40 miles from Corpus Christi and a very small beach at Rockport » Aransas Bay about 32 miles from Corpus Christi.

Senator YOUNG. How large a region will the restored beach serve Colonel CHARLES. The restored beach is expected to serve an eight county region within about 1-hour driving distance that has a curren population of about 400,000.

Senator YOUNG. What was the effect of the August 3. Hurrican Celia upon Corpus Christi Beach?

Colonel CHARLES. The hurricane-induced tides in Corpus Christ. Bay were less than 5 feet and only minor erosion damages were re corded at Corpus Christi Beach.

Senator COOPER. What is the quality of the water at the location of Corpus Christi Beach?

Colonel CHARLES. The City of Corpus Christi Health Departmer has conducted a continuing program of testing bay water along the beach area for several years and has found the water free fro pollution.

Senator COOPER. What indication is there that the public will utiliz the beach?

Colonel CHARLES. There is a recognized deficiency in total recrea tional beach areas along the Texas coast. Also, because of its location within the city and proposed operation in connection with the city's municipal park program, it would be convenient to the entire popula tion of the city as well as attracting a large number of visitors from the surrounding eight-county area.

Senator COOPER. Are there any nearby industrial areas?

Colonel CHARLES. No, sir; the only industrial area is located along the upper channels and turning basins of the Corpus Christi ship channel about one-half mile from the beach area. Total currents in and out of these channels generally follow the channel alinement and do not move into the beach area.

Senator COOPER. Is any of the land immediately behind this beach owned by private interests? If so, what financial contribution will they make to the improvement of their beach?

Colonel CHARLES. The entire beach area would be in publie ownership with access provided by numerous city streets and six public parking areas located along the beach area. The city is acquiring lands for a large public park at the northern edge of the beach which will provide additional parking areas, sanitary facilities and amusements to complement the restored beach. The lands adjoining the beach area are separated by a public thoroughfare and owned by a large number of individual owners. These owners would financially participate i the project through city taxes for debt service of bonds to be issued by the city in order to meet the requirements of local cooperation. Senator COOPER. Where will the sand come from that will be used to replenish the beach?

Colonel CHARLES. The 535,000 cubic yards of sand for the botto fill will be obtained by hydraulic dredging from the bed of Corpus Christi Bay about one-half mile east of the north end of the project area. The 310,000 cubic yards of sand cover or plating material will be hauled from borrow pits on the Nueces River about 20 miles from the project area. Selected sand for periodic nourishment will be ob tained from sources along the Nueces River.

Senator COOPER. Have tests been made to assure that the sand to

be used to replace the beach is not polluted? What effect will the taking of this sand have on fishing in the area and water currents?

Colonel CHARLES. No tests relative to pollution have been made on the fill sands from bay area or potential borrow areas on the Nueces River. However, the Chief of Engineers will work closely with appropriate health agencies to insure that the quality of beach fill be checked before the beach is reopened to the public. If the material is found to be contaminated at that time, an alternative source of materials meeting the requirements of appropriate health agencies will be obtained. The removal of bottom bay sand from relatively small bar areas should have no effect on overall bay fishing. Also, no changes in the bay current patterns would be experienced because of the excavation or placement of fill material in the project area. Material removed from the Nueces River would be from existing borrow areas and not expected to effect the fishing or current patterns in the river.

CORPUS CHRISTI BEACH, TEXAS

Location.-Corpus Christi Beach is located in the Texas Coastal bend within the corporate limits of the City of Corpus Christi. It is a bay shore area about 1.4 miles long on the westerly side of Corpus Christi Bay.

Authority.-House Public Works Committee Resolution adopted 17 December

1963.

Existing Project.-There is no existing Federal project for erosion control of the area. The existing Federal navigation project for the Corpus Christi Ship Channel is adjacent to the area.

Erosion Problem.-Since 1882, erosion has caused the loss of several hundred feet of Corpus Christi Beach. Only limited sections of usable beach remain and recreational use has declined. Restoration and maintenance of the beach is needed, principally for recreation. The city of Corpus Christi has developed a master plan for upgrading the area and is acquiring land for development of a large park at the north end of the beach.

Recommended Plan of Improvement.-Initial restoration and periodic nourishment of 1.4 miles of shore at Corpus Christi Beach. The improved beach constructed to a berm elevation of plus 3 feet mean sea level datum would have a berm width varying from 100 feet to 300 feet and a bayward slope of about one vertical on 50 horizontal. Maintenance of the beach to design dimensions would be accomplished by periodic nourishment.

Benefit-Cost Ratio.-3.8

Local Cooperation.-Contribute in cash 50 percent of the first costs of £ items of work to be provided by the Corps of Engineers, the amount present; estimated at $525,000; contribute in cash 50 percent of beach nourishment cost for the first 10 years of project life, now estimated at $36,000 annually; prova all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations required for construction an subsequent nourishment of the project; assure that after the first 10 years i project life, the restored beach will receive periodic nourishment as may be quired to serve the intended purpose during the economic life of the projet assure continued public ownership of the beach and its administration for pat use during the economic life of the project; assume responsibility for the pre vision of appurtenant facilities required for realization of anticipated rec tional benefits including, but not limited to, access roads, parking areas, bedhouses or service and convenience buildings, and fishing piers; assure that wate pollution which would affect the health of bathers will not be permitted: a hold and save the United States free from claims for damages. Local interest have indicated their willingness to meet the requirements of local cooperation Comments of the State and Federal Agencies:

Department of Interior.-Favorable.

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.-Favorable.

State of Texas.-Favorable.

Comments of the Office of Management and Budget: Not received.

ZINTEL CANYON, WASHINGTON

Colonel NEWMAN. The last project on the agenda is Zintel Canyo Wash. Colonel Charles will testify.

Colonel CHARLES. Mr. Chairman, this report is in response to resolv tions by the Committee on Public Works of the Senate dated March 1954, and by the Committee on Public Works of the House of Rep resentatives dated July 29, 1954.

Zintel Canyon drains a 28.2 square mile area, including the city of Kennewick in the south central part of the State of Washington.

There is no existing Federal flood control project in Kennewick Locally constructed flood control improvements consist of inverte street crowns with limited flow capacity. Runoff resulting from heavy rainfall is unable to find an adequate channel through the built-up areas of Kennewick. Overflow cause damage to residential and commercial property.

The Chief of Engineers recommends the construction of a 26 acre-foot detention reservoir in Zintel Canyon and downstream chan nel improvements through the city of Kennewick to carry the floodflows to the Columbia River.

The project would protect the flood plain from the standard project flood (1,000 year frequency) above the dam site and from winter floods of 100 year frequency originating in the drainage area below the dam. The usual items of local cooperation for local protection. projects of this type are required. Local interests have indicated a will. ingness to meet the requirements of local cooperation.

The estimated Federal construction cost is $1,860,000, and the nonFederal cost is estimated to be $260,000 for lands easements and rightsof-way. Based upon an interest rate of 5 percent, the benefit-cost ratio is 1.3.

With respect to the environmental impact of the project, the Depart ment of Ecology, the Department of Fisheries, and the Department of Game of the State of Washington concur in the recommendation for the construction of the project.

We are presently preparing a statement in accordance with Public w 91-190 for submission to the State and concerned Federal agenis and the President's Council on Environmental Quality.

This project meets the financial requirements of section 201 of the ood Control Act of 1965. We are awaiting the recommendations of › Secretary of the Army concerning the approval of the project r appropriations.

The comments of the State and Federal agencies are favorable. he report is with the Office of Management and Budget for review. s views and comments with those of the Secretary of the Army will furnished your committee when available.

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

Senator YOUNG. Thank you. What is the flood history in Zintel inyon?

Colonel CHARLES. There are no stream gaging stations in the Zintel anyon drainage area, but from field interviews, newspaper accounts id private records 12 floods have occurred in the past 60 years. Floodg can occur from general winter rains, snowmelt or summer thunderorms with equally damaging results.

Senator YOUNG. According to the proposed plan, some areas beween the canyon month and the urban areas of Kennewick will not be rotected. How does the proposed project reduce damages in these reas?

Colonel CHARLES. This is an undeveloped area where future develoment should be prevented by flood plain management. One of the onditions of local cooperation is the restriction of development in this cality, or, in the event of development, the cost of flood protection ould be at local expense. Water depths and velocities in this reach ould be hazardous during floods.

Senator YOUNG. Why do you propose an underground conduit rough the city? Would an open channel be less expensive?

Colonel CHARLES. An open channel section was considered as an alernative in project design, however, it was found to be more expenive than a buried conduit, because of additional real estate requireents. The city of Kennewick would prefer the buried conduit for afety reasons because in the past several years children have drowned local irrigation canals.

Senator COOPER. Would the reservoir hold water constantly or just ntermittently?

Colonel CHARLES. The reservoir would not hold water constantly. The entire active storage capacity will be reserved for flood control. The outlets would be uncontrolled and, following floods, the outlet. eleases will completely evacuate the reservoir.

Senator COOPER. Could the flood damage potential be drastically educed by a less costly project involving channeling through the city of Kennewick without the need for building a reservoir?

Colonel CHARLES. With a channel-only project which would provide omparable protection to the proposed plan the average annual cost vould increase by $30,000 or about 25 percent. The large flow capacity equirements for flood protection channels through the city, the hazrds of open channels and economic advantage of combined channel and reservoir flood protection were the controlling factors in project formulation.

Senator COOPER. Does Zintel Canyon have any recreational pote tial? What is the effect of this project on that potential?

Colonel CHARLES. The reservoir area is presently used only for land gamebird hunting. The proposed project will have little, if a effect, on the recreation potential because the dam will impound water for short periods only and the area will return to normal use in be tween periods of flooding.

Senator COOPER. Is Zintel Canyon considered an area of naturi beauty, and if so, what effect would the reservoir have?

Colonel CHARLES. The reservoir area has a sparse cover of drylar. grasses and sagebrush similar to other draws and drains in this ar region. The locale has no unique features and is not considered to an area of natural beauty.

Senator COOPER. Is Zintel Canyon heavily populated by wild and what effect would the reservoir have?

Colonel CHARLES. The project area, according to the Departme of Game of the State of Washington, is occupied by a variety of ga birds. Nesting water fowl and doves use the area seasonally and de are also found in the area. There is no known census of wildlife pope lation in the project area. The Zintel Canyon area presently provid escape cover during hunting season, undisturbed nest cover duri summer, and protective cover in winter. The proposed dam and reser voir will occupy only a small portion of the total area within Zinte Canyon. Natural conditions, disturbed during construction, will be reestablished by grading, landscaping and plantings to blend into th surrounding area and within a few years the effects of project c struction will be practically unnoticeable.

Senator COOPER. Could you detail the annual damage each year ove the past 10 years from flooding?

Colonel CHARLES. In 1959, 1964, 1965, 1969, and 1970 minor floodoccurred and the area suffered some damage. The floods of 1969 ar 1970 came during the night. The runoff which must use the dishe streets for channels through the city of Kennewick could not be contained by emergency crews with sandbags and some houses wer flooded. The 1956 flood was the most recent severe flood with damag estimated at $118,000.

ZINTEL CANYON, WASH.

Location. The study area covers the 28.2 square mile drainage area of Zintel Canyon and includes the city of Kennewick located on a sloping terrace on th right bank of the Columbia River in southeast Washington.

Authority. Senate Committee on Public Works resolution adopted on 2 Mari 1954; and House Committee on Public Works resolution adopted 29 July 194 Existing Project.-There are no existing Federal improvements for flood og trol within the drainage area of Zintel Canyon except a draiage ditch which wi designed to carry Zintel Canyon flows around the upstream end of the mai Kennewick-Columbia river levee (McNary Levee 5-D). Locally constructed flor control works consist of inverted street crowns with limited flow capacit Flood Problem.-The runoff from heavy rainfall is unable to find an adequa channel through the built-up area of Kennewick. A recurrence of the 5 Februar 1907 flood would cause between $729,000 to $968,000 damages under 1968 cond: tions of development.

Recommended Plan of Improvement.-Construction of a detention reserve? in Zintel Canyon and downstream channel improvements through the city Kennewick to carry the flood flows to the Columbia River.

官