LL 17. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF PINE RIVER, SAINT CLAIR COUNTY, MICHIGAN. UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, Detroit, Mich., November 13, 1884. SIR: I have the honor to submit the following reports upon the results of a preliminary examination of Pine River, Saint Clair County, Michigan, provided for in the river and harbor act of July 5, 1884, and to express an opinion as therein required. Pine River is a small stream lying throughout its whole course within the limits of Saint Clair County. Its length, in a straight line from its source to its mouth, at the town of Saint Clair, is about 25 miles, but, owing to its tortuous course, its real length is considerably more, and in its lower portion it has a greater depth of water than is usual in streams of its class. In June, 1873, a good survey was made of it from its mouth to its point, about 5 miles up-stream. The map of this survey is now in this office, and is amply sufficient for the purpose of making plans and estimates for any improvement yet proposed. In 1875-76 Pine River was improved, by dredging, from its junction with the Saint Clair to a point about 4,000 feet up-stream. The channel then made was 100 feet wide and 12 feet deep, and, owing to the staple character of the material, remains as good now as when made. It has been and continues to be of great service to local interests. Upon inquiry of persons interested in the locality, at whose instance the provision for an examination and survey was inserted in the act, it was ascertained that the object was to procure the further improvement of the river for a distance of about 2,500 feet, in order to obtain a depth of 12 feet in the channel to the possible site of three salt manufactories, and also to a brick-yard in which two millions of brick were manufactured during the season. I could learn of no other interests to be subserved, and the question at once arises whether these are sufficient to warrant me in expressing an opinion that the river is worthy of improvement by the General Government. The way to determine this is to compare the probable cost of such improvement with the interests to be benefited. The accompanying report, by Assistant Engineer O. B. Wheeler, shows that to extend the improvement as described would require the removal of about 28,000 cubic yards of material, and my estimate of the cost of doing it is as follows, viz: Dredging 28,000 cubic yards, at 25 cents per cubic yard. $7,000 700 to. Total..... 7,700 The immediate benefit arising from the expenditure of this sum would be to save the cost of lightering the product of the brick-yard referred This does not seem to me to be a sufficient object to justify me in expressing the opinion that the river is worthy of improvement by the General Government. Mr. Wheeler, from the same data, has reached a different conclusion. I may remark that his opinions are entitled to great weight, and I regret that I feel compelled to differ from him. Should the manufacturing interests above the present improved chan nel increase to a sufficient extent in the future to justify it, I will gladly modify my opinion. For the reason given above (sufficient data already at hand), I do not recommend any further survey or examination, and therefore do not submit any estimate of the cost. Respectfully submitted. GENERAL: I have the honor to report the following results of a preliminary examination to determine whether, in my opinion, the necessities of commerce require the improvement, by the General Government, of Pine River, Saint Clair County, Michigan. In June, 1873, a complete survey of this river from and including the bar at its mouth to Cox's Bridge, a distance of 53 miles by river channel, was made under the direction of General Weitzel, Corps of Engineers. The chart from this survey is reliable for the present time, for the changes have been very slight since that date. On the 6th instant, according to your instructions, I made a hasty examination of the river from its mouth to the Town-line Bridge, a distance of 4 miles. The letter of Col. Henry Whiting to you, bearing date October 3, 1884, gives definitely the interests involved and the improvement desired. The bed of this sluggish stream is in blue clay, and the banks are capped with a stratum of good tile clay and sodded down to the water's edge. The surveyed channel of 5 miles lies wholly within 1.7 miles from the river's mouth, so the river is very tortuous, and deep holes at the bends, with shoaling bars below the bends, are found. The river carries, however, a channel in the upper parts of the surveyed portion, of 75 feet in width by 5 to 6 feet in depth over the shallowest places, and in that portion where improvement is desired the channel is about 100 feet by 8 to 9 feet in the shallowest place. In 1875-76 the bar, and the river to a distance of 4,000 feet, was dredged 100 feet wide to a depth of 12 feet, under an appropriation of $5,000. (See Reports of the Chief of Engineers, U. S. A., for 1875, Vol. II, Part 1, page 280, and for 1876, Vol. II, Part II, page 541.) The present contemplated improvement is to continue this width and depth of channel a distance of 2,500 feet to a point just above the first severe bend. The amount of earth and driftwood to be removed would be about 3 feet by 100 feet by 2,500 feet, or about 28,000 cubic yards. The work when done would be of a permanent character on account of the stability of the channel and river banks. Driftwood would occasionally find a lodgment and have to be removed. Vessels loaded to 12 feet of water have this season gone out safely from the brick-yard onehalf mile from the river's mouth. The harbor is used as an ice-harbor to some extent. I find, in my opinion, that the work is worthy of improvement by the General Government. No further survey would be necessary upon which to base specifications for the work. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Lieut. Col. O. M. POE, O. B. WHEELER, Corps of Engineers, U. 8. A. L L 18. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION WITH A VIEW TO MAKING A HARBOR OF REFUGE AT CROSS VILLAGE, MICHIGAN. UNITED STATES ENGINEER Office, Detroit, Mich., November 13, 1884. SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of a report by Assistant Engineer O. B. Wheeler, dated October 16, 1884, upon the results of a preliminary examination to determine whether the necessi ties of commerce require the construction of a "breakwater at or near Cross Village, in Michigan, * with a view to making a harbor of refuge at" that point, to such an extent as to render it worthy of improvement by the General Government. In transmitting Mr. Wheeler's report I have to say that it has been in my hands for some time, that I have carefully considered all the points covered by him, and that I have arrived at the same conclusions. To restate them would be merely to repeat his report, and this would seem unnecessary. It appearing that a work of such magnitude as this, would not at this time, nor in the near future, subserve any purpose at all commensurate with its cost, I have reluctantly to report that in my opinion it is not worthy of improvement by the General Government, and I therefore do not submit any estimate of the cost of further surveys. Indeed the data at hand will serve all purposes of preparing plans and estimate for the work, should they be called for. Respectfully submitted." O. M. POE, The CHIEF of ENGINEERS, U. S. A. Lieut. Col. of Engineers, Bvt. Brig. Gen., U. S. A. REPORT OF MR. O. B. WHEELER, ASSISTANT ENGINEER. UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, GENERAL: In accordance with your instructions, I have to report the following results of a preliminary examination to determine whether, in my opinion, the necessities of commerce require the construction of "a breakwater at or near Cross Village, in Michigan, with a view to making a harbor of refuge at" that point, to such an extent as to render it worthy of improvement by the General Government, and, if so, to submit estimates of the cost of making a further and more complete survey of the locality. It was considered that sufficient data were at hand for this examination without personally visiting the locality. There are available the published charts and tracings from the detail manuscript of the United States Lake Survey, and a tracing from a detail manuscript chart resulting from a survey at Cross Village, made under the direction of Captain Lockwood, Corps of Engineers, in September, 1883, when the making of a harbor only was contemplated. There is also the opportunity of consulting navigators who frequent the locality in regard to the desirability or use that would be made of such a harbor of refuge. The published charts show a channel between Beaver Island, on the west, and the mainland of Michigan, on the east, of 18 miles in the narrowest part, and of 26 miles in the widest part, mid-channel being from only 9 to 13 miles from either shore. The contemplated improvement would be about abreast the center of Beaver Island, on the opposite side of the channel. The sailing directions of the charts, founded on the requirements of navigation, show that the principal lines of navigation are entirely to the westward of Skillagallee light-house, which light-house is on an island 7 miles west-northwest from Cross Village. For a most exposed locality, say from 10 to 15 miles from the south end of Beaver Island, and in any direction from southeast to south from the south end of the island, the excellent harbors of Northport Bay and Little Traverse Bay are accessible at a shorter distance than would be a harbor at Cross Village, and for any point in the line of navigation east of Beaver Island, the land-locked Beaver Harbor, at the north end of Beaver Island, is a harbor of refuge at almost the same distance that a harbor at Cross Village would be. From the masters of sailing vessels and steamers, I learn that a harbor of refuge at Cross Village would seldom be resorted to by vessels on the principal lines of navigation. The masters of sailing vessels would prefer the lee of the islands or mainland for shelter, where there would be less hindrance in getting away again than in a close harbor of refuge. There is good anchorage ground on either coast, and the deep bay on the east side of Beaver Island is considered a safe harbor for all westerly winds. The masters of steamers would as soon resort to the at present sufficiently commodious Beaver Harbor or to the Northport Bay Harbor. It would seem, then, that a harbor of refuge at or near Cross Village would be of only local importance. There is but one local line of steamers and but one steamer, the City of Grand Rapids, on that line. There are also a few sailing vessels, of local importance only, carrying lumber, wood, fish, &c. About the lakes there are many more exposed stretches of coast, where the water traffic is greater and the desirability of a harbor of refuge more manifest. If a further survey is to be made, it should be, in my opinion, at a point 34 miles northeasterly from Cross Village, where a shoal extends a half mile from shore, with only 6 feet of water at 2,000 feet from shore; and in-a bay immediately to the eastward of this rocky, shoaly point, the 18-foot curve is within 1,000 feet from shore. At Cross Village the 18-foot curve is also about 1,000 feet from shore, but the protecting shoal to the westward has from 12 to 18 feet of water within the limits of from 1,000 to 3,000 feet from shore. When the requirements of commerce demand it, the capacity of Beaver Harbor can be greatly increased by cutting through the bar (or ledge) which separates the second, interior, harbor from the main harbor. * In conclusion, I find that, in my opinion, the work of constructing "a breakwater at or near Cross Village, in Michigan with a view of making a harbor of refuge at Cross Village," is not worthy of improvement by the General Government. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Lieut. Col. O. M. POE, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A. O. B. WHEELER, L L 19. REPORT RESPECTING USE OF OLD LOCKS AT THE SAINT MARY'S FALLS CANAL AS A DRY-DOCK. UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, Detroit, Mich., November 13, 1884. SIR: The river and harbor act of July 5, 1884, contains the following provision, viz: The State of Michigan having tendered to the United States the balance of tolls received by the State before the surrender of the Saint Mary's Falls Ship-Canal to aid in constructing a dry-dock at the canal, such balance being about $60,000, the Secretary of War has directed to cause plans, estimates, and specifications for such dry-dock above the locks, and also to report whether the old locks can be used for a dry-dock, and the cost of fitting the same for the purpose. And, by letter from the office of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 31, 1884, I was instructed to submit, as soon as practicable, an estimate of the probable amount of funds required for such an examination as might be necessary to enable me to report whether the work is worthy of improvement by the General Government. With my annual report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1884, I had the honor to report upon this very question, and expressed the opinion that under the provisions of the transfer of the canal to the United States and its acceptance by them, the General Government was bound to establish a dry-dock at Saint Mary's Falls Canal, and also intimated, as strongly as I felt warranted under the circumstances, that the construction of a dry-dock at that place could not be otherwise than detrimental to the interests of the canal, as well as cause the Government to enter into competition in a business which fairly belongs to private enterprise. Considering the question at that time no longer open to discussion, I proceeded to give estimates for a dry-dock at three separate sites, viz: For a dry-dock north of the canal; for a dry-dock on the south side of the canal, near the new lock; for a dry-dock near the east end of the area transferred from the Fort Brady military reservation to the canal reservation. And because I was of opinion that under no circumstances should the old locks be permanently adapted to the purposes of a dry dock, I gave no estimate of the cost of doing so. I also stated my objections to locating a dry dock on either side of the canal in the vicinity of the locks. Since the preparation of that report, I have thought much upon the subject, and with the experience of this season all the objections stated in my annual report are greatly strengthened. The commerce through the canal has increased so rapidly within the last few years that before the 1st of July last it became evident that it is only a question of a very short time when the present facilities will be found insufficient for the wants of commerce. Consequently I prepared a report recommending the reconstruction of the old locks, and submitted an estimate of the cost of doing so. I stated that at the rate of increase which had prevailed for some years past the limit of the capacity of the locks would be reached in eight or nine years, and that the work of reconstruction could not be undertaken too soon, nor be prosecuted too vigorously, because with every possible effort the reconstructed lock would be required before it could be completed, even if the past rate of increase in the commerce were not exceeded. But with all my experience I was not prepared for such an increase in this rate as has actually occurred this season, and if it be maintained (and I see no reason why it should not be exceeded next season), the limit of time within which the full capacity of the lockage system will be reached must be reduced from eight or nine years to five or six. Such a statement is sufficiently startling; and when coupled with the remark that were all the funds covered by my estimate immediately available it would hardly be possible to complete the work of reconstruction and enlargement in time, the objection to any modification of the old locks to adapt them to dry-dock purposes becomes overwhelming. Nor can such a work be located above the locks without being either insufficient in itself or materially interfering with the use of the locks and canal. The location to which there are the fewest objections, is that entirely below the canal-that is, the last one of those designated above. But that site is not covered by the act of July 5, 1884, and I therefore limit myself simply to mentioning it. My conclusions in the matter referred to me is, that no dry-dock |