Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

enti

turning basin would be of substantial benefit to any such commerce

that might develop. CU O

40. Although local interests request the dredging of both areas A and B, as shown on the accompanying map, to a depth of 22 feet, there is neither need for that large an area nor that great a depth at this time. The dredging of only area A, with but minor enlargement

as recommended, is considered adequate for vessels up to 600 feet in ons d length to turn safely. It is sufficient for any vessel operating or likely ndling to operate on this waterway for a number of years. Similarly, a o has depth of 20 feet is sufficient to accommodate any vessel that is likely I lock to use the turning basin. Furthermore, the annual carrying charges hadi for dredging area A to a depth of 20 feet amount to $1,100 which ned i compares favorably with the indicated savings of $1,200, while the

annual carrying charges for dredging both areas A and B to a depth of

20 feet amount to $2,760 with no additional indicated savings; conseherd quently, the dredging of only area A is economically justified at this

time,

41. There is no assurance that the desired turning basin would increase the use of Sturgeon Bay for refuge purposes by lake freighters.

In fact, past experience indicates that a turning basin probably would Duti:

have no effect on the number of lake vessels entering for shelter. A turning basin approximately 600 feet long, 500 feet wide, and 19

feet deep, with easy approaches, was provided near the westerly end Dock

of the revetted canal in 1919. During the period from 1919 to 1934 this basin was used by only one vessel. It was eliminated from the project by the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1935, because of nonuse. It is not apparent that the location of the basin now desired would have any favorable effect on the number of lake vessels using Sturgeon Bay for refuge purposes. In fact, lake vessels would have to run about 5 miles farther in a 250-foot channel in order to utilize the desired basin compared to the distance to the old abandoned basin. However, the proposed turning basin would be of ample size to permit the turning of any vessel that might enter for refuge purposes.

) tur

[ocr errors]

wou. is the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

CONCLUSION

42. Analysis of existing conditions leads to the conclusion that there is need for a turning basin at Sturgeon Bay to permit the large deep draft vessels carrying local freight to turn safely and with minimum delay and expense. Of the two plans considered, only the smaller, plan No. 1, is required to accommodate the traffic involved. Also, only the cost of the smaller plan can be economically justified by increased benefits to present and reasonably prospective commerce. Although no local cooperation was offered, none other than the furnishing of disposal areas is considered necessary in view of the dredging done by local interests to provide an approach channel and berthing space to and at the Bushman dock.

RECOMMENDATION

43. It is recommended that the existing project for the Sturgeon Bay and Lake Michigan Ship Canal, Wis., be modified to provide for a turning basin 20 feet deep located on the southwesterly side of the existing channel, southeasterly of the existing highway bridge, and between the city and the Bushman Docks, about as indicated as area A on the accompanying map, at an estimated initial cost of $11,000, with maintenance estimated at $500 annually, in addition to that now required, provided that, if required, local interests shall furnish without cost to the United States suitable areas on shore for hydraulic disposal of the material from the initial dredging of the basin.

44. The full amount of the estimate should be made available in one allotment as partial completion of the work would be of but little benefit to navigation.

E. E. KIRKPATRICK,
Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers,

District Engineer.
(First Endorsement)
OFFICE, DIVISION ENGINEER,

GREAT LAKES DIVISION,

Chicago, Ill., February 15, 1943.
To: The Chief of Engineers, United States Army.
The recommendation of the district engineer is concurred in.

L. D. WORSHAM,
Colonel, Corps of Engineers,

Division Engineer,

[ocr errors][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

A LETTER FROM THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES
ARMY, DATED DECEMBER 13, 1943, SUBMITTING AN INTERIM
REPORT, TOGETHER WITH ACCOMPANYING PAPERS AND AN
ILLUSTRATION, ON A PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION AND SURVEY
OF LOYALHANNA CREEK AT LATROBE, PA., AUTHORIZED BY THE
FLOOD CONTROL ACT APPROVED ON AUGUST 28, 1937

FEBRUARY 22, 1944.-Referred to the Committee on Flood Control and ordered

to be printed with an illustration

WAR DEPARTMENT,

Washington, February 16, 1944. The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I am transmitting herewith an interim report pated December 13, 1943, from the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, together with accompanying papers and an illustration, on a preliminary examination and survey of Loyalhanna Creek at Latrobe, Pa., a tributary of the Kiskiminitas and Conemaugh Rivers. This investigation was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved on August 28, 1937,

The Department approves the submission of the report to Congress. Since there is no indicated essentiality of the proposed project in the war program, and since the project would involve the use of critical materials, manpower, and construction equipment, the Department desires that, if the project is authorized by Congress, initiation of construction be deferred until after the end of the war.

95783-44

« PreviousContinue »