WAR DEPARTMENT,

THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS,
Washington, November 2, 1944.

Subject: Rappahannock River and tributaries, Virginia.
To: The Chief of Engineers, United States Army.

1. This report is in response to the following resolution adopted November 24, 1942:

"Resolved by the Committee on Flood Control, House of Representatives, That the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors created under section 3 of the River and Harbor Act approved June 13, 1902, be, and is hereby, requested to review the report on the Rappahannock River and tributaries, Virginia, published as House Document 186, Seventy-third Congress, second session, with a view to determining the advisability of improvements for flood control on the Rappahannock River and tributaries at this time."

2. The Rappahannock River rises on the eastern slope of the Blue Ridge Mountains in the northwest part of Fauquier County, Va., and flows in a southeasterly direction to its mouth at Chesapeake Bay about 50 miles northwest of Cape Henry. It is 185 miles long and its drainage basin of 2,700 square miles lies in three physiographic regions-the Coastal Plain, the Piedmont Plateau, and the mountain region. Principal tributaries all enter from the right and include the Rapidan River with a drainage area of 696 square miles which enters at mile 123; Mountain Run, with a drainage area of 93 square miles which enters at mile 136; and Hazel River, with a drainage area of 352 square miles which enters at mile 145. Robertson River, also known as Robinson River, is a tributary of the Rapidan River, and has a drainage area of 196 square miles. It enters from the left at mile 39. The Rappahannock River is tidal and navigable to Fredericksburg, mile 107.8, at which place the flow has varied from 5 to 140,000 cubic feet per second. The mean tidal range is 1.2 feet at the mouth and 2.8 feet at Fredericksburg. Above Fredericksburg, the fall of the river varies from about 3.4 feet per mile to as much as 500 feet per mile near the source. The population of the Rappahannock watershed was 95,000 in 1940. The principal centers of population are Fredericksburg and Culpeper with 10,100 and 2,300 inhabitants, respectively. The primary occupation in the basin consists of farming and allied agricultural activities such as dairying, stock raising, and canning. In 1940 the farm area was 1,129,500 acres, the value of the land and buildings being $48,105,000. The principal crops are garden truck, corn, and fodder. In 1939 there were 121 industrial establishments in the basin employing 3,300 persons which produced manufactured products valued at $14,245,000. The majority of these establishments are located at Fredericksburg. The principal manufactured products are cellophane, clothing, shoes, furniture, and woodworking articles. Stone, sand, and gravel are also produced in the area. Fishing, crabbing, and oystering are important occupations in the tidewater counties. One airport is located within the watershed and the area is served by two railroads and a number of highways. Several historical battlefield parks or reservations are located within the basin.

3. The existing Federal project for navigation provides for a channel 12 feet deep and 200 feet wide from the mouth of the river to Port Royal, thence 100 feet wide to Fredericksburg. The total cost to June 30, 1943, was $801,552, of which $217,487 was for new work and $584,065 for maintenance. The terminals are considered adequate for existing commerce which totaled 378,000 tons in 1941. There are five existing privately owned water-power developments in the watershed with a combined installed capacity of 3,845 kilowatts. The largest plant, with an installed capacity of 3,150 kilowatts is located on the Rappahannock River near Fredericksburg and is owned by the Virginia Electric & Power Co. The sanitary condition of the Rappahannock River at and below Fredericksburg is unsatisfactory. due to the large amount of pollution discharge into the river in the vicinity of Federicksburg.

4. Floods are of frequent occurrence in the Rappahannock Basin. The greatest flood of record occurred in October 1942, when a peak discharge of 140,000 secondfeet occurred at Fredericksburg. General damages throughout the watershed are caused by infrequent extreme floods like those of October 1942, April 1937, and June 1889, while damages in isolated sections are caused more frequently by lesser floods like those of September 1934 and September 1935. Occasional damages in the lower watershed are caused by severe tidal storms such as that of August 1933. Four lives were lost in the flood of 1937 and three in that of 1942. Rural damages are widely scattered and consist of damage to bridges and highways and agricultural losses due to erosion of topsoil and spoilage of crops.

Urban damages from fluvial floods occur chiefly in the city of Fredericksburg, which is the major damage center, and in the communities of Remington and Falmouth. Urban damages from tidal floods occur in Tappahannock. The aggregate, determinable direct and indirect damages in the entire basin from the floods of October 1942, April 1937, and June 1889, were $2,517,600, $1,401,500, and $850,000, respectively. The estimated average annual flood loss is $99,200 at Fredericksburg and Falmouth, and $191,030 for the entire basin. There is no existing Federal project for flood control on the Rappahannock River.

5. Local interests at Fredericksburg desire protection from floods in the river and from overflow of the canal of the Virginia Electric & Power Co. which conducts water from a dam above the city to a powerhouse located in the city. They state that a dike or levee along the water front would destroy the value of much property and suggest flood control by means of works located above the city. Local interests in the basin above Fredericksburg also expressed a desire for flood protection, and recommended a combined power and floodcontrol project in the foothills to permit a lower elevation of the proposed Salem Church pool, thereby reducing the damage to farm land. The Culpepper Soil Conservation District recommended clearing a floodway from 200 to 300 feet wide along the most direct line of flow throughout the length of the Robertson River. No specific offers of local cooperation have been made but local interests in Fredericksburg have agreed to provide local zoning ordinances restricting future occupancy of the area within the floodway of the proposed maximum regulated flood flow.

6. The district engineer has investigated various plans for comprehensive improvement of the Rappahannock River basin. He finds that the most suitable plan for improvement for flood control, navigation, power, and other beneficial uses consists of construction of a multiple-purpose reservoir at the Salem Church site and a power project at Fredericksburg. The Salem Church development would provide a total storage capacity of 1,117,000 acre-feet of which 322,000 acre-feet would be used exclusively for flood control and 644,000 acre-feet for power regulation. The flood-control storage would reduce the design flood of 200,000 cubic feet per second at Frederickburg to 75,000 cubic feet per second. Practically all damages such as have occurred from past floods in the vicinity of Fredericksburg would be eliminated. The regulation of flow provided by the power storage would increase the low flow of the stream from 5 cubic feet per second to a minimum daily average of 770 cubic feet per second which would benefit navigation and abate pollution. The Fredericksburg development would consist of a modification of the existing power project. A new diversion dam about 36 feet high would be constructed immediately below the present dam. The canal would be enlarged and follow the alinement of the existing canal to the northwest side of the newly constructed United States Highway No. 1. A new canal from this point would parallel the road in a northeasterly direction to a new power plant located on the right bank of the Rappahannock River above the highway crossing. The existing power plant and the unused portion of the canal through Fredericksburg would be abandoned. Principal features of the developments as proposed for operation in a system are shown in the following tabulation. The value of power is taken as equal to the estimated cost of production at privately owned steam plants operating at a 15-percent load factor:

7. The district engineer also investigated local protection by channel improvements, levees, and flood walls at all major damage centers in the basin with the following results:

In addition to the above, an investigation was made of the flooded area on the upper Rapidan River between Wolfton and Graves Mill. The district engineer finds that local protection by channel improvements, levees, or flood walls is not economically justified at any major damage center in the basin. Among the reservoir sites investigated by the district engineer were those at Germanna Bridge and Ellis Mill to be used in combination with a low dam at Salem Church. Less flood control was found to be available in a combination of this kind and power generated at the upper sites was less attractive than that from the high Salem Church dam with power pool at elevation 240. The district engineer concludes that the comprehensive plan of development; consisting of the multiplepurpose development at Salem Church and the power development at Fredericksburg, will eliminate 72 percent of the preventable flood damages in the Rappahannock River Basin and that an immediate market exists which will absorb the power that can be developed. He also concludes that local flood-protection works are neither economical nor practicable and that the existing navigation project is adequate for existing traffic. He states, however, that the controlled flow will lessen the annual cost of maintenance for navigation and will improve the sanitary condition of the stream.

8. The district engineer recommends that a Federal project be authorized for the construction of a multiple-purpose project on the Rappahannock River, combining flood control with power development as described in his report, at an estimated construction cost of $23,341,000, with $117,500 annually for maintenance and operation. The division engineer concurs in the recommendation of the district engineer.

9. Local interests were informed of the nature of the division engineer's report and given an opportunity to submit additional information for consideration by the Board. At their request a public hearing was held before the Board on February 7, 1944. Representatives of local interests in Orange, Madison, Culpeper, and Fauquier Counties appeared before the Board and requested that flood protection be provided in the portion of the basin above the head of the proposed Salem Church reservoir. They believed that flood losses in those areas were sufficient to justify improvement for flood control and requested a resurvey of the upper watershed and further studies with a view to providing a system of smaller reservoirs on the headwater streams in lieu of a large reservoir at Salem Church or in combination with a much smaller reservoir at that site. The resurvey requested has been made by the district engineer and the findings are incorporated in the report.

VIEWS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS

10. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors has fully considered the reports of the district and division engineers and the information presented by local interests at the hearing before the Board. It concurs in general in the views of the reporting officers that the construction of the Salem Church and Fredericksburg projects would provide flood protection to the principal damage center in the basin, benefit navigation, improve sanitary conditions, and provide a substantial amount of power at reasonable cost. The proposed Fredericksburg power project, which would replace an existing smaller development, is designed primarily to take full advantage of the regulation of stream flow that would result from the operation of the Salem Church project. While the project is necessary for the full development of the water resources, it is essentially a power development and would be of negligible benefit for flood control or navigation. On the other hand, all the flood control and miscellaneous benefits outlined in

The

the district engineer's report are derived from the Salem Church project and they would be fully obtained by the construction of that project alone. Board therefore is of the opinion that construction of the Salem Church project for multiple purposes is warranted at this time and that the question whether the Fredericksburg power project should be developed at Federal expense, in order to utilize fully the stream regulation benefits resulting from the Salem Church project, is properly for consideration by the Federal Power Commission. The annual charges for the Salem Church multiple-purpose development are estimated as $904,100 and total annual benefits are estimated as $1,315,110, indicating that the project is economically justified in a suitable power market. The proposed project is favorably located for disposal of the power in communities and industrial areas in eastern Virginia and a study of the power demands in this area indicates that a suitable market will probably be available after construction. In order to insure the best service to the area it is desirable that provision be made to construct, operate, and maintain transmission lines, substations, and facilities and structures appurtenant thereto, as may be found necessary for the transmission, interchange, and sale of the energy. To safeguard the interests of flood control and navigation, the dams and power facilities should be constructed, operated, and maintained under the direction of the Secretary of War and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers, and the power disposed of under contracts approved by the Federal Power Commission.

11. The Board recommends improvement of the Rappahannock River for flood control, the development of hydroelectric power, and for other beneficial uses, by the construction of the Salem Church project, in accordance with the plans outlined in the district engineer's report and with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, at an estimated cost of $18,343,100 for construction and $91,600 annually for maintenance and operation. For the Board:

JOHN J. KINGMAN, Brigadier General, United States Army, Senior Member.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, Richmond, April 5, 1946.

CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,

United States Army, Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Your letter of December 27 in reference to your report on the Rappahannock River and tributaries, together with reports of the Federal Power Commission and the report of the district and division engineers, has been referred to me for consideration.

It is my understanding that the officials and citizens of Fredericksburg earnestly desire the building of the Salem Church Dam, as recommended by the Corps of Engineers, and as it appears that it will be a great protection to the city, I recommend its construction.

Very truly yours,

WILLIAM M. TUCK, Governor of Virginia.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions by Mr. Allen?
Mr. ALLEN. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions by Mr. Cowen?
Mr. COWEN. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions by Mr. Elliott?

Mr. ELLIOTT. No questions. Yes, I believe I have one question. What is the total acreage damaged?

Colonel HERB. I do not believe I have that information available. I can put that in the record.

(The following statement was inserted for the record :)

During the flood of October 1942 a total of 30,000 acres were inundated, of which 205 acres were located within the city of Fredericksburg.

Approximately 21,300 acres will be required for the power pool. The cost of acquiring this acreage plus the necessary severance, is estimated at $675,000.

The CHAIRMAN. At the same time will you give us the estimated acreage required for the power pool?

Mr. BLAND. The mayor of the city of Fredericksburg has some information on that subject.

Mayor KING. I think the average annual flood loss was reported at $99,200. That is for the river basin.

The CHAIRMAN. The question of Mr. Elliott involved the number of acres flooded and that suggested the further question as to the number of acres required for the power pool and the value of that acreage. When you revise your remarks, you will include that.

Any further questions by Mr. Elliott?

Mr. ELLIOTT. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions by Mr. Jackson?

Mayor KING. There are about 21,000 acres embraced in the reservoir site.

Mr. JACKSON. Could you state whether the area that will be flooded by reason of the construction of the reservoir dam will involve valuable farm land?

Mayor KING. No, sir; it does not.

Mr. JACKSON. Nonproductive land?

Mayor KING. Nonproductive and most of it is cut-over timberland. The CHAIRMAN. That will be covered in the report.

Mr. SMITH. May I state that that is the very question that is going to be at issue.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the reason I am trying to stop Mr. Jackson. Any questions by Mr. Robertson?

Mr. ROBERTSON. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions by Mr. Adams?

Mr. ADAMS. To what extent is the damage irreplaceable damage? Are you subject to erosion on that stream?

Colonel HERB. There is no serious erosion problems in the lower basin. However, there is a silting proposition downstream below the reservoir in the existing navigation project that this reservoir will help check. That mainly occurs in the channel below Fredericksburg. The Department of Agriculture has been authorized to investigate the erosion problems on the watershed.

The CHAIRMAN Will you state again the population of Fredericksburg?

Colonel HERB. It is 10,100, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the city proper?

Colonel HERB. That was the population of the city proper in 1940. The CHAIRMAN. We have had a war since 1940.

When the mayor comes along he might tell us about the metropolitan area.

Mr. Davis, any questions?

Mr. DAVIS. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have had your statement, Colonel. If that completes your statement, General Crawford, we will be glad to hear from Mr. Bland at this time. He may present any witnesses that he desires.