The sponsors included this area of the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service-this wildlife refuge-because they did not know whether it would affect or be affected by the project. It was later discovered, however, that the refuge area was cut off from the project area by the Savannah River. Therefore, it has no effect on the project. It fills in a gap between South Carolina and Georgia in this case. Ninety-four percent of the watershed is in private ownership; 4 percent is in Federal lands; that is, the wildlife refuge, and 2 percent is in the airport, Travis Field, owned by the Savannah Airport Commission. The CHAIRMAN. May I state this right there. We have a letter from the Savannah Airport Commission which states that they will maintain the soil conserving practices, in accordance with the soil and water conservation plan. Mr. GRAHAM. Yes; they have installed the planned conservation measures and will maintain them. The CHAIRMAN. That letter, dated November 21, 1966, will be made a part of the record at this point. (The letter dated November 21, 1966, follows:) Mr. A. G. PINKSTON, Sr., SAVANNAH AIRPORT COMMISSION, Chairman, Coastal Soil and Water Conservation District, DEAR SIR: This is to advise you and other sponsors of the Eli Whitney Watershed Project of our interest and unqualified support of this worthwhile undertaking. As you know, all the practices have been applied on Travis Field in accordance with the Soil and Water Conservation Plan prepared with you. We agree to maintain these practices in accordance with Technical standards of the Soil Conservation Service. Sincerely yours, E. E. DAVIDSON, Mr. GRAHAM. There are about 390 farms in the watershed with an average size of 300 acres each. The average annual rainfall is 50 inches. The major watershed problems are very much the same as those in Ebenezer Creek, just discussed. These include flooding of the flatland areas because of inadequate channel development, flood damage to crops, county roads, and bridges. There is a need for major outlets to remove excess water from the pasturelands and croplands. There is need for land treatment measures throughout the watershed. You will notice an odd-shaped pattern for this drainage here [indicating]. Apparently, according to geologists, this is an area which has been emerging for some time. There are three old shorelines in here in the watershed. These were sandbars and lagoons. Some of this drainage goes to the northeast and some of it goes to the southwest, and then it turns and flows east into the Savannah River. The work plan includes land-treatment measures, such as crop residue, field drainage ditches, tile drains, tree planting, timber-stand improvement. The cost of the land-treatment measure is estimated to be $259,400. The planned structural measures consist of 44 miles of excavated multipurpose channels for flood prevention and drainage. The estimated installation cost of the multipurpose channel is $558,000. The total estimated cost of the project, including the land-treatment measures, is $847,900, of which $447,700, or 53 percent, is Public Law 566 funds. The annual benefits from the installed project is estimated $51,000; 201 farm and woodland properties will be benefited by the project directly. The prorated Public Law 566 structural cost per acre benefited is $22. The land values in the watershed average $185. The estimated annual operations and maintenance costs are $8,500. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.8 to 1; with secondary benefits excluded the benefit-cost ratio is 1.6 to 1. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Graham. I just noticed that in the previous one they have the exact same percentage of local contribution, 47 percent, and have exactly the same cost per acre benefited. Mr. GRAHAM. They are very similar watersheds. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? Mr. GOODLING. Did you say that the wildlife refuge would not be affected? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes; that is correct. Mr. GOODLING. What is the nature of this refuge? Mr. GRAHAM. It is a fresh water marsh wildlife refuge. Mr. GOODLING. Wildlife? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. Mr. GOODLING. It would not be drained in any way? Mr. GRAHAM. No, sir; it is across the river. It is across the Savannah River from the rest of the project. Mr. GOODLING. Thank you. Mr. GRAHAM. There was a question of whether or not the area should have been included after all, but at the time that the local people made application they did not know whether it would be affected. Mr. GOODLING. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Is that land east of the Savannah River there still a part of Georgia? I suppose it is. Mr. GRAHAM. This thin strip here [indicating] is between the Savannah River and the State of South Carolina. This is South Carolina. on this side [indicating]. The CHAIRMAN. The river must have changed its course some time in the past, I suppose. The boundary line runs into the Savannah River at some time or other, does it not? Mr. GRAHAM. It may be. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that Congressman Hagan will submit a statement for the record on this project, as well as the previous project, for which permission will be granted, and it will be made a part of the record.1 If there are no further questions on this project, we will pass on to the next one. 1 See p. 21. HOBBSVILLE-SUNBURY WATERSHED, NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA The CHAIRMAN. We will now proceed with the Hobbsville-Sunbury watershed. I understand that Congressman Jones of North Carolina is interested in this project, but we will ask the Department first to explain the proposed plan, and then we will hear Mr. Jones. HOBBSVILLE-SUNBURY WATERSHED WORKPLAN Size and location: 85,500 acres in Gates County, North Carolina and Nansemond County, Virginia. Tributary to: Chowan River-Atlantic Ocean. Sponsors: Peanut Soil and Water Conservation District; Gates Soil and Water Conservation District; Gates County Commissioners. Total watershed land use: Cropland Woodland Miscellaneous Total watershed privately owned: Number of farms: 450. Size of farms: about 175 acres average. Purposes: Watershed protection, flood prevention and drainage. Principal measures: Soil conservation practices on farms, and structural measures consisting of 317,245 feet of stream channel improvement. Annual benefits: Benefit-cost ratio: 1.8 to 1. With secondary benefits excluded, the benefit-cost ratio is 1.6 to 1. Area benefited: 11,480 acres. Number of beneficiaries: Owners and operators of 250 farms. 1 This is primarily the cost of applying land treatment measures by landowners. Cost sharing from Federal funds appropriated for the agricultural conservation program may be available it included in the county program developed each year in consideration of approved State and National programs and the annual authorization by the Congress. * Consisting of construction cost for drainage, $105,432, land, easements, and rights-of-way, $165,760; administration of contracts, $7,000. 3 The value of measures already installed ($765,245) increases this to 66 percent. Prorated P.L. 566 Structural Cost per Acre Benefited: $37. Carrying out the Project: Gates County Drainage Districts Nos. 2 and 3, now being organized, will assume all local responsibilities for installing, operating and maintaining the structural measures. The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $10,380. Mr. WELD. The Hobbsville-Sunbury watershed project is located in the northeast portion of North Carolina, 90 percent of the watershed being in North Carolina and 10 percent extending into Virginia. This watershed is similar in topography and physiographic problems to those that Mr. Graham has just discussed, those in the lower coastal plain. And the topography is level to gently rolling. There are two main tributaries in the watershed: Bennett's Creek, which picks up all of this upper area and flows to the west and then to the south, joining the Chowan River down here, and Trotman's Creek, which takes this lower area, coming over to the west and joining at this location [indicating]. As typical of this physiographic area, the lower portion of the area has much more defined drainage than the outer perimeter which is relatively flat tableland, and that explains the reason for the project measures being pretty much limited to the perimeter. Seventy-five percent of the population in this watershed is engaged in agriculture. The major crops which are grown are: peanuts, cotton, and soybeans. Other crops grown include corn, tobacco, and truck crops. A portion of the agricultural income; that is, the farm income, is derived from beef cattle, swine, and poultry. Twenty-eight percent of the watershed is in cropland; 2 percent in grassland; 69 percent in woodland. The entire watershed is privately owned; there are 450 farms averaging approximately 175 acres per farm. There has been a definite trend toward consolidation of lands in this watershed in the last 10 years, and there has been a reduction in that period of time of 230 operating units and with that the tenancy rate is also decreasing-265 of the landowners are cooperators with either Peanut Soil and Water Conservation District, Virginia, or the Gates District, North Carolina, representing 59 percent of the operating units. So, a total of 11,480 acres in this outer perimeter which are subject to frequent flooding, and are, also, in need of improved drainage. It is a joint project. Flooding results from excessive direct precipitation which causes inundation of the crop and pasturelands. The duration of inundation under this condition sometimes lasts as long as 10 to 15 days, which is very damaging to the crops. Interspersed in this area are large tracts of woodland which accumulate the water during each heavy storm, and then it spills out over the cropland which further complicates the flooding problem. The natural drainage in the outer perimeter, similar to those that have just been discussed, is not adequate to lead off the floodwater or to provide adequate outlets for the on-farm drainage ditches and laterals. The principal damage occurs during the frequent small floods; however, larger floods do considerable damage to the roads and the bridges. Also, sediment which originates in this area clogs the channels that they do have. There is no problem with getting adequate drainage in the lower reaches. A lot of this land is practically in swamp, but the terrain is well defined and the channels are well incised, therefore, you have an adequate outlet below that area. The works of improvement which are proposed to be installed in this project includes the needed soil and water conservation practices on the farms. These would be largely conservation cropping systems; the on-farm drainage ditches and laterals and necessary woodland improvement and management work. The project would be installed in an 8-year period. The structural measures include 60 miles of multiple-purpose channels. This would be an enlargement of the existing channels. The cost of the project, including the land treatment measures which are to be installed, amounts to $1,329,000, of which the local interests will pay 47 percent. If we consider the installed measures already on the land that would increase the local contribution to 66 percent. The benefits which will accrue to this project are from the structural measures, the channel work. It will provide a 5-year level of protection from flooding; it will meet the needs for the improved drainage outlets. They estimate a reduction in average annual flood damage, of 83 percent. The total benefits will amount to $78,368. Eighty percent of this accruing to benefits to land and crops and other agricultural improvements; 5 percent to roads and bridges; 12 percent are considered secondary. The project will yield a benefit-cost ratio of 1.8 to 1. Discounting the secondary benefits, it is 1.6 to 1. It will benefit 250 landowners, comprising 11,480 acres. The local sponsors will also bear the annual operating and maintenance cost, which is estimated to be $10,380. The prorated Public Law 566 structural cost per acre benefited is $37. There are two drainage districts being formed to carry out the local responsibilities; the Gates County Drainage Districts Nos. 2 and 3. District No. 2 will service this upper area which is known as the Sunbury area, and drainage district No. 3, the lower area which is the Hobbsville area. The CHAIRMAN. This is a part of the Great Dismal Swamp, this lower area? The CHAIRMAN. If there are no questions, we are very much obliged to you for this presentation. We will now hear from our colleague, Mr. Jones, who is a member of this subcommittee on this subject. |