dock; a portion of the anchorage basin, about 23 acres in area, on the east side of and adjacent to the 10-foot channel, has been dredged; and a basin 1.6 acres in area, has been dredged on the opposite side of the channel, opposite Merwins Wharf. Owing to ledge rock it was impracticable to complete the basin originally contemplated on the east side of the channel, and to extend the 6-foot channel up to the straw works wharf, without materially exceeding the estimated cost. The basin dredged on the west side of the channel was intended to take the place in part of that portion of the basin on the east side, omitted on account of ledge rock. With these exceptions the project was completed on August 23, 1905. The improvement has shown quite satisfactory permanence, but some filling has taken place, particularly in the 10-foot channel just outside of the jetties. At the present time a draft of 9 feet can be carried at mean low water over the bar and up to Merwins Wharf; thence 6 feet to a point just above the town dock. The mean rise and fall of the tide is about 6.2 feet. At high water vessels of 11-foot draft can be taken to the town wharf. There is a balance of $3,066.97 now available for this harbor. 4. The report of examination and survey on which the present project is based may be found in House Document No. 280, Fiftysixth Congress, first session, and in the Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1900, page 1356. Reports of previous examinations and surveys are published in Executive Document No. 107, Forty-second Congress, third session, or page 1041, Annual Report of Chief of Engineers, 1873; page 632, Annual Report of Chief of Engineers, 1882; and House Document No. 139, Fifty-first Congress, first session, or page 629, Annual Report of Chief of Engineers, 1890. 5. The commerce of Milford Harbor may be divided into two parts that connected with the oyster fishery, which is centered in the vicinity of Merwins Wharf, at the mouth of the river, and that carried to the town dock at Milford. The first portion has shown a considerable though intermittent increase in recent years, and amounted to 28,733 tons in the calendar year 1911. The second portion has averaged about 5,000 tons for a number of years, and amounted to 5,617 tons in 1911. 6. After consultation with interested parties I find that the improvements desired at the present time are the provision of a turning basin at the head of the present channel, near the town dock, and the enlargement of the anchorage basin near the mouth of the river. Both of these improvements are believed to be meritorious. The channel to the dock is but 90 feet in width, and a turning basin would be of great convenience to commerce. Its cost would be comparatively small. The sheltered anchorage afforded at the mouth of the river is used by a considerable number of small craft and by oyster boats transferring cargoes and is at certain seasons somewhat congested. This anchorage basin has not the area contemplated in the project, but its completion in the locality indicated in the project would require the removal of a considerable amount of ledge rock and can not be recommended. The extension, however, of the basin on the west side of the channel would afford equal or better anchorage ground. It is not thought, however, necessary at the present time to provide in this extended basin as great a depth as that originally specified, as this basin is used by comparatively small craft. 7. In view of the relatively small cost of the proposed improvements I am of the opinion that Milford Harbor is worthy of improvement by the General Government, and I recommend therefore that the project for the improvement of Milford Harbor be modified to include a turning basin at the head of the present channel and an enlargement of the anchorage basin on the west side of the channel to such an area as may be secured with the funds now available, and recommend that a survey be authorized to determine the proper extent of these works. It is thought proper to point out in this connection, however, that funds will be required at some time in the not distant future for restoring the channels to the existing project depths. 8. The terminal facilities in this harbor consist of two docks at the entrance, used in the oyster business, and the town dock. The latter dock is a public terminal. It is located on the west side of the harbor, is of solid earth and rock fill retained by piles, cribwork, etc., and is used at present for all shipments made by water to the town. Although now somewhat out of repair, funds have been appropriated by the town for placing it in good condition. It has no rail connections, but is accessible with teams. It is not equipped with unloading facilities. It is thought that the town dock, as reconstructed, will be adequate for the needs of the commerce of this locality. 9. Milford Harbor being entirely tidal, there is no question of the development or utilization of water power for industrial and commercial purposes. It is not affected by freshets or by fluctuations of level other than the rise and fall of the tide. [First indorsement.] G. B. PILLSBURY, Major, Corps of Engineers. OFFICE OF DIVISION ENGINEER, NORTHEAST DIVISION, New York, November 16, 1912. To the Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army. W. M. BLACK, Colonel, Corps of Engineers. [Third indorsement.] BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS, December 5, 1912. To the CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, United States Army: For reasons stated herein, the board concurs with the district officer and the division engineer in recommending a survey in order to determine the extent and advisability of the improvement. For the board: WM. T. ROSSELL, SURVEY OF MILFORD HARBOR, CONN. UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, From: The District Engineer Officer. Subject: Survey of Milford Harbor, Conn. 1. The following report on the survey of Milford Harbor, Conn., is submitted with map, in accordance with departmental letter of December 12, 1912. 2. A complete hydrographic survey of the harbor was made, and the shore topography revised. The nature of the bottom was thoroughly investigated. 3. The three main features of Milford Harbor are: The entrance channel, the anchorage ground in the protected area at its head, and the channel up the river to the town. The several improvements heretofore made, described in detail in the report of the preliminary examination, have shown very satisfactory permanence. The channel through the outer bar is but slightly less than its project depth of 10 feet at mean low water; the channel in the river is of its full depth of 6 feet, although not of full width; the western portion of the anchorage basin has shoaled to between 7 and 8 feet depth, but the shoaling has not been sufficient to cause inconvenience to navigation. 4. The vessels using the harbor consist of oyster trawlers, which discharge their cargoes at Merwins Wharf, at the head of the 10-foot channel; barges and schooners delivering bulk freight at the town wharf; and a large number of small craft which make use of the safe and convenient anchorage afforded at the mouth of the river. The commercial statistics were detailed in the report of the preliminary examination, to which reference is made. The commerce is not large, but may be regarded as a material factor to the prosperity of the town of Milford. 5. The project dimensions of the entrance channel, 100 feet wide and 10 feet deep at mean low water, are regarded as sufficient for the needs of the harbor. The depth can be restored and maintained at relatively small expense. 6. The existing project provides for an anchorge basin of 5 acres in area and 10 feet deep on the east side of the channel. In the course of the excavation of this basin, ledge rock was encountered, and as the cost of its removal would have been excessive the area dredged was limited to 2 acres. To afford the needed anchorage area, a second basin was dredged on the west side of the river, 1.6 acres in area, so that the total area now available is about 4 acres. This area has proved insufficient At times the available anchorage is so crowded that the channel up the river is with difficulty kept clear. To relieve this congestion, an extension of the anchorage basin on the west side of the river, to include a total area of 4 acres, as shown on the map, is regarded as necessary and sufficient. As this area is intended for comparatively small craft, a depth of 6 feet at mean low water is considered sufficient. The portion of this area already provided, originally dredged to a depth of 10 feet, has now shoaled to between 7 and 8 feet depth. There appears to be no good ground for maintaining it at a greater depth than the remainder of the basin. The existing 10-foot basin on the east side of the river, 2 acres in extent, should afford sufficient anchorage room for the larger vessels entering the harbor. 7. A depth of 6 feet in the channel in the river is thought to be sufficient for the comparatively restricted commerce that uses this waterway, particularly as the bottom is soft, so that the full depth of about 12 feet, available at high water, can be safely utilized. It is believed desirable, however, to slightly increase the width of the channel provided by the present project in order that full advantage may be taken of the depth. A width of 100 feet, increased at the bends and at the head of the channel, as shown on the map, is recommended. The enlargement of the channel at its head is intended to serve in lieu of the turning basin contemplated in the report of the preliminary examination. At the time of that report the town authorities intended to shorten the town wharf. They were later forced to abandon the project, and the area available for the turning basin is consequently reduced. It is believed that the enlargement proposed with the berth dredged by the town in front of their wharf will afford sufficient room for maneuvering vessels. 8. The present project provides for the extension of the channel in the river to the straw works wharf, about 1,000 feet above the town wharf. As ledge rock was encountered in this section, the excavation of this portion of the channel has been regarded as unduly costly, and has not been executed. There is no present or prospective commercial activity that gives promise of using a channel extending much beyond the town wharf, and the definite abandonment of this proposed extension of the channel is recommended. 9. I am of the opinion that Milford Harbor, Conn., is worthy of further improvement by the General Government and recommend that a project be adopted, in lieu of the existing project, which shall provide for a channel 10 feet deep and 100 feet wide to Merwins Wharf, thence 6 feet deep and 100 feet wide, increased in width at the bends and at the head, to a point 150 feet above the town wharf, with two anchorage basins, one about 2.3 acres in area and 10 feet deep on the east side of the head of the 10-foot channel, the other 4 acres in area and 6 feet deep on the west side of the entrance to the 6-foot channel. The depth designated for the entrance channel is considered suitable for the navigation, at mean low water, of vessels having a maximum draft of 8 feet: The depth designated in the upper channel is considered suitable for the navigation, at mean low water, of vessels having a maximum draft of 5 feet, and at mean high water for vessels, under control of a tug, having a maximum draft of 12 feet. 10. The estimated cost of the proposed work is as follows: Restoration of entrance channel, dredging, 8,657 cubic yards at 20 cents... $1,731.40 Enlargement of anchorage basin, dredging, 30,643 cubic yards at 20 cents.. 6, 128.60 Restoration and widening of river channel to a point 150 feet above the town wharf, dredging, 24,600 cubic yards at 20 cents... Administration, superintendence, and contingencies.. Total..... 4,920.00 1,920.00 Balance now available for the maintenance and improvement of the harbor under the present project....... 14, 700.00 8,040. 86 6, 659. 14 An estimate of $6,700 is therefore submitted for the completion of the project herein recommended. This estimate is based on the supposition that the entire amount will be appropriated in one sum, so that due economy may be secured by an uninterrupted prosecution of the work. 11. The cost of maintaining the project is estimated as $3,000 every four years. 12. As the proposed improvement is virtually a curtailment of the project now authorized by Congress, it is not recommended that local cooperation be required. First indorsement.] G. B. PILLSBURY, Major, Corps of Engineers. OFFICE OF DIVISION ENGINEER, NORTHEAST DIVISION, New York City, August 20, 1913. To the CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY: Forwarded, concurring in the views and recommendations of the district engineer officer. FREDERIC V. ABBOT, Colonel, Corps of Engineers. [For report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, see p. 2.] |