Senator MUSKIE. Our next witness, and I apologize for the delay in bringing him to the table, is Secretary StephenAiles of the Army. I understand you have with you the following: Mr. John W. Roche, Engineering Policy and Legislative Branch, Office of the Chief of Engineers; Mr. Wendell E. Johnson, Chief, Engineering Division, Office of the Chief of Engineers; Mr. Fred Thrall, Assistant Chief, Multiple-Use Coordination Branch, Planning Division, Office of the Chief of Engineers; and Mr. John Leslie, Office of the Division Engineer, New England Division, Corps of Engineers. STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN AILES, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY; ACCOMPANIED BY WENDELL E. JOHNSON, CHIEF, ENGINEERING DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS; AND JOHN LESLIE, CHIEF, ENGINEERING DIVISION, U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION, NEW ENGLAND Secretary AILES. Yes. I have Mr. Wendell Johnson with me this morning and Mr. John Leslie, who is the Chief of Engineering in the New England Division stationed in Boston. Senator MUSKIE. I want to say that we have enjoyed a long and cooperative relationship with the Army Engineers, and we appreciate that and appreciate the longstanding interest that you have had in this project. Mr. Secretary, you have a prepared statement, and you may handle it in any way you would like. Secretary AILES. All right, sir. I might as well read it. It is quite brief. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Secretary Udall has already outlined for you the background and current status of the proposed report on the Passamaquoddy-upper St. John River project. He also mentioned the additional studies that have been carried out cooperatively by the Department of the Interior and the Corps of Engineers since the submission of his original report to President Kennedy in July 1963. At the time the report of the Secretary of the Interior was presented in July 1963, President Kennedy directed that, to insure full consideration of the proposals, the Interior Department and the Corps of Engineers were to accelerate their work on the remaining studies of the details. In compliance with this directive a work plan was developed jointly by the corps and Interior under which the studies were divided between the agencies on a logical basis that would permit the additional work to be completed in the shortest possible time. It was arranged for the Department of the Interior to make the additional studies necessary to determine the optimum development and its economic justification. The Corps of Engineers would immediately investigate the feasibility of constructing a dam at the Dickey site, and perform that part of the studies necessary to prove out the engineering practicabality of the proposed developments, and to obtain a reliable cost estimate thereof. A joint advisory board comprised of experienced engineers of the Department of the Interior and the Corps of Engineers was also established to guide and assist the two agencies in their studies. The Board, which was later expanded to include representatives of other agencies interested in the developments, has worked closely with both Interior and the corps and coordinated their efforts throughout the preparation of the additional studies. I would like to say that both of the gentlemen here with me this morning were members of that advisory board. The basic layout of the structures for the Passamaquoddy project presented by the Department of Interior is essentially the same as that presented by the International Joint Commission in its report of April 1961, the only significant changes in the tidal project being in the power features and the proposed method of operation. The auxiliary hydropower project, as contemplated for the upper St. John River by the International Joint Commission has been moved, however, to a new site in order to preserve the unique recreation characteristics of the Allagash River. The engineering studies made by the International Joint Commission were carefully prepared and of the highest quality. Where possible these studies have been used. Our current investigations were primarily concerned with those additional aspects which were not covered in the original report of the International Joint Commission, although cost data were also reviewed and brought up to date. The International Joint Commission report analyzed a tidal project with a total power installation of 300,000 kilowatts, while the report of the Interior Department contemplated larger installations for peaking power purposes with various size installations of up to as much. as 1 million kilowatts. Present plans also contemplate the use of recently developed reversible axial-flow generating units instead of the conventional type considered in connection with the International Joint Commission report. Additional foundation explorations and other investigations have been made to determine the practicability of these modifications, the costs thereof, and to obtain the engineering data required to enable the Department of Interior to make economic analyses and determine the optimum installation of the tidal powerplant. Under the direction of the Division Engineer of the Corps of Engineers' New England Division, soils and foundations, explorations of the proposed Dickey site were begun as soon as possible after the President directive for the supplemental studies. These investigations resulted in the location of a suitable damsite, and layouts and cost estimates of a dam that would preserve the Allagash were undertaken. These studies established that a dam immediately above the mouth of the Allagash is engineeringly feasible and that it can be built at a cost reasonably commensurate with the preliminary estimates made by the Department of Interior. The engineering studies undertaken by the Department of the Army for this report are complete. They are contained in a supplemental report appended to the report of the Passamaquoddy-St. John River Study Committee which, I understand, you have before you. Everything after the blue page is the Corps of Engineers' report. I have with me today, as we just said, two of our engineers who participated in developing these supplemental engineering studies. If they, or myself, can assist in explaining the details of our investigations we shall be pleased to do so. Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement. Now, may I ask you or the engineers with you whether you are thoroughly satisfied that this project, the Quoddy project, can be built from an engineer's standpoint? Secretary AILES. I am sure that everyone will state that there is no question but what from the point of view of the engineering problem, this project can be built. Senator MUSKIE. What are some of the unique engineering problems which you have had to consider, if there are such problems, and I assume there are. Secretary AILES. I will let Mr. Leslie discuss the building of a dike across the channel with flowing tide where the channel is 300 feet deep. Some problems of that character. Mr. Leslie, would you like to speak to that? Mr. LESLIE. This is probably one of the most challenging problems, to build closure dikes across this depth which at one point would be about 330 feet in depth. We have made extensive investigations to check the foundations underneath this area. We had drill rigs come from Houston, Tex., that are normally engaged in offshore drilling for oil wells, to check on the situation. The problem of placing the fill is one of tremendous import, and studies were conducted at the University of Minnesota under the now deceased Dr. Lorenz G. Straub1 who was an international expert on this sort of situation. We feel it can be accomplished as a result of the tests made there, real model tests of placing the fill. As I talked to the Secretary who was with me at Quoddy just recently looking at the site, it will be one that will probably even involve the use of computers because you must face the situation where you may have tides that at times will be as much as 26 feet. You will have velocities in the range of 10 to 12 feet at times, and when the material is dropped by bottom dump scows it will be carried by the flow of the tides. It will have a tendency to drift so that it will be necessary to take the scows and spot them in such locations that the fill will end up where you want it, some 300-odd feet below that. The locations will be computed and spotted just where you will. It is practical to do this, and we feel it is engineeringly feasible to accomplish what we intend. Senator MUSKIE. As a matter of fact, is it accurate to say that the judgment of engineers on this point has been pretty well satisfied for a number of years, even predating the International Joint Commission's report? Mr. LESLIE. Well, I would say so. I think it is challenging, and I do not know of instances where this has been done, but we have talked about its feasibility with, as I say, private consultants, people of stature in the Government, engineers. We have talked to the Navy Department which is familiar with this sort of operation, and they all feel that it is practical and feasible to do. Senator MUSKIE. With respect to the Dickey site on the upper St. John River, does that pose any unusual or unique or difficult problems? Mr. LESLIE. No. I see no problems. It will be unusual for the New England area because it will probably be the largest dam ever 1 The biography of Dr. Straub appears in app. I on p. 154. built there, but they have been building them for many years in the Far West and Midwest. Senator MUSKIE. So you have ample experience in dealing with that kind of a problem. Mr. LESLIE. Yes, sir. Senator MUSKIE. What is the function of the reregulating dam at Lincoln School which will be located below Dickey? Mr. LESLIE. Well, the main purpose of it is to regulate releases from Dickey. When Dickey is used for peaking you will have large discharges of water that if dumped down the stream helter-skelter would cause bank erosion and various things like that. Therefore, Lincoln School would have as one purpose, that we can regulate the stream and put down discharges that are compatible with the stream itself. Second, it has a considerable impact on the downstream plants in Canada. With Lincoln School we can regulate the discharges to be more compatible with the pattern of operation of the reservoirs in Canada. This amplifies and guarantees the amount of water that is in their reservoirs so that they can meet their load requirements as needed. Senator MUSKIE. So that the reregulating dam has two purposes. One, to even out the flow of the river, and two, to produce supplemental power. Mr. LESLIE. That is correct. Mr. McINTIRE. The first dam which you mentioned, Mr. Leslie, and the Secretary was mentioning, what would be your comment on the criticism that this dam cannot be made tight enough so that loss by flowing through the dam would be appreciable? Can it be made tight enough? Secretary AILES. Mr. McIntire, are you referring to the dike? Secretary AILES. That 350-foot depth? Mr. LESLIE. Well, we do not see that it is an insurmountable problem. First of all, this is building a dam similar to what we would build in dry land, except that we are putting it under water. There will be a clay core in the center which is impervious to the flow of water. It will have a clay core, and then pervious material adjacent to it and then a rock blanket to hold it in place, but the core itself will guarantee that it is watertight. We feel that it can be done as I say; the studies that were done at the University of Minnesota indicate they can be made watertight, and we have also had Dr. Casagrande,2 probably one of the foremost soil engineers in the world-he feels that it can be made tight. Mr. JOHNSON. I might add this is a problem that we face almost every day. There is nothing unusual about it. We have many dams of this size and even larger, and in fact, I would say that the problems that now appear to us at the Dickey site are probably less, of a lesser degree than we have at other locations. Mr. McINTIRE. I am not referring to the Dickey site. I am interested in putting in a clay core in this dam, all under the water. Now, the normal construction of this type of dam is a dry dam, is it not? And you compact the clay core to make it impervious, but this dike that I was referring to is going to be built under water, and a com * The biography of Dr. Casagrande appears in app. I on p. 156. ment that has been directed to me more than once has been, How do you build a dike under water and get it impervious enough to hold the water as you need to hold it in that area? This is my question. I am perfectly familiar with putting a core into a dam when it is a dry dam and you can compact this core and get it impervious, but you are not dealing with that kind of a situation in this dike. We are dealing with it under water all the time. Mr. JOHNSON. Of course, we do have this problem elsewhere, Mr. Congressman. In the case of many of our cofferdam constructions, for example, where we have to wall off an area and then dump it out, we have to construct these cofferdams under water, and in some of our projects on the Missouri River, we have had to build up the foundation under water first before we proceeded with the construction of the dam. One of the current projects that has received a great deal of attention in the year is the Aswan Dam in Egypt where the dam, the lower part of the dam, and a very massive part of the dam, is being built in the existing Aswan Reservoir under water. So that this is not entirely unprecedented, but it will require some special provisions to insure that we do get a satisfactory project. Secretary AILES. I think one fact of interest, Mr. Leslie, what did you tell me was the width of that dike at the base, 3,000 feet? Mr. LESLIE. Yes, 3,000. Secretary AILES. In other words, that is not a narow shell that is put in there. This is tremendously wide at the bottom which has some connection with the impervious nature of it. Senator MUSKIE. 3,000 feet, you say, at the base? Secretary AILES. Yes. Senator MUSKIE. What is going to be the height of the Dickey dam? Mr. LESLIE. Of Dickey Dam? It is 340 feet as I recall, Senator. Senator MUSKIE. Now, with respect to the Quoddy project, there will be, I understand, 90 filling gates and something like 70 emptying gates. Mr. LESLIE. That is correct. Senator MUSKIE. Does the construction of these involve any particular difficulties? Mr. LESLIE. No. Although we have talked about the 300 feet in depth, this is the most dramatic depth. The other areas are much less; we will be in the neighborhood of a hundred feet in some places and in others down to as low as 50 feet. Building in this amount of water is not too bad. We just cofferdam them, pump out the area, and then build them all in the dry. So in the building of the gates there will be no problem at all. Senator MUSKIE. So your 300-odd-foot problem exists in only one location? Mr. LESLIE. It occurs in only one place, very providentially a very short stretch of the 7 miles of dike. Senator MUSKIE. The Almighty has already built part of this dam, in other words. Mr. LESLIE. He has been on our side, I would say. Senator MUSKIE. There are going to be some navigation locks in there? Mr. LESLIE. Yes. There will be four navigation locks in each of the pools of different sizes. As I recall, two of them are about 400 feet long, 60 feet wide, and 21 feet deep for the deeper fishing type of vessel |