Government for localities within their States, and have given their assurances of financial cooperation. Both officials have stated that they will endeavor to induce local communities, townships, and counties to provide the required cooperation, and they believe that arrangements can be made to raise the required revenue by some form of special taxation. 7. The Special Board of Officers finds that the most desirable plan for improvement consists of providing a continuous chain of harbors of refuge for light-draft vessels along the entire United States coast line of the Great Lakes, so located that the maximum distance between harbors will be from 30 to 40 miles, with such additional harbors as may be required near the large centers of population for the accommodation of locally owned light-draft boats. The special board has developed a comprehensive plan covering all of the Great Lakes and finds that 10 new harbors of refuge on Lake Superior, 1 on Lake Michigan, 6 on Lake Huron, 2 on Lake Erie, and 2 on Lake Ontario, in conjunction with existing harbors and natural shelter, will provide reasonably safe navigation for light-draft vessels. It believes that the facilities that should be provided by the United States at harbors intended for refuge only for light-draft vessels should include only those required for the reasonable accommodation and general navigation of the vessels, such as a safe entrance; a protected anchorage; mooring areas or bulkheads adequate for the accommodation of transient boats; and a channel along the frontage, reserved for local boats, of sufficient width to permit maneuvering in and out of stalls or slips. Other facilities which are desirable should as a rule be provided by local interests. The estimates prepared by the special board are based on the premise that local interests will contribute 50 percent of the first cost of dredging operations and construction of protective works at all harbors selected for improvement, excepting (a) Isle Royale, Mich., which is on Federal property and should be improved by the United States, and (b) Whitefish Point, Grand Traverse Bay, and Black River, Mich., and Barcelona, N. Y., where the general benefits to the fishing and boating industries are sufficient to justify improvement with the United States paying the greater portion or all of those first costs. The localities where improvements are proposed are listed in the following tabulation with estimates of cost, including the cost of terminals, lands, and aids for navigation. ་ Proposed new harbors of refuge on the Great Lakes Grand Traverse Bay, Mich. Big Bay, Mich. Little Lake, Mich Initial cost U. S. Engi- U. S. Coast Non neer De- Guard Federal $41,000 38, 190 37,765 57,670 156,950 7,500 1 $5,600 1,275 1,200 1,200 1,800 1,850 1,200 1, 200 2.450 2,000 2, 100 Whitefish Point, Mich. Lake Michigan: St. James Harbor, Beaver Island, Mich. 1 Includes $5,000 to be expended by the National Park Service for terminals. 0 $77, 285 47,375 30,000 33,800 44, 190 6.000 43, 600 63,670 8,100 29,000 Proposed new harbors of refuge on the Great Lakes-Continued Includes $5,000 to be expended by the National Park Service for terminals. 19 8. The special board reports that a number of the harbors at which improvements are proposed are located in undeveloped sections where the cost of the improvement cannot be justified by benefits to present or prospective local commerce. Justification for the improvements of those harbors must therefore rest upon the general benefits arising from utilizing the harbors as links in the general plan. The Lake Superior region is a desirable recreational area but has remained largely undeveloped partly because of the lack of accommodations for lightdraft vessels, which renders their use extremely hazardous at many localities. Furthermore, the long exposed reaches in the eastern end of the lake, where no shelter is available, prevents cruising recreational craft from the lower lakes from entering Lake Superior. Lake Huron provides the connection between the highly developed Detroit Riverlower lakes areas and the desirable upper Michigan and Lake Superior recreational regions. Many of the light-draft vessels passing into or through Lake Huron now follow the Canadian shore partly because of the absence of suitable harbors of refuge along the United States shore. わた Total $188, 800 269, 100 37,800 349, 200 277, 300 217,000 312, 300 180, 200 350, 200 480, 400 3,686, 730 9. The special board concludes that proper provision for the safety of light-draft vessels cruising along the shores of the Great Lakes requires that harbors of refuge or sheltered waters be available at intervals ranging from 30 to 40 miles, and that provision of a chain of harbors along the entire United States shore of the Great Lakes, which will accomplish that purpose, is warranted. It accordingly recommends that harbors of refuge for light-draft vessels, constructed in accordance with the plans accompanying its report, be provided at the 21 localities listed in the tabulation in paragraph 7 above, at a total estimated first cost of $3,686,730, including $2,030,635 of Federal funds for construction of the protective works and the dredging operations; $34,775 of Federal funds for providing aids for navigation; $5,000 of Federal funds. for public terminals in Chippewa Harbor on Isle Royale; $1,415,620 to be contributed by local interests toward the cost of dredging operations and construction of protective works; $185,000 non-Federal expenditures for construction of terminal facilities; and $15,700 for lands and rights-of-way, etc. The estimated total annual cost is $123,070 to the Federal Government, including $33,500 for maintenance, and $87,900 to local interests, including $6,800 for maintenance. The special board further recommends that (a) The harbors of refuge on Lake Superior and five of those on Lake Huron where improvements are recommended be segregated into the groups shown below, and that no work shall be done by the United States at any harbor in any group, excepting those noted for independent construction, until all localities in that group have complied with all the prescribed requirements for local cooperation: Group A: Whitefish Point, Mich.1 Little Lake, Mich. Group B: Grand Traverse Bay, Mich.1 Group D: Port Sanilac, Mich. LAKE SUPERIOR LAKE HURON Group B-Continued. Lac La Belle, Mich. Beaver Bay, Minn. (b) The funds for construction of these improvements be allocated in such manner as to permit the completion of work at individual harbors or groups of harbors, if once undertaken. South Milwaukee, Wis. (c) The authorization for improvement of any individual harbor or group of harbors shall be null and void if the required local cooperation at the individual locality or at all localities within the group is not furnished within 5 years after the date of the authorization, provided that this provision shall not prevent the improvement of individual harbors which are justified on their own merits if the required local cooperation for those harbors is furnished within the 5-year period. (d) No improvements in addition to those already authorized or recommended be considered at this time at the following localities: Knife River, Minn.; Wilson Harbor, N. Y. (e) No projects be adopted at this time for harbor improvements at the following localities: (1) Lake Superior: Point Detour (Green Bay), Mich. Group E: Oscoda, Mich. Point Lookout, Mich.2 (2) Lake Michigan-Continued. Indiana Dunes State Park, Ind. New Buffalo, Mich. (3) Lake Huron: Rogers City, Mich. (4) Lake Erie: West Sister Island, Ohio. (5) Lake Ontario: Pultneyville, N. Y. The division engineer concurs in the recommendations of the Special Board of Officers. 1 This harbor justified on its own merits and may be built independently of others in this group. 2 This harbor justified on its own merits and may be built independently. e. 1 10. Local interests were advised as to the nature of the report of the division engineer and were invited to submit additional information te to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. Careful considTeration has been given to the communications received. 11. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors concurs in general in the findings and recommendations of the Special Board of Officers and the division engineer. On January 1, 1940, there were 14,696 small recreational craft and 1,928 commercial fishing vessels, exclusive of boats propelled by outboard motors, registered and documented on the Great Lakes. Most of these craft are concentrated near the large centers of population, but increasing numbers of them are making extended cruises to distant objectives, which often involves travel through two or more of the Great Lakes. Reasonable provision for their safety warrants the construction of the 21 additional harbors of refuge recommended by the reporting officers. In connection with existing or authorized harbors and natural shelter, they would provide a continuous chain of sheltered areas along the entire United States coast line of the Great Lakes and would provide safe navigation for light-draft recreational craft, and commercial fishing vessels at all of la points. & 12. The Board accordingly recommends adoption of a project for construction of 21 additional harbors of refuge for light-draft vessels at the localities recommended by the Special Board of Officers and shown in the following tabulation: VIEWS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR Improvements recommended by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. Estimated first cost Improvements recommended by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. Estimated first cost-Continued 1 Improvement justified on its own merits, and this harbor may be developed independently of other harbors. 2 Includes $5,000 for estimated cost of terminal to be constructed by the U. S. National Park Service. In general accordance with the plans outlined in the report of the special board, with such modifications as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be desirable, at a total estimated cost to the United States of $2,030,635 for dredging and construction of protective works, with $31,100 annually for maintenance; subject to the condition that responsible local agencies give assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will (a) make a cash contribution toward the first cost of dredging and construction of protective works in the amount designated in the tabulation for each harbor; (b) provide and maintain, without cost to the United States and in accordance with plans approved by the Chief of Engineers, a suitable and adequate public wharf for the accommodation of transient vessels at all harbors recommended for improvement except those located on Federal property; (c) establish competent and properly constituted public bodies empowered to regulate the use, growth, and free development of harbor facilities (exclusive of Federal property where involved) with the understanding that harbor facilities shall be open to all on equal and reasonable terms; (d) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and maintenance of the works; and (e) provide without cost to the United States, all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construction of the projects, including suitable spoil-disposal areas when and as required. The Board further recommends that the harbors of refuge on Lake Superior and five of those on Lake Huron, where improvements are recommended, be segregated into groups A, |