« AnteriorContinuar »
July 1, 1891, balance unexpended...
$58, 512.16 Juno 30, 1892, amount expended during fiscal year.
7, 752.35 July 1, 1892, balance unexpended...
50, 759.81 Amount appropriated by act approved July 13, 1892.
50,000.00 Amount available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1893...
100, 759.81 Amount (estimated) required for completion of existing project... Submitted in compliance with requirements of sections 2 of river and
284,000.00 harbor acts of 1866 and 1867. (See Appendix RR 5.)
EXAMINATION, BY BOARD OF ENGINEERS, FOR DEEP-WATER HARBOR
ON THE PACIFIC COAST BETWEEN POINTS DUME AND CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, MADE IN COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF RIVER AND HARBOR ACT APPROVED SEPTEMBER 19, 1890.
In compliance with the provisions of the act a Board of Engineers, consisting of Col. G. H. Mendell and Lieut. Cols. G. L. Gillespie and W. H. H. Benyaurd, Corps of Engineers, was constituted to examine the Pacific coast between Points Dume and Capistrano with a view to determining the best location for a deep-water harbor, and to report a project and estimate of cost for the same. The report of the Board was submitted under date of December 8, 1891, and was transmitted to Congress and printed as House Ex. Doc. No. 39, Fifty-second Congress, first session.
The Board, after full examination, concludes that the selection of a site for a deep-water harbor within the limits designated by the act is restricted to the harbors in Santa Monica Bay and San Pedro Bay, and is of the opinion that San Pedro is the better of these, and submits alternative estimates of the cost of the necessary breakwaters as follows: If constructed of rubble and concrete....
$4,594, 494 If constructed entirely of rubble...
4, 137, 591 After a careful consideration of the facts in the case as presented by the Board, its views as to the location and general estimates of construction are concurred in by me. The difference in cost of the two breakwaters, for the same arcs of protection, is over $700,000 in favor of San Pedro, and when the other advantages of San Pedro, as detailed by the Board, are taken into consideration, it would seem that its selection has been properly made.
(See Appendix RR 6.)
IMPROVEMENT OF SAN JOAQUIN, MOKELUMNE, SACRAMENTO, AND
FEATHER RIVERS, PETALUMA CREEK, AND HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, CALIFORNIA.
Officer in charge, Maj. W. H. Heuer, Corps of Engineers; Division Engineer, Col. G. H. Mendell, Corps of Engineers.
1. San Joaquin River, California.-At the time of the adoption of the project for this work, 1877, the low-water channel of the river to Stockton was only 6 feet deep, and the upper river was navigable for only six or seven months in the year for boats drawing 2 feet of water or less.
The original project contemplated a channel of 9 feet depth to Stockton, secured by dredging the shoal places and making cut-offs to straighten
the river between its mouth and that city, and removal of snags, scraping bars, and building small wing dams in the upper river to improve its depth and prolong the boating season. This is the project of to-day, with the addition of the closure of several crevasses and sloughs which take water from the river and impair the scouring effect of its flood stages.
At the close of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1891, there had been spent on this work $195,853.61, mostly in dredging in Stockton Slough and the river proper, the making of three cut-offs below Stockton, and doing a little work in the upper river as proposed. This work had made navigation to Stockton practicable during the entire year for boats drawing 9 feet of water, but has not lengthened the boating season above Stockton Slough for boats of 3 feet draft, for the reason that little or no work has been done above Stockton.
During the present fiscal year the work consisted of dredging in Stockton Slough and the river in its near vicinity, to maintain the channels already secured, in building a dam to partially close Lairds Slough, rebuilding the dam at Paradise Cut, and making a cut-off at Head Reach; this latter, on account of insufficient funds, was only made one-half the width and less depth than originally intended; it will be increased both as to width and depth when more money is available. The cost of the above was $62,031.60.
The results have been the maintaining of the 9-foot channel to Stockton, work on which is needed annually, as the channels are not selfmaintaining. Lairds Slough, near the village of Grayson, is a crevasse through which about 75 per cent of the water in the river flowed, and consequently lessened to that extent the flow below, thereby decreasing the depth. It was closed by a dam 310 feet long, 16 feet (average) high, 10 feet wide at crest, and 60 feet wide at base. Its effect was to confine the water to the main stream and increase the depth to Grayson.
At Paradise Cut a crevasse has existed for many years, and, with similar results as at Lairds Slough, has decreased the depths below. During this year it was partially closed by a dam, measuring at its crest 220 feet long, built up to 8 feet above low water-built to replace one carried away during 1889. The result as to keeping the river within its banks has been all that was hoped for.
The cut-off at Head Reach, 9 feet deep by 150 feet wide at the surface, was made to remove a much complained of impediment, as the Stockton boats always encountered in this bend a head wind, and the cut also lessened the distance considerably. The funds available suf: ficed only to excavate the channel to half the desired width, but the effect of the new channel is a marked improvement in the time made by the boats engaged in navigation on the river. The cost of this cutoff was $27,239.41.
The following is a list, in the order of importance, of the works needed for improvement of this river, together with the estimated cost of the several items: Dredging to maintain 9 feet depth to Stockton.
$25,000 Raising dam at Paradise Cut...
2,000 Making cut-off at Twenty-one Mile Slough
65,000 Making double cut-off below mouth of Stockton Slough.
20, 000 Increasing width and depth of cut at Head Reach
37, 750 Survey of upper river to Firebaugh's Ferry.
5, 000 Snagging and building wing dams
July 1, 1891, balance unexpended.
$63, 002. 53 June 30, 1892, amount expended during fiscal year.
62, 033. 08 July 1, 1892, balance unexpended
969. 45 Amount appropriated by act approved July 13, 1892
65,000.00 Amount ava able for fiscal year ending June 30, 1893....
55, 969. 45 (See Appendix S S 1.)
2. Mokelumme River, California.—Before improvement the navigation of the river was difficult and dangerous on account of numerous snags and overhanging trees, and in 1884 a project for its improvement was made, the object being the removal of the obstructing snags and trees. Both forks of the river were cleaned out in 1884, 1885, 1886, 1887, and 1888, rendering navigation to Benson Ferry, the head of navigation, easy and safe. This completed the project as adopted, the cost being $12,457.62. No work was done during the last fiscal year.
For further improvement of this river it will be necessary to again remove the snags and overhanging trees, to close a private ditch emptying into the river near New Hope, and to remove a shoal formed there; also, to remove a point of land near New Hope, to facilitate landing there, and straighten the entrance into the north fork from the main river. The estimated cost of these works is $9,100, which amount could be advantageously expended in one fiscal year.
The commerce on this river is carried by one steamer of 395 tons, making three round trips a week. Rates of transportation are $1 less per ton than by railway; the improvement has, therefore, been a benefit to shippers at least to that extent. July 1, 1891, balance unexpended....
$542. 38 July 1, 1892, balance unexpended...
542.38 Amount appropriated by act approved July 13, 1892
2,500.00 Amount available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1893
3, 042. 38 Amount (estimated) required for completion of existing project
6,600.00 Submitted in compliance with requirements of sections 2 of river and
harbor acts of 1866 and 1867. (See Appendix S S 2.)
3. Sacramento and Feather rivers, California.—Before improvement navigation in these rivers was dangerous and difficult on account of numerous snags, shallow bars, and rapids. In 1874 a project was adopted having for its object the temporary improvement of the lowwater channels by removal of snags, building of wing dams to concentrate the current, and the scraping of bars. Work under this project has been carried on every season, and, together with the closure of several breaks in the banks of both rivers which threatened to divert the streams from their channels, cost, up to June 30, 1891, $168,834.55. The results of the work were to secure and maintain on the Sacramento a good low-water channel from McIntosh Landing down to Butte City for boats drawing 24 feet, from that point to Sacramento 4 feet of water, and below Sacramento a low-water channel with a least depth of 5 feet has been secured. On the Feather is Marysville, the head of navigation, and from that point down there is now a channel for barges draw. ing 2 feet of water. As work is required annually to maintain these conditions the operations during the fiscal year were directed to that end; from July 1 to September 11, 1891, the snag boat worked in the upper Sacramento River, where she removed 974 snags and built 5 wing dams, aggregating 536 feet in length. As the water was then at its
low stage it was impossible to take the snag boat into the Feather River; the channel there, however, has been maintained.
In June, 1892, the snag boat was again put in commission and at the end of thé fiscal year was at work in the upper Sacramento. There was spent during the year $12,846.44.
These improvements have been of great benefit to a large and constantly increasing commerce, especially on the Sacramento River, which is the natural outlet for the products of the great Sacramento Valley. It has resulted in greatly reducing the freight charges and insurance rates.
The report of the Board of Engineers appointed to examine these rivers is printed in House Ex. Doc. No. 246, Fifty-first Congress, second session, and in Annual Report, Chief of Engineers, 1891, page 2990. July 1, 1891, balance unexpended
$26, 165. 45 June 30, 1892, amount expended during fiscal year..
12, 846. 44 July 1, 1892, balance unexpended
13, 319.01 July 1, 1892, outstanding liabilities
350.00 July 1, 1892, balance available ....
12, 969. 01 Amount appropriated by act approved July 13, 1892
150,000.00 Amount available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1893..
162, 969.01 (See Appendix S S 3.)
4. Petaluma Creek, California.—Before improvement this channel was very crooked and in places bare at low water. The project adopted in 1880 contemplated securing a channel 50 feet wide and 3 feet deep at low water, by dredging. Up to June 30, 1891, $30,046,59 had been expended on dredging in 1880, 1881, 1882, 1883, and 1884, when a channel as projected was secured and several cut-offs made. This channel refilled and was again redredged in 1888. Having again refilled from drainage, in 1891 a contract was made for dredging, under which work was commenced in August and completed in December. The result was a completed channel 6,800 feet long, 40 to 50 feet wide; of this 4,200 feet was excavated to a depth of 3 feet below the lowest low water, while the balance, 2,600 feet, was dug to 28 to 30 inches below the same plane. The funds available were insufficient to complete the entire length to the greatest depth. In doing the work 37,025 cubic yards of material was removed from the channel at a cost of $5,846.36.
This channel extends from the railroad bridge to the town of Petaluma, and since its completion there has been no detention of boats on account of lack of water.
Experience has shown that this channel is not self-maintaining and will require occasional redredging. July 1, 1891, balance unexpended....
$5,953.41 June 30, 1892, amount expended during fiscal year
5, 846.36 July 1, 1892, balance unexpended....
107.05 Amount appropriated by act approved July 13, 1892
10,000.00 Amount available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1893.
10, 107.05 (See Appendix S S 4.)
5. Humboldt Harbor and Bay, California. Prior to commencement of work the channels in Humboldt Bay were shallow and vessels had much difficulty in getting to the wharves in Eureka, Arcata, and Hookton. There was also a bar in front of the entrance over which the channel
constantly shifted in position and varied as to depth, making the approach to the harbor both difficult and dangerous.
To remedy these conditions a project was adopted in 1881, to secure by dredging, a channel 13 feet deep and 200 feet wide to the head of Eureka wharves, and one of 10 feet deep and 100 feet wide to Arcata and Hookton. In 1882 a project was approved for a submerged jetty starting from the south spit and extending seaward 6,000 feet, for the purpose of concentrating the tidal flow and thereby keeping the bar channel in position. This project was inodified in 1891 to the construction of two jetties starting from the north and south spits, extending out to the 18-foot curve and raised to high-water level at an estimated cost of $1,957,615, in addition to $100,000 for beach revetment.
There was expended up to June 30, 1891, on dredging, $96,061.55, and on training wall, mostly on the south spit, $141,913. The dredging was finished in 1884, when the channels above mentioned were obtained and that part of the project completed. These channels have since slightly refilled, but not enough to form a serious impediment to navigation. Work on the south jetty was commenced in 1889 under a contract entered into the previous year, and was continued under a second contract made with Simpson and Brown in February, 1891. Up to June 30, 1891, the south jetty had been built out to about 3,000 feet from shore and partly raised to high-water level. On the north spit preparations were completed for the construction of a jetty and shore-protection work, which it was found necessary to commence without delay owing to the erosion taking place and consequent widening of the entrance from 4,200 to 5,600 feet, entailing loss of velocity in the tidal flow and the formation of a shoal just within the entrance.
From July 1, 1891, work was continued on both the north and south spits until October 31, 1891, when the existing contract was completed. On the north spit 300 linear feet of shore protection was built near the root of the jetty, and the jetty itself built out 1480.5 feet in a southerly direction. At the south spit the jetty was extended some 600 feet, making in all 3,699.2 feet. Of this 3,200 feet was raised to high-water level, the remainder, on the outer end, sloping from that level to 7 feet below low water. The cost of the work on both spits for the year was $ 163,823,95.
As the south jetty has only been extended to about one-half the length designed and the north only just commenced, it is hardly to be expected that very material benefits to the channel over the bar would be produced, yet, as an indication in that direction, it has been noted that a reasonably fixed channel, varying from 18 to 20 feet deep, has been maintained during the past year, a condition hitherto unknown.
The total amount expended during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1892, was $156,412.68. July 1, 1891, balance unexpended
$184, 525. 45 June 30, 1892, amount expended during fiscal year.
156, 412. 68 July 1, 1892, balance unexpended
28, 112. 77 Amount appropriated by act approved July 13, 1892
Amount available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1893
178, 112. 77
1, 565, 115.00
Amount (estimated) required for completion of existing project.
harbor acts of 1866 and 1867. (See Appendix S S 5.)