heavy when the winds are strong from the northeast. The object of the improvement is to form a harbor of refuge for small coasters and other vessels that get caught outside and are unable to get into the harbor of Portsmouth on account of the strong ebb tide which sets out to sea. It is said that a number of wrecks have occurred which need not have happened if such a harbor had been in existence. The following appropriations have been made: August 5, 1886 $10,000 20,000 10,000 The total expenditures up to June 30, 1891, were $33,442.44. The results accomplished up to that date were not great, being only the dredging of a part of the area intended for anchorage ground under the new project, and the partial construction of the breakwater on the south side of the entrance. The expenditures in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1892, have been $8,980.39. This has all been applied to the partial construction of the south breakwater. A contract was made with Thomas A. Rowe, of Newton, Mass., for the construction of the south breakwater and a beacon on the end of it. Under the terms of the contract he was authorized to use a lot of blasted ledge which lay on the shore in front of Fort McClary. After this material had been exhausted, which was the case after he had taken 13,502 tons of it, the contractor declined to go on with his contract, claiming that he had been given to understand that all the stone could be obtained from Fort McClary. Under the circumstances it became necessary to annul the contract, which was done in accordance with its terms, in May, 1892. The work was readvertised under date of May 19, 1892, and in response thereto three bids were received, that of George Willett Andrews, of Biddeford, Me., at $1.11 per ton, being the lowest. The contract was awarded to him. There is no commerce, properly considered as such, in Little Harbor. The work is intended as a harbor of refuge, and will doubtless be used only in case of necessity by small coasters who can not reach Portsmouth Harbor in northeasterly storms. Amount (estimated) required for completion of existing project.. 887.17 30,000.00 30, 887. 17 135,000.00 50,000.00 Abstract of proposals for construction of breakwater at Little Harbor, New Hampshire, June 18, 1892. REMOVING SUNKEN VESSELS OR CRAFT OBSTRUCTING OR ENDANGERING NAVIGATION. During March, 1892, the lime-laden schooner Isabel Alberto was sunk in the southern part of Rockland Harbor, Maine, constituting an obstruction to navigation. An allotment of funds, under the act of June 14, 1880, has been made, and proposals have been invited for the removal of the wreck. During December, 1891, the schooner Huntress was sunk off Browneys Island, to the southwestward of Moosabec Reach, Maine. The wreck endangers navigation, and steps have been taken looking to its early removal. A 25. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION AND SURVEY OF PENOBSCOT RIVER, MAINE. Washington, D. C., December 9, 1891. SIR: I have the honor to submit herewith copy of reports dated March 21 and November 28, 1891, respectively, upon preliminary examination and survey, with three maps,* of Penobscot River, Maine, made by Lieut. Col. Jared A. Smith, Corps of Engineers, in compliance with provisions of river and harbor act approved September 19, 1890. The works of improvement on Penobscot River proposed in the proj ect submitted are, with estimates of cost, as follows: 1. Improvements near Bangor, Me: Widening channel 60 feet on Brewer side and deepening $15,280 Removing top of small ledge in front of harbor line off 200 Contingencies and engineering expenses 1,520 2. Construction of two jetties near Crosby Narrows $17,000 20,000 3. Construction of three jetties at High Head and Frankfort Flats, between Winterport and Bucksport, Me..... 165,000 Total..... 202,000 *Not reprinted; printed in House Ex. Doc. No. 37, Fifty-second Congress, first session. In case that an appropriation is made for the improvement of Penobscot River the question of construction of jetties or deepening the navigable channel by dredging should have further consideration. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. L. A. GRANT, THOS. LINCOLN CASEY, Brig. Gen., Chief of Engineers. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF PENOBSCOT RIVER, MAINE. UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, GENERAL: In compliance with requirements of section 17 of river and harbor act approved September 19, 1890, communicated in Department letter of September 20, 1890, I have the honor to submit the following report of an examination of the Penobscot River, Maine: During the past five years I have visited various points on the Penobscot River, with special reference to ascertaining its commercial interests and necessities, and on the 6th and 7th of November, 1890, I visited Bangor and Bucksport to obtain further information for this report. As nearly as can be ascertained by the means at my disposal, the annual freight tonnage on the Penobscot River is largely in excess of 2,000,000 tons. This is a greater tonnage than is found on any river of our Pacific coast. Only six rivers on our Atlantic and Gulf coast have a larger tonnage, and five of those include parts or all of the harbors of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, and New Orleans. The city of Bangor, which is near the head of tide water on the Penobscot River, is at the head of navigation for steamboats and sail vessels, though the river is, in fact, legally a navigable stream, and is used as a water highway for rafting logs from points much farther in the interior of the State. The commercial statistics of the river cover only the freights from and below Bangor to the head of Penobscot Bay at Fort Point, a distance of 27 miles by the channel, though the entire distance over river and bay to the coast headlands is about 60 miles. The Penobscot River thus forms a most important communication with the interior of the State. At Bangor it intersects the Maine Central Railroad, which crosses the State to the Province of New Brunswick. From these facts it is my opinion that the river is amply worthy of improvement. The improvements required do not seem extensive or disproportionate when the importance of the navigation is considered. Various surveys of portions of the river have been made with a view to ascertain the nature and extent of obstructions which should be removed. By act of March 2, 1829, an appropriation of $300 was made for a survey of the channel from Whitehead to Bangor, but no improvements were undertaken until subsequent to the act of July 11, 1870, by which the sum of $15,000 was appropriated for the improvement of the Penobscot River at Bangor and below. Thirteen appropriations of an aggregate amount of $308,000 have been made for the improvement of this river. The principal results have been the enlargement and straightening of the channel at and near Bangor, so as to give a width of not less than 300 feet, having a depth of 11 feet at extreme low water or about 14 feet at ordinary low tides. Also the removal of the middle ground in Bucksport Harbor, the widening of the channel near Crosbys Narrows, and deepening and straightening the channel at Frankfort Flats below Winterport. These improvements involved the removal of several extensive ledges of solid rock, the breaking up and removal of many large bowlders, and a large amount of dredging. The works near Crosbys Narrows, and between Bucksport and Winterport, are, however, incomplete; it also appears that some bowlders and logs still remain, or have recently been dropped or torn from the bottom by heavy anchors in the harbor of Bangor, causing obstructions which should be removed. The projects hitherto submitted for improving the river near Crosbys Narrows, and between Bucksport and Winterport, for which estimates were submitted in my last annual report, are thought to be sufficient for all present necessities at those places. (Report Chief of Engineers, 1890, page 434.) The experiences between Bucksport and Winterport indicate that the only method by which a good channel can be maintained in that part of the river is by contraction works, essentially as recommended in my report of January 11, 1888, and December 11, 1888. (See Report of Chief of Engineers, 1889, page 516, and map opposite.) In order to ascertain the exact extent and probable cost of clearing obstructions from the river channel at Bangor, a survey will be required for which the estimated expense is $300. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, JARED A. SMITH, Lieut. Col., Corps of Engineers. SURVEY OF PENOBSCOT RIVER, MAINE. UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, Portland, Me., November 28, 1891. GENERAL: In compliance with instructions in Department letters, dated September 20, 1890, and March 24, 1891, I have the honor to submit the following report upon a survey of the Penobscot River, Maine, including a project and estimate of the cost of improvements considered proper to be made. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the object of the requirement for an examination or survey of the Penobscot River, was to obtain information regarding the necessity for further improvement of the river near Bangor, and at, or near Stern's Mill, about 3 miles below. The maps were already sufficient, save to note whether any changes had occurred in the channel at Bangor, and the survey was therefore limited to that part. Climatic conditions, such as ice of winter, freshets in the spring, lumber and numerous vessels in the way in the earlier part of the season, and the necessity for making the survey with great economy upon the limited allotment, compelled me to defer the survey until the most favorable conditions could be obtained, which was early in October, 1891. Mr. A. C. Both, assistant engineer in this office, was detailed to make a survey and maps of the part of the river which extends along the front of the wharves and forms the harbor of Bangor and Brewer. Attention is invited to the copy of Mr. Both's report, which is appended. The improvements recommended by Mr. Both are, that the channel be widened 60 feet by dredging on the Brewer side; that two small areas be deepened near the ferry landings, and that the top of a small ledge, now in front of harbor line off Bacon's Wharf, be removed. The improvements recommended by Mr. Both have been well considered and are approved. A very interesting point, developed by Mr. Both's survey, is the change in channel produced by the upper wharves at High Head. The new wharves form contraction works and the change in the channel is entirely produced by the consequent scour. This point is clearly shown upon sheet No. 1 of maps accompanying this report. The material which was formerly dredged from the harbor of Bangor, to afford a channel width of 300 feet, having a depth of 11 feet at extreme low water, was deposited near the shore at a short distance above Crosbys Narrows. The material consisted largely of coarse gravel and stones, mixed with a hard marl or mud, the whole forming a mass which would not sensibly scour away by the current. The deposit, therefore, contracted the wet section of the river at that place. The result has been somewhat unexpected. The shoaling above Crosbys Narrows was caused entirely by deposits of mill waste, principally edgings, small sticks, and some slabs. While it was apparent that a quickened current would prevent further shoaling, it was not at all clear that it would perceptibly improve the channel by removing a tangled mass of mill waste. For explanation of this part of my report I refer to map on sheet No. 2. The deposits of dredged material, as above stated, extended along the shore a distance of about 2,000 feet, making a considerable contraction of the cross section of the river. The river has, however, readjusted its conditions by widening the channel, which has a depth exceeding 12 feet at extreme low water. The widening is, in places, more than 200 feet-more than doubling the capacity of the original channel. The effect extends over a distance of about 3,000 feet, and an average width of perhaps 150 feet. Over much of the area thus scoured away the deepening has been as great as 10 feet. Immediately below the part which has been widened by scouring is an extension of the same shoal, the removal of which, by dredging, has been a part of the project for improvement adopted in 1884. The area has been dredged as shown upon the map, sheet No. 2, but it is found to refill, and a portion of it has recently been redredged. The experience related indicates that the only method of obtaining a permanent improvement in the channel width at this place is by contraction works. Material dredged is, of course, unsuitable to make the contraction, and for this reason I recommend the construction of two small jetties of rough stone, as shown in plan and section upon the map. The estimated cost of the jetties will be included with other estimates at the end of this report. |