................. 188 Royal River, Maine.............................................. 60 Rubio Canyon Diversion, Calif................................... 1637 Ruffy Brook, Minn............................................... 1284 Rushford, M inn................................................. 1301 Russell and Allison levee, Ill ................................ 1141,1145 Russell Creek, S. C.............................................. 433 Russell, Ky................................................. 1181,1184 Russian River Basin, Calif..................................... 1718 Rutland, Otter Creek, Vt......................................... 191 Rye Harbor, N. H.............................................. 18 2178 INDEX Page S Sabin lock, St. Mary's River, Mich................................ 1433 Sabine-Neches Waterway, Tex................................... 736 Sabula, Iowa.............:...................................... 1342 Sackets Harbor, N. Y......................................... 1570 Saco, Mont................. .................................. 1052 Saco River, Maine............. ................................. 60 Sacramento, Calif., engineering district. ........................ 1729 Sacramento River, Calif......................................... 1729 Collinsville to Shasta Dam, Calif............................. 1754 Debris control............................................... 2111 Flood control.............................................. 2115 Sag Harbor, N. Y............................................... 187 Saginaw River, Mich........................................ 1483, 1498 St. Albans Harbor, Lake Champlain, Vt............................ 188 St. Anthony Falls, upper lock, Minn.............................. 1348 St. Augustine Harbor, Fla..................................... 525, 526 St. Catherines Sound, Md.... .......................................................... 299 St. Clair River, Mich............................................ 1438 St. Croix River, Minn. and Wis................................... 1270 St. Croix River, Maine, and New Brunswick ..................... 60, 2130 St. Francis River and Basin, Ark. and Mo.............. 704, 706, 2045, 2063 St. Genevieve levee dist. No. 1, Mo................................ 731 St. James Harbor, Beaver Island, Mich............................ 1495 St. Jeromes Creek, Md............. . . ............................... 299 St. Johns Bayou, Mo........................................... 2045 St. Johns River, Fla., Jacksonville to Lake Harney ................. 470 St. Jones River, Del........................................... 247 St. Joseph Harbor, Mich....................................... 1452 St. Joseph River, Mich........................................ 1495 St. Lawrence Joint Working Committee on River Gaging.......... 1591 St. Lawrence River Board of Control.............................. 2133 St. Louis County drainage and levee district, Mo .................. 731 St. Louis, Mo., engineering district. .. ........................... 709 St. Lucie Inlet, Fla........................................... ... 526 St. Maries, Idaho.............................................. 1977 St. Marks River, Fla............................................ 544 St. Marys River, Ga. and Fla............... .................... 457 St. Marys River, Mich.................................. 1431, 1496, 1587 St. M arys, Pa...............................................1237,1238 St. Marys, W. Va.......................................... 1181,1184 St. Michael Canal, Alaska................................................... 2026 St. Michaels Harbor, Md....................................... 298 St. Patricks Creek, Md......................................... 299 St. Paul Harbor, Minn...................................... 1294,1350 St. Paul, Minn., engineering district.............................. 1243 St. Petersburg Harbor, Fla................................... 525, 526 St. Peters Creek, Md................ ............................ 298 St. Regis River, Mont......................................... 1977 St. Thomas Harbor, V. I........................................ 526 Sakonnet Harbor and River, R. I................................ 41, 60 Salamonie Reservoir, Ind........................................ 1130 Salem Church Reservoir, Va............................... . .... 380 Salem Harbor, Mass................... ............................ 23 Salem River, N. J............................................... 247 Salina, Kans................................................... 989 Salinas River, Calif............................................ 1724 Saline Point, La............................................. 660, 680 Saline River, Ark.............................................. 688 Saline River, Ill............................................... 1145 Salkahatchie River, S. C.... .................................. 433 Salmon River, Alaska...... ..................................... 2029 Salmon River, Oreg............................................. 1888 Salt Creek at Barnard, Kans.................................... 1012 INDEX 2179 Page Salt Creek, Ill................................................ 1425 Salt Creek, Fla, See St. Petersburg Harbor. Salt Creek, Nebr ........................ ................. .. 1046 Salters Creek, Va................................................. 378 Salt Fork of Arkansas River, Okla............................... 923 Salt Lake City, Jordan River, Utah................................ 1816 Salt River, Ariz.............................................. 1663 Salyersville, Licking River, Ky............................... . 1145 Sammamish River, Wash................................... .. 1971 San Angelo Reservoir, Tex....................................833 San Antonio Creek Calif ..................................... 1650 San Antonio Dam, Calif........................................ 1649 San Antonio Channel improvement, Tex.......................... 840 San Antonio River, Tex....................................... 840 Sandburg Creek, N. Y... ...................................... 200 Sand Creek, Newton, Kans......................................963 Sand Hill Cove Beach, R. I....................................... 67 San Diego Creek, Tex... ..................................... 800 San Diego Harbor, Calif .................................. 1612 San Diego River Basin, Calif ................................... 1657 San Diego River, Calif........ .................................... 1612 Sandusky River and Harbor, Ohio......................... 1511, 1570 Sandy Bay, Cape Ann, Mass..................................... 60 Sandy drainage district, Multnomah County, Oreg................... 1927 Sandy Hook Bay, N. J........................................ 187,188 Sandy Hook Bay at Leonardo, N. J.... ........................... 188 Sandy Lake Reservoir, Minn....... ............................... 1265 San Francisco Bay and Harbor, Calif .............................. 1694 San Francisco, Calif., engineering district.......................... 1687 San Gabriel River basin and channel, Calif........................ 1631 Sangamon River, Ill................................... 1422, 1425, 1630 San Jacinto River levees, Calif...... .............................. 1656 San Joaquin River, Calif ...... .................................. 1745 San Jose W ash, Calif............................................ 1631 San Juan Dam, Santa Ana River Basin, Calif .................. 1672 San Juan Harbor, P. R........................... ...... ...... 518 San Lorenzo River and Creek, Calif......................... 1722, 1723 San Luis Obispo Harbor, Calif................................ 1612 San Pablo Bay, Calif.. ................................ 1701 San Rafael Creek, Calif....................................... 1697 Santa Ana River Basin, Calif.......................... .. 1647, 1653 Santa Anita Wash, Calif..................................... 1637 Santa Barbara Harbor, Calif.................................. 1598 Santa Clara River, levee and channel improvements, Calif.......... 1672 Santa Cruz County, Calif....................................... 1726 Santa Cruz Harbor, Calif..................................... 1713 Santa Fe flood control reservoir, Los Angeles.....................1630 Santa Maria Valley levees, Santa Maria River Basin, Calif ........ 1615 Santa Paula Creek, Calif...................................... 1672 Santee River, S. C...........................................433 Sapelo Harbor, Ga............................................457 Sardis, Ohio......................................... .. 1181,1184 Sasanoa River, Maine..........................................60 Sasco Hill Beach, Conn.........................................67 Satilla River, Ga. ................................... ......... 457 Saugatuck Harbor, Mich....................................... 1456 Saugerties Harbor, N. Y.........................................188 Sauvie Island (areas A and B), Multnomah County, Oreg...... 1917,1927 Savage River Dam, Md.........................................330 Savannah, Ga., engineering district............................... 439 Savannah Harbor and River, Ga.: Improvement of harbor. ................................... 442 Improvement of river above Augusta ......................... 457 Improvement of river at Augusta............................457 2180 INDEX Page Improvement of river below Augusta......................... 446 Savannah River Basin, Ga., and S. C..............................458 Sawpit Wash, Rio Hondo Basin................................. 1637 Sawtelle-Westwood system, Calif ............................... 1640 Saxon Harbor, Wis......................................... . 1254 Saylorville Reservoir, Iowa................... .................. 1324 Scappoose drainage district, Columbia County, Oreg................ 1927 Scarboro River, Maine, between Prouts Neck and Pine Point......... 11 Schoolfield Reservoir, Va. and N. C................. .............. 412 Schuylkill River, Pa...........................................218 Above Fairmont Dam........................................ 247 Scioto River, Portsmouth, Ohio................................... 1154 Flood control reservoirs ................................... 1182 Sciotoville, Ohio..... ..................................... 1181, 1184 Scituate Harbor, Mass........................................... 60 Scuppernong River, N. C.......................................409 Seahorn drainage and levee district, Ill............................1425 Seaside Park, Conn.............................................67 Seattle Harbor, Wash.............. .............................. 1950 Seattle, Wash., engineering district............................... 1933 Sebewaing River and Harbor, Mich........................... 1495, 1497 Seekonk River, R. I........................................... 60 Seldovia Harbor, Alaska...... ................................... 2016 Selkirk Shores State Park, N. Y.................................1581 Senecaville Reservoir, Ohio....................................... 1159 Sepulveda flood control reservoir, Los Angeles River basin .......... 1623 Seven Creeks, N. C.... ......................................... 435 Sevier River, Utah...... ........................................ 1816 Seward, Alaska, Harbor of Refuge................................ 2017 Seward, Nebr..... ............................................ 1012 Shallotte River, N. C.... ....................................... 409 Shark River, N. J....................... .................. 187,188 Shawneetown, Ill....... ..................................... 1142, 1145 Sheboygan Harbor, W is.......................................... 1381 Sheepshead Bay, N. Y...... ...................................... 187 Shelbyville Reservoir, Ill......................................... 727 Shelley area, Idaho............................................. 2007 Shell Creek and tributaries, Nebr................................ 1047 Shenango River Reservoir, Pa., and Ohio.................... 1230, 1237 Sheridan, W yo..... ........................................... 1034 Sherwood Island State Park, Conn............................... 67 Shields River, near Clyde Park, Mont.............................1052 Shilshole Bay, Seattle, Wash ................................. 1946, 1964 Shinnecock Inlet, N. Y........................................... 188 Shipyard River, S. C..........................................428 Shoal Harbor, N. J... .......................................... 180 Shoals, east fork of White River, Ind............................. 1145 Shore of Manitowoc County, Wis................................ 1428 Shore Protection Board. See Beach Erosion Board. Short Beach, Conn............................................... 67 Short Mountain lock and dam No. 15, Okla..................... 914, 916 Shrewsburg River, N. J......................................... 183 Shuffiebarger levee, Ind.................................... 1142, 1145 Sierra Madre Villa Channel, Rio Hondo Basin..................... 1637 Sierra Madre Wash, Calif ..................................... 1620 Silver Beach to Cedar Beach, Conn................................65 Silver Lake Harbor, N. C........................................ 409 Simmons Creek, N. C.................. ....................... 418 Sinepuxent Bay, Md............................................ 284 Sioux City, Iowa...... .......................................... 1052 Sioux Falls, S. Dak...... ....................................... 1039 Sioux Falls Modification, S. Dak................................. 1040 Sistersville, W. Va......................................... 1181,1184 Sitka Harbor, Alaska........................................... 2026 INDEX 2181 Page Siuslaw River, Oreg............................................ 1877 Skaggs Ferry, Black River, Ark.............................. .911 Skagit River, W ash......................................... 1965, 1977 Skagway Harbor and River, Alaska.......................... 2026, 2030 Skamokawa Creek, Wash................................... 1888,1927 Skamokawa, Wash.......................................... . 1888 Skipanon Channel, Oreg...................................... . 1866 Slaughter Creek, Md............................................ 299 Smith Creek, Md............................................... 299 Smith Creek, N. C............................................ 409 Smithland, Ky.......................... ................. 1142,1145 Smith Mountain Reservoir, Va.................................. 412 Smith River, Oreg.............................................. 1888 Smiths Creek, N. C............................................409 Smiths Ferry, Pa......................................... 1237,1238 Smyrna River, Del............................................. 247 Snake River, Idaho, Oreg., and Wash............................ 1981 Snohomish River, Wash ...................................... 1940, 1964 Sny Basin, Ill............................................... 1314 Sny Island levee drainage district, Ill......................... 1315,1342 Socorro Diversion Channel, tributaries of Rio Grande, N. Mex ........ 861 Somerville Reservoir, Yegua Creek, Tex........................ 826,832 Sounds of N. C., waterway to Norfolk, Va........................ 409 South Amsterdam, Mohawk River, N. Y.......................... 197 South Bank Arkansas River, Little Rock to Pine Bluff, Ark.: Head of Fourche Island to Pennington Bayou .................. 905 Tucker Lake............................................... 911 South Beardstown drainage and levee district, Ill .................. 1425 South Bristol Harbor, Maine..................................... 8 South Coventry Reservoir, Conn.................................. 126 South Creek, N. C............................................418 Southern New York flood control project.......................... 301 South Fork of Cumberland River, Ky............................. 1087 South Fork Sangamon River, Ill ................................. 1427 South Haven Harbor, Mich....................... ............ 1455 South Milwaukee Harbor, Wis.................................... 1420 South Platte River Levees and Channel Improvements Chatfield Reservoir to Fort Morgan, Colo................................. 1052 South Plymouth Reservoir, Canasawacta Creek, N. Y.............. 330 South Point, Ohio....................................... 1181,1184 Southport Beach, Conn........................................... 67 Southport Harbor, Conn............... ........................ 56 South Portsmouth, Ky...................................... 1181,1184 South Quincy Drainage and Levee District, Ill................. 1318, 1342 South River Drainage District, Mo.......................... 1317, 1342 South River, N. C........... ............ ......................... 409 South Slough, Ill....... ......................................... 1310 South St. Paul, Minn....... ...................................... 1294 South Tunbridge Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, Vt. ............ 126 Southwest Harbor, Maine..................... ................... 6 Spanish Fork River, Utah...... ................................. 1816 Spokane River, W ash...... ...................................... 1977 Spoon River, Ill.... ......................................... 1427 Springdale, Connecticut River Basin, Mass......................... 126 Springfield, Connecticut River Basin, Mass........................ 125,126 Spring Lake, Ill....... .......................................... 1425 Squaw Creek, Okla........................................... 963 Stamford, Conn...............................................124 Stamford Harbor, Conn....................... ................. 60 Stanislaus River, Calif ............... ........................... 1779 Starlings Creek, Va................................... 288,376,378 Starved Rock lock and dam, Ill....... .............................. 1416 Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Company Bridge, N. Y.........200 Steele Bayou, Miss............................................688 2182 INDEX Page Steer Creek, W. Va............................................1184 Steinhatchee River, Fla ......................................... 526 Stewart Canyon Debris Basin, Ventura River Basin, Calif ........... 1617 Stikine River, Alaska...........................................2026 Stillaguamish River, Wash.................................... 1965,1970 Stillhouse Hollow Reservoir, Lampasas River, Tex ............. 826, 831 Stillwater Reservoir, Lackawana River, Pa........................ 320 Stockton Channel, Calif......................................... 1751 Stockton Harbor, Maine......................................... 60 Stockton Reservoir, Mo.............................. .............. 1007 Stone Harbor, N. J............................................ 260 Stonehouse Creek, Kans......................................... 1012 Stonington Harbor, Conn. and Maine............................... 60,61 Straits of Mackinac, Mich., Channels............................. 1437 Stratton, Ohio.............................................. 1237,1238 Stringtown-Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing, Ill.................... 731 Stuart Reservoir, Va. and N. C.................................... 412 Stump Creek, Pa............................................... 1239 Stumpy Pt. Bay, N. C........................................... 409 Sturgeon Bay, Wis............................................. 1373 Sturgeon Creek, Va.............................................. 378 Sturgis, Ky.................................................... 1142 Subdistrict No. 1 of Drainage Union No. 1, Ill.................... .1336 Success Reservoir, Calif........................................ 1797 Sucker Brook Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, Conn........... 112 Sugar Creek and levee, Ind. and Ill...................... 1142,1145,1427 Sugar Hill Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, N. H ................ 126 Suisun Bay Channel, Calif....................................... 1740 Suisun Channel, Calif........................................... 1738 Sullivan Falls Harbor, Maine.................................... 61 Sulphur River, Tex. and Ark..................................... 658 Summersville Reservoir, W. Va................................... 1168 Sumpawanus (Babylon Creek) Inlet, N. Y......................... 187 Sunbury, Pa................................................... 330 Supervision of New York Harbor................................ 185 Surry Mountain Reservoir, N. H.................................. 97 Survey of Northern and Northwestern Lakes ..................... 1583 Susquehanna River, Pa., Md., and N. Y.: Above and below Havre de Grace, Md......................... 270 North Branch flood control project.......................... . 315 West Branch of............................................ 321 Sutton Reservoir, W. Va........................................ 1166 Suwannee River, Fla............................................. 515 Swan Quarter Bay, N. C., to Deep Bay, N. C., waterway ............. 409 Swanton Harbor, Vt............................................. 188 Swift Creek, N. C....................................... 409,418 Swiger, Whitney, Young-Hoblit levee, Ill .......................... 1425 Swinomish Slough, Wash....................................... 1936 Swoyersville, Pa................................................ 330 Sycamore Wash., Los Angeles River Basin, Calif.................. 1623 Syracuse, Ohio................ .......................... 1181,1184 Syracuse, Oswego River Basin, N. Y.............................. 1579 T Taber Reservoir, Va............................................. 412 Table Mound Reservoir, Kans. See Elk City Reservoir, Kans. Table Rock Reservoir, Mo..................................... 887, 893 Tacoma Harbor, Wash..................................... 1953,1964 Tacoma, Puyallup River, Wash.................................. 1974 Tahchevah Creek, Whitewater River Basin, Calif .................. 1659 Talkeetna River, Alaska........................................ 2030 Tallahatchie River, Miss......................................... 688 Tallapoosa River, Ala.......................................... 592 Tallow Hill Reservoir, Ga....................................... 458 INDEX 2183 Page Tampa Bay and Harbor, Fla................................. 508 Tanana River, Alaska.............................................. 2030 Tangier Channel, Va............................................ 376 Tangipahoa River, La........................................... 605 Tappan Reservoir, Ohio......................................... 1159 Tar Creek, Ill........ ....................................... 1425 Tar River, N. C............................... ............... 417,418 Tarrytown Harbor, N. Y......................................... 188 Taunton River, Mass............................................ 61 Taylorsville, Ky.............................................. 1142,1146 Tehula Lake, Miss.............................................. 688 Tell City, Ind............................................ 1142,1146 Tenants Harbor, Maine............... ...................... 61 Tenasillahe Island, Oreg.. ..................... ................ 1926 Tenkiller Ferry Reservoir, Okla................................... 946 Tennessee River, Tenn., Ala., and Ky............................. 1081 Tensas River and Basin Ark., and La...................... 688, 2043, 2059 Terminus Reservoir, Calif...................................... 1797 Terre Haute, Ind........................................... 1133,1142 Texarkana Reservoir, Tex.................................... 659, 668 Texas City Channel, Tex....................................... 756 Texas City, Tex., hurricane-flood protection..................... 797 Thames River Basin, Conn., R. I., and Mass....................... 80 Thames River, Conn............................................. 61 The Island Reservoir, Vt....................................... 126 Thimble Shoal Channel, Va.................................. 376, 377 Thomaston Reservoir, Housatonic River Basin, Conn................ . 115 Thompson Creek, Calif........ ............... ..................... 1631 Thompson Lake Drainage and Levee District, Ill................... 1425 Thoroughfare Bay with Cedar Bay, N. C., channel connecting........ 409 Three Islands Reservoir, Tenn................................. 1106 Three Rivers, Connecticut River Basin, Mass....................... 104 Thumpertown Beach, Eastham, Mass............................. 67 Tickfaw River, La.............................................. 658 Ticonderoga River, N. Y......................................... 188 Tigre Bayou, La............................ ......... .............. 642 Tilghman Island Harbor, Md ................................... 298, 299 Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oreg................................... 1871 Tioga-Hammond Reservoir, Pa................................... 318 Tionesta Reservoir, Pa....................................... 1203,1237 Toledo Harbor, Ohio........................................... 1492 Tolu, Ky............................................ .. 1142,1146 Tombigbee River, Ala., and Miss............................. 574, 595 Tom Jenkins Reservoir, Ohio................ ... ........... .. 1164 Toms River, N. J.............................................247 Tonawanda Harbor, N. Y...................... ............... 1547 Tongue River Reservoir, N. Dak..................................1301 Topeka, Kans............... .......................... 997 Toronto Reservoir, Kans......................................... 930 Torrington, Conn............................ ................. 128 Totuskey Creek, Va................................................. 350 Town Beach, Plymouth, Mass....................................67 Town Creek, Americus, Ga..................................... 598 Town Creek, Md................................................. 299 Town Neck Beach, Sandwich, Mass........................ ............ 67 Town River, Mass............................................... 61 Townshend Reservoir, Vt........................................ .96 Trabuco Dam, Calif....................... .. ...................... 1672 Tradewater River, Ky.......................................... 1115 Tranquitas Creek, Tex....... ........................... ........ 800 Traverse City Harbor, Mich..................... ................ 1495 Tred Avon River, Md........................................ 298,299 Trent River, N. C............................................... 409 Trinidad Floodway and Reservoir, Purgatoire River, Colo......... 849, 865 2184 INDEX Page Trinity River and tributaries, Tex.............................. 765,809 Mouth of................................................... 790 Tri Pond levee, Ill.............................................. 1142 Trout Run, Pa .................................................. 1239 Troy, Ind................................................... 1142,1146 Truckee River and tributaries, Calif and Nev.................. .... 1806 Tuckahoe River, Md........................................... 298,299 Tuckerton Creek, N. J........................................... 240 Tucson diversion channel, Ariz................................... 1664 Tucumcari, N. Mex.............................................. 851 Tule River, Calif............................................... 1797 Tully Reservoir, Mass........................................... 101 Tulsa and West Tulsa, Arkansas River, Okla....................... 962 Tulsa, Okla., engineering district................................. 913 Tujunga Wash Channel, Los Angeles River Basin .................. 1624 Tuolumne River, Calif.......................................... 1779 Turkey Creek, Okla............................................. 963 Turtle Creek, Pa............................................... 1226 Tuscon Diversion Channel, Ariz................................... 1664 Tuttle Creek Reservoir, Kans...................................... 995 Twelvepole Creek, W. Va........................................ 1182 Twitch Cove, Md................................................ 287 Two Harbors (Agate Bay), Minn................................ 1244 Two Rivers Harbor, Wis........................................ 1377 Two Rivers Reservoir, Rio Hondo, near Roswell, N. Mex. ............. 863 Tyaskin Creek, Md............................................... 298 Tygart River Dam, W. Va........................................ 1192 Tyrone, Pa..................................................... 324 U Umatilla Harbor, Oreg......................................... 1996 Umatilla River, Oreg............................................ 2007 Umpqua River, Oreg........................................ 1879,1927 Unadilla, N. Y ................................................. 331 Union Reservoir, Mo............................................. 730 Union River, Maine............................................. 61 Uniontown, Ky............................................. 1142,1146 Uniontown locks and dam........................................ 1062 Uniontown, Pa................................................. 1238 Union Township Drainage District levee, Mo...................... 1342 Union Village Reservoir, Vt...................................... 91 Upham Brook, Va............................................... 380 Upper Chipola River, Fla......................................... 592 Upper Grays River Area, Wash.................................. 1927 Upper Iowa River, Iowa........................................ 1299 Upper Machodoc Creek, Va....................................... 299 Upper Marlboro, Md............................................. 331 Upper Mississippi River Basin: Rock Island District........................................ 1340 St. Louis District............................................ 729 St. Paul District........................................... 1301 Upper Puyallup River, Wash.................................... 1977 Upper Thoroughfare, Deal Island, Md............................. 277 Upper White River, Ark......................................... 885 Urbanna Creek, Va............................................ 351,376 U. S. Lake Survey.............................................. 187 Utica, Ind................................................. . 1142, 1146 V Valdez Harbor, Alaska...................................... . 2019 Valley Center, Kans...........................................962 Van Buren, Arkansas River, Ark.................................. 911 Vanceburg, Ky............................................. 1181, 1184 Ventnor, Margate, and Longport, N. J............................ 260 Ventura River levee and Beach, Calif.......................... 1672, 1674 INDEX 2185 Page Verdigris River, Okla........................................... 915 Verdugo Wash, Los Angeles River Basin......................... 1624 Vermilion lock, La............................................... 610 Vermilion Harbor, Ohio......................................... 1570 Vermilion to Sheffield Lake Village, Ohio ......................... 1581 Vermillion River, S. Dak........................................ 1036 Vestal, N. Y .................................................... 313 Vevay, Ind.................................................. 1142,1146 Vicksburg, Miss., engineering district ............................ 683 Victory Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, Vt .................... 126 Villa Park Dam, Calif........................................... 1672 Village Creek, S. C .............................................. 433 Village Creek, White River and Mayberry districts, Ark............ 911 Vincennes, Ind..............................................1135,1142 Vineyard Haven Harbor, Mass.................................... 61 Vinton Waterway, La........................................... 658 Virginia Beach, Va........................................... 376,380 W Wabash Railroad Bridges, Illinois River, Meredosia and Valley City, Ill..................................................... 714 Wabasha Harbor, Minn.......................................... 1350 Waccamaw River, N. C. and S. C............................... 433, 435 Waco Reservoir, Brazos River, Tex............................ 826, 827 Waddington Harbor, N. Y...................................... 1570 Wahkiakum County Consolidated Diking District No. 1, Wash ........ 1923 Waikiki Beach, Hawaii, beach erosion control...................... 1842 Wailoa Stream and tributaries, Hawaii............................1839 Wailua River, Kauai, Hawaii.................................... 1841 Waimea River and Beach, Hawaii................................. 1841 Wake Island Harbor...................................... 1837,1842 Waldo Lake Tunnel, Oreg....................................... 1927 Walla Walla, Wash., engineering district........................ 1981 Wallabout Channel, N. Y........................................ 187 Wallace Channel, Pamlico Sound, N. C........................... 395 Wallace Lake Reservoir, La................................... 660, 673 Walluski River, Clatsop County, Oreg........................... 1927 Walnut Bayou, Ark............................................. 961 W alnut Bottom Run, Pa... ..................................... 1239 Walnut Creek, Calif...................................... 1631, 1769 Walter F. George lock and dam, Ga. & Ala......................... 555 W appinger Creek, N. Y.......................................... 188 W areham Harbor, Mass...... .. ........................................... 61 W are, M ass.................................................... 128 W arm Creek, Calif..................................................................... 1654 W arren River, R. I.............................................. 61 Warrenton diking district No. 1, Clatsop County, Oreg .............. 1927 Warrenton diking district No. 2, Clatsop County, Oreg.............. 1927 Warrenton diking district No. 3, Clatsop County, Oreg .............. 1927 Warrior lock and dam, Ala....................................... 576 W arrior River, Ala............................................. 574 Warroad Harbor and River, Minn................................ 1272 W arwick River, Md............................................298,299 Warwood, W. Va...................................... .. 1237, 1238 Washington Bayou and Lake, Miss................................ 688 Washington Canal and South River, N. J........................... 188 Washington, D. C.: Aqueduct .................................................. 334 And vicinity............................................... 330 Harbor at.................................................. 291 Washington Island Harbors, Wis................................. 1420 W ashington, Pa................................................ 1227 Washougal area, Clark County, Wash........................... 1915 Waterbury, Conn............................................... 128 2186 INDEX Page Waterbury Reservoir, Winooski River Basin, Vt................... 199 Wateree River, S. C.............................................. 433 Waterford, Hudson and Mohawk Rivers, N. Y..................... 199 Water hyacinths, removal of, from Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas waters................................ 522, 655 Waterloo, Nebr................................................. 1052 Watertown, Conn............ .................................... 128 Water Valley Reservoir, Ark..................................... 887 Waterway on Coast of Virginia................................... 340 Waterway connecting Pamlico Sound and Beaufort Harbor, N. C.... 409 Waterway connecting Port Townsend Bay and Oak Bay, Wash...... 1939 Waterway connecting Swan Quarter Bay with Deep Bay, N. C....... 409 Waterway connecting Tombigbee and Tennessee Rivers, Ala, and Miss. 492 Waterway from Empire, La., to Gulf of Mex................... 657, 658 Waterway from Indian River Inlet to Rehoboth Bay, Del............ 247 Waterway from Intracoastal Waterway to Bayou Dulac, La.......... 658 Waterway from Little Choptank River to Choptank River, Md...... .299 Waterway from White Lake to Pecan Island, La.................... 658 Waterway-Norfolk, Va. to Sounds of N. C........................ 409 Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss................... 2121 Watkins Glen, Oswego River Basin, N. Y.......................... 1579 Watts Bar, Tenn................................................ 1083 W atts levee, Ill................................................. 1425 W aukegan Harbor, Ill........................................... 1392 W averly, W. Va............................................ 1181,1184 W ay Cake Creek, N. J........................................... 188 W aynesboro, Pa................................................ 330 Webb District Improvement Co., Columbia County, Oreg........... 1926 W eber River, Utah......... ............ .. ......... ..... ......... 1811 Weiser River, Idaho.................................................... 2007 Welles Harbor, Midway Island.................................. 1837 W ellfleet Harbor, Mass.......................................... 61 Wellsburg, W. Va................................. ........ 1237,1238 W ells Harbor, Maine........................ .................... 13 W ellsville, N. Y ................................................ 1574 Wellsville, Ohio............. ............................... 1237,1238 Wenatchee River, Wash....................................... 1977 Wessagussett Beach, Weymouth, Mass...... ...................... 67 West Basin Bridge, Los Angeles Harbor, Calif., removal of .......... 1614 West Branch Chisholm Creek, Kans,.............................. 963 West Branch Reservoir, Ohio..................................... 1231 West Bridgewater, Pa... .................................. 1237, 1238 West Brookfield Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, Mass........... .126 West Canaan Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, N. H............. .126 Westchester Creek, N. Y..................................... 187 Westcott Cove, Conn............................................ 61 Westfield River, Connecticut River Basin, Conn .................... 107 West Fork Reservoir, Mojave River Basin, Calif. ................... 1658 West Fork of Mill Creek Reservoir, Ohio........................... 1119 West Fork Reservoir, Ohio....................................... 1143 West Fork River and Reservoir, W. Va. . . . .............. 1184, 1237, 1238 West Hill Dam and Reservoir, Blackstone River Basin, Mass......... 75, 77 Westland District Improvement Co., Columbia County, Oreg......... 1926 West Muddy Creek, Oreg........................................ 1925 West Oneonta Reservoir, N. Y........................................... .. 301 West Peterborough Reservoir, N. H. See Edward MacDowell Reservoir West Point, Ga............................................... 597 West Point, Ky.......... ................................. 1142,1146 W est Point, Nebr............................................... 1049 Westport District, Oreg....................................... 1927 Westport Harbor and Saugatuck River, Conn .... ................. 61 W estport, Ky.............................................. 1142,1146 Westport River, Mass........................................... 61 Westport Slough, Oreg.......................................... 1865 INDEX 2187 Page West Springfield, Mass............... ............................ 125,126 West Tennessee tributaries.......................................... 2045, 2064 West Terre Haute, Ind...................................... 1133,1142 West Thompson Reservoir, Thames River Basin . . . . . .... ............ 86 W estville Reservoir, Mass........................................ 85 West Warren, R. I........................................... 128 Weymouth Back River, Mass..................................... 61 Weymouth Fore River, Mass.................................... 61 Wheeling-Benwood, W. Va.................................. 1237,1238 Wheeling, W. Va......................................... 1237,1238 Whitefish Point Harbor, Mich.................................... 1450 White Lake Harbor, Mich........................................ 1465 W hite Oak Dike, N. C........................................... 418 White River, Ark: above Peach Orchard Bluff................................... 885 below Newport.............................................. 701 White River Basin, Little Rock District............................ 886 White River, Ind................................................ 1115 White Rock lock and dam, Wis................................... 1370 W hitings Creek, Va............................................. 352 Whitlow Ranch Reservoir, Queen Creek, Ariz....................... 1670 W hitney Point, N. Y ..... ........................................ 303 Whitney Point Reservoir, N. Y................................... 302 Whitney Reservoir, Brazos River, Tex............................ 823 Whittier Narrows flood control reservoir, Calif...................... 1632 Wichita, Kans.............................................. 962 W ickford Harbor, R. I.......................................... 61,62 W icomico River, Md.... ........................................ 275 Wiedmer Chemicals drainage and levee district, Mo................. 731 W ilcox, Pa................. ............................ ...... 1238 W ilder, Ky....... ........................................... 1142,1146 Wiley Creek Reservoir, Oreg.................................... 1927 Wilkes-Barre-Hanover Township, Pa .......................... .. 330 W ilkesboro Reservoir, N. C........................................ 434 Willapa Harbor and River, Wash................................. 1961 Willamette Falls fish ladder, Oreg................................ 1927 Williamette River, Oreg.: Bank protection............................................ 1911 Flood control in basin....................................... 1927 Improvement above Portland, and Yamhill River . .. . .......... .1854 Improvement at Williamette Falls........................... 1857 Portland District........................................... 1890 W illiamson, W. Va.............................................. 1171 W illiamsport, Pa...... ........................................... 330 W illiamstown, W . Va................................... ..... 1181, 1184 Williamsville Reservoir, Connecticut River Basin, Vt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 W illoughby Channel, Va.... .................................... 377 Wills Creek Reservoir, Ohio................................... 1159 Wilmington Harbor, Del......................................... 220 Wilmington Harbor, N. C....................................... 403 Wilmington, N. C., engineering district............................ 383 Wilson and Wenkel and Prairie Du Pont drainage and levee districts, Ill................................ ........................... 719 Wilson Canyon Channel, Los Angeles River Basin, Calif ............ 1624 Wilson Creek, Wash................ ................... 1977 Wilson Dam and Reservoir, Kan.................................. 990 W ilson Harbor, N. Y............................................. 1554 W ilson lock and dam, Ala...... .................................. 1083 Wilson Point Harbor, Conn...................................... 61 Winery Canyon, Calif ............... ......................... 1624 Winfield, Kans........................... .................... 962 Winfield, W. Va............................................ 1153 Winnetka, Ill................................................ 1428 Winnibigoshish Reservoir, Minn................................. 1265 2188 INDEX Page Winona Harbors, Minn...................................... 1296,1350 W inooski River, Vt............................................... 199 Winsted, Connecticut River Basin, Conn............. .............. 126 Winter Harbor, Va.............................................. 376 Winthrop Beach, Mass........................................... 67 W inthrop Harbor, Mass......................................... 61 Wisconsin River, W is............................................ 1272 Wister Reservoir, Okla.......................................... 950 W ithlacoochee River, Fla......................................... 513 W olf Creek Dam, Ky........................................... 1094 Wolf River, Miss.............................................. 592 Wolf River (Memphis Harbor), Tenn..............................702 Woodbridge Creek, N. J.......................................... 188 Woodbury Creek, N. J........................................... 247 Wood Island Harbor, Maine, and the Pool at Biddeford.............. 61 Woodlands, W. Va.......................................... 1181,1184 Woodmont Shore, Conn..........................................67 Wood River drainage and levee district, Ill......................... 723 Woods Hole Channel, Mass........................................61 Woodson drainage district, Oreg............................. 1923,1926 Woonsocket, Blackstone River Basin, R. I........................ 75, 78 Worcester, Blackstone River Basin, Mass.......................... 75, 76 Wrangell Harbor, Alaska....................................... 2026 Wrangell Narrows, Alaska.................................... . 2024 W rights Creek, N. C............................................. 410 Wrightsville Reservoir, Winooski River Basin, Vt .................. 199 Y Yadkin River, N. C.......................................... 433, 434 Yakima River, Wash............................................ 1977 Yalobusha River, Miss.... ...................................... 688 Yaquina Bay, Harbor and River, Oreg......................... 1873,1875 Yazoo River and Basin, Miss........................... 688, 2044, 2059 Yellow Creek, Ohio........................................... 1239 Yellow Jacket Creek, Ga.......................................598 Yellow Medicine River at Minnesota, Minn....................... 1302 Yellowstone River, Mont......................................... 1052 York Harbor, Maine............................................. 15 York, Codorus Creek, Pa.......................................325 York River, Va ................................................. 376 York Spit Channel, Va... ...................................... 346 Youghiogheny River, Pa.... .................................... 1200 Flood control reservoir............................... 1223,1237 Youngs Bay and River, Wash..................................... 1888 Youngs River Dikes, Clatsop County, Oreg ......................... 1927 Yuba River, Calif.............................................. 2109 Z Zanesville, Ohio............................................ 1181, 1184 Zemple-Evans levee, Spoon River, Ill............................... 1426 Zippel Bay Harbor, Minn........................................ 1272 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1963-671526