« PreviousContinue »
metals being developed on the west coast, Coos Bay coal may again find itself a commodity in coastwise, water-borne commerce.
Within the area tributary to Coos Bay, the commercial food products industry is well developed. The fertile valleys in this area produce great quantities of fruit, vegetables, and dairy products, which are canned and processed. Canneries have expanded their operations greatly in recent years. Dried prunes, one of the principal fruit products, although foreign markets were lost during the war, accounted for a total of 64 carloads of freight during 1943. Operating out of Coos Bay, there is a large fleet of deep-sea fishing vessels, whose annual catch is approximately 4,000 tons, and which enters the market principally as canned or frozen fish. Much of this produce must now be shipped by rail, and favorable water transportation would stimulate these industries.
The cities of Coos Bay, North Bend, and Coquille, in Coos County, are the principal municipalities in the area which will be affected by the harbor improvements. All three of these cities are growing rapidly, along with the increased indsutrial activities in the area. The commerce of the port of Coos Bay has averaged, during the past 20 years, 477,000 tons annually. The prewar yearly average was approximately 550,000 tons. This latter figure, on the basis of the survey, appears to represent the traffic capacity of Coos Bay Harbor under conditions prevailing at this time. It must be noted, however, in the conservative estimates made by the Army engineers, that the proposed improved harbor facilities will result in an annual commerce estimated at 967,000 tons. This is more than double the annual average for the 20 years past, and approximately double the prewar tonnage.
The proposed improvements in the harbor at Coos Bay would provide a channel 40 feet deep at mean low water across the outer bar, and an inner channel 30 feet deep, and generally 300 feet wide, with suitable turning and anchorage basins, along with other improvements. I call attention to the estimate of the Chief of Engineers, that the initial cost of the improvements is set at $5,689,000, with an annual estimated increased maintenance cost of $235,000. It is important to note that the direct annual benefits to be derived from the improve ment of the harbor are estimated at $889,000, or a ratio of 1 to 1.97. The collateral benefits, estimated by the district engineers, total $335,000. Thus the collateral and direct annual benefits total $1,224,000, giving a ratio of cost to benefits of 1 to 2.64,
In summary, may I again mention to the members of the committee some of the more important facts which have been presented. Under present conditions, the harbor of Coos Bay is probably now handling its maximum tonnage. Wartime shipping has brought about a change in the character of vessels which justifies the deepening of the harbor channel to accommodate vessels of a draft up to 30 feet. Since special-type cargo vessels, used in the prewar period, will not be replaced, it is possible there will be a reduction in the annual tonnage handled through this port if the improvements are not made. The expensive and wasteful practice of back-haul by vessels will no longer be necessary after the improvements are made. The harbor improvements will stimulate existing industries and encourage the development of new industries in the Coos Bay tributary area and in southwestern Oregon. The commerce through Coos Bay Harbor holds promise of doubling within a reasonable time after the improvements have been completed. The ratio of benefits to cost is extremely favorable and furnishes adequate justification for the proposed improvements. For these and other reasons which have been mentioned, I am confident that the members of the committee will agree that the project merits the approval of the committee and Congress.
Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, may I ask on behalf of Franck Shaw, head of the port of Coos Bay, and Mr. John Kendall, an attorney for the port commission, permission that they be allowed to send in additional data. They wanted to appear in person but it would have been a long trip.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Without objection, the permission is granted.
"Mr. ELLSWORTH. Thank you very much.
(The matter referred to is as follows:)
SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF FRANCK G. SHAW, PRESIDENT, AND
JOHN C. KENDALL, COUNSEL, PORT OF COOS BAY, OREG.
The port of Coos Bay, Coos Bay, Oreg., a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, hereby respectfully submits the following statistical data and information supportive of the pending review report of the United States Army Engineers, recommending:
THE NEW PROJECT "It is recommended that the project for Coos Bay, Oreg., be modified to provide for a channel across the outer bar 40 feet deep at mean lower low water, and of suitable width, dimensions being reduced gradually to Guano Rock; for a channel 30 feet deep at mean lower low water, and generally 300 feet wide, thence to the mouth of Isthmus Slough; for 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; and for anchorage basins 600 feet wide by 2,000 feet long at mile 3.5 and near mile 7; all at an estimated cost of $5,689,000 for new work and at an estimated increased annual maintenance cost of $235,000, subject to the provision that local interests shall furnish free of cost to the United States the necessary disposal areas for the new work and for maintenance, and shall build and maintain any additional terminal facilities necessary to the full use of the port, which facilities shall be open to all on equal terms” (review report, par. 111).
As the result of the evidence submitted by the local interests at the public hearing conducted by the United States Army Engineers at Coos Bay, Oreg., May 8, 1945, the Engineer Corps has found and concluded:
“Annual benefits that would result from the proposed improvement are estimated at $1,224,200. These benefits are set up as a basis for determination of the economic feasibility of the project. They consist of direct benefits, evidenced by savings to the general public in lowered transportation costs, and collateral benefits, resulting from elimination of extra expenses to ships on account of partial loading, lost time awaiting tide, and removal of the present necessity of selling in restricted markets. While collateral benefits are not as far-reaching as direct benefits, they would affect a fairly large sector of the general public, and their inclusion in the benefits for determining the feasibility of the improvement is being warranted. Increased profits to manufacturing plants are not included in the economic analysis, except for those profits that it is believed would be extended to the public as a benefit. The benefits include only those that would result from changed shipping conditions resulting directly from the improvements proposed” (review report, par. 108).
“Importance of the area tributary to Coos Bay is increasing as the timber supply in other sections decreases. A deep-water harbor as an outlet port for lumber and timber products moving in the large cargo vessels should be established between the Columbia River and Humboldt Bay. As Coos Bay is the most centrally located and the most adaptable to development adjacent to the area of the heavy timber stands, it is concluded that further development of this harbor is warranted. A satisfactory channel for vessels drawing 30 feet can be established at a first cost of $5,689,000, and the increased cost of maintenance of such a channel is estimated at $235,000 annually. Expected benefits are estimated at $1,224,200 annually, which, compared with annual costs of the improvement, including interest, amortization, and maintenance, of $463,000, give a ratio of benefits to cost of approximately 2.64 to 1. It is concluded that the improvements proposed are economically justified” (review report, par. 110).
OBSERVED CONDITIONS SINCE 1945 HEARING At the 1945 hearing before the United States Engineers, proponents introduced testimony the effect that off-shore and intercoastal vessels were compelled, on account of insufficient water depths on the bar entrance and inner harbor, to come in to Coos Bay practically empty and to take part cargoes only, returning to northern ports for completed cargoes.
This great handicap to the port and the extra expense to shipping, occasioned by such insufficient water depths, was recognized by the corps in its review report:
Testimony was introduced to the effect that off-shore and intercoastal ships invariably are compelled, by the insufficient depth of water at the entrance and in the harbor, to come to Coos Bay practically empty, although that port should normally be the last port of call out-bound. After taking a part of cargo, these ships then return to ports in the north to finish loading; this puts them to the extra expense of traveling 500 miles to and from Columbia River, 560 miles to and from Grays Harbor, and 1,000 miles to and from Seattle, with a loss of 2 or 3 days' time. This is the basic reason for most of the penalties imposed upon the port of Coos Bay. Various shipping lines submitted figures showing the cost of the back-haul movements, which, after analysis, and for the purpose of this report, have been resolved into a unit value of $1 per thousand feet board measure of lumber" (review report, par. 81).
“Ships making deliveries to foreign markts reimburse themselves for this extra expense by increasing their freight or charter rates as shown in item 3 of direct benefits, but those in intercoastal trade, working under conference rates, cannot do so. Those intercoastal ship operators maintaining scheduled services testified that, much as they desired to call at Coos Bay, the unpredictable delays and extra expense of doing so would seriously disrupt their schedules and cause the loss of other patronage on which balanced cargo movement depends. The proposed improvement would enable any ship to load to full capacity and to top off its load and proceed fully laden to destination. The estimated savings is $1 per thousand feet on 30,000,000 feet board measure, or $30,000. While this saving would accrue directly to ship operators, the proposed improvement would be influential in stabilizing intercoastal shipping operations and maintaining ocean rates at lower levels to the benefit of the general public, particularly lumber users on the Atlantic coast" (review report, par. 82). [Italics supplied.]
At the hearing,, postponents' witnesses confidentially predicted that, with the cessation of hostilities, particularly of the war with Japan, a great increase in water-borne traffic to and from Coos Bay would result, and that, as the Victorytype ships and vessels of greater draft and tonnage passed into private ownership and operation, they would be available in increasing numbers for lumber cargoes from Coos Bay for intercoastal and offshore destinations.
That prediction has been amply justified by the ocean-borne traffic that has since developed, particularly during the first 4 months.of 1946, as evidenced by the following statement of shipments from this port:
Water-borne shipments for the port of Coos Bay, Oreg., for year 1945
19 feet 7 inches.
Water-borne shipments for the port of Coos Bay, Oreg., for year 1945—Continued
11 feet 6 inches. 11 feet 10 inches. 12 feet 2 inches. 12 feet. 17 feet 10 inches. 21 feet 1 inch. 18 feet 8 inches. 19 feet 7 inches. 23 feet. 22 feet 11 inches. 21 feet 3 inches. 18 feet 10 inches. 19 feet 11 inches. 19 feet 1 inch, 8 feet 10 inches. 18 feet 10 inches.
feet 8 inches. 18 feet 10 inches. 21 feet 11 inches. 18 feet. 20 feet 11 inches.
2, 371, 297
370, 491 2, 616, 071 2, 514, 681 1, 218, 399
i Vessels were unable to load full cargoes due solely to the insufficient water depths now existing.
Tons Total lumber shipments for year (173,947,107 feet board measure).
260, 921 Total pulp shipments for year..
2, 805 Total for year 1945. NOTE.-Attention is directed to the increase in number of vessels of greater draft loading part cargoes at Coos Bay, after the cessation of hostilities with Japan and during the last 4 months of 1945.
As proof of the increase in water-borne traffic in this port, under postwar conditions, during the first 4 months of 1946, and as evidence conclusively supporting proponents' predictions made at the May 1945 hearing, thatLiberty and Victory type ships, of greater draft than had previously served this harbor, would be immediately available at the end of the war in the Pacific for service to this portthe following statement reflecting water-borne traffic from January 1, 1946, to March 31, 1946, from the Coos Bay Harbor, is of great significance and importance.
In the column headed “Lumber loaded," appears the amount of lumber cargo actually loaded and transported, while in the column headed “Cargo capacity,
lumber" (in red), appears the amount of lumber cargo that could have been loaded, had sufficient water depths existed, so that such vessels could have safely navigated the bar entrance and inner harbor of Coos Bay.
Water-borne shipments for the port of Coos Bay, Oreg., for the period of Jan. 1
to Mar, 31, year 1946
Name of vessel
Lumber Cargo Pulp
loaded capacity shipNet tons (feet, board lumber (red ment, measure) figures)
Fort Rae 1
Petersburg Victory 1
Water Witch 1
Neptune's Car i
Middlesex Victory 1
2, 831, 773
22 feet 5 inches. 1,878 | 23 feet.
22 feet 6 inches. 21 feet 6 inches. 15 feet 11 inches. 22 feet 5 inches. 21 feet 4 inches.
19 feet 5 inches, 1,875 22 feet 9 inches.
22 feet 11 inches. 17 feet 6 inches.
22 feet 2 inches. 1, 250 21 feet 3 inches.
18 feet 7 inches.
20 feet 7 inches. 1,875 20 feet 3 inches.
Total lumber shipments for first quarter, year 1946 (78,233,098 feet, board measure)
Total tons (1945)..
263,726 Cargo shipments from Coos Bay, first quarter 1946 (3 months): Manufactured lumber (78,233,098 feet)
127, 519 Pulp------
6,878 Total tons.
134, 397 1 Vessels were unable to load full cargoes due solely to the insufficient water depths now existing. : Motorship. NOTE.-Statistics compiled by Independent Stevedore Co., Coos Bay, Oreg.