In the foregoing estimates the depth of dredging has been assumed as 1 foot greater than the depth of the channel to be made available, and 25 per cent. has been added to place measurement to reduce the quantities to scow measurement. In the calculation of quantities the side slopes were assumed at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. All depths on the accompanying map are reduced to the stage of water in Salmon River corresponding to the stage of the Saint Lawrence with the gauge at Ogdensburg reading zero. This reduction to low water agreed closely with information obtained at Fort Covington as to the low-water stage of the river. The low-water stage of the Salmon River, herein referred to, is a plane 4.7 feet below the top of timber on DE. Denneen's dock, near its northeastern corner. The material removed from the river-bed in the formation of the channels should be placed in dump scows and towed to deep water in the Saint Lawrence. To cast the material over on each side of the channel would quickly result in the soft material sliding back into the channel and obliterating the improvement made. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Lieut. Col. HENRY M. ROBERT, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A. NN 16. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF MOUTH OF SALMON RIVER, ON LAKE ONTARIO, NEW YORK, WITH A VIEW TO MAKING A HARBOR OF REFUGE, ETC. UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, Philadelphia, Pa., February 7, 1885. SIR: In compliance with your instructions, dated July 31, 1884, I have the honor to submit the following report of the result of an examination made by me on the 15th of September, 1884, of the "mouth of Salmon River, and the inner natural harbor thereat, on Lake Ontario, New York, with a view of making a harbor of refuge for vessels in distress and for purposes of commerce and navigation, New York." Salmon River enters Lake Ontario about 20 miles east of Oswego, and Port Ontario is about 1 mile up the river. Lieut. R. C. Smead, U. S. Army, September 20, 1836, made a report upon this subject, which is quite liberally quoted from by Colonel Blunt (pp. 290 and 292, Report of the Chief of Engineers, 1868). November 30, 1867, Col. C. E. Blunt reports fully upon the whole subject (pp. 289–293, Report Chief of Engineers, 1868). January 7, 1871, Lieut. B. D. Greene submitted a report and a map of his survey of the mouth of Salmon River (pp. 252 and 253, Report of the Chief of Engineers, 1871); and Maj. John M. Wilson, in his annual report for 1871, expresses his views of the case (p. 251, Report of the Chief of Engineers, 1871). These reports exhaust the subject, and show that this locality has been already surveyed by the Government with a view to improvement. The last survey was made in 1870, by Lieut. B. D. Greene, Corps of Engineers, from whose report I extract the following: The village of Port Ontario, from which the port of entry derives its name, is situated upon the west bank of Salmon River, about 1 mile from its mouth. It consists of one storehouse, one store, one tavern, and six houses. Its only business is the receipt of a small quantity of lumber (ties and posts). The river below Port Ontario, excepting immediately at its mouth, is of sufficient depth, with a small amount of dredging, to admit vessels of any class. The village named Selkirk, at the mouth of the river, and upon its east bank, consists of a tavern and three houses, including the old light-house. This village has no business whatever, in fact, beyond the result of the natural process of decay. I think no change can be reported in either village since Colonel Blunt's report of 1867, or even Lieutenant Smead's, of 1836. Salmon River is of considerable magnitude for many miles above its mouth, and flows through a heavily-timbered section of country. Most of its timber, however, is shipped by the railroad, which crosses it near Pulaski, 5 miles from its mouth. * It scarcely seems reasonable that there is any urgent necessity for a harbor of refuge here, although two vessels were lost here last fall. A light kept here to warn vessels away would certainly be of advantage. Mexico Bay, as the angle at the eastern end of Lake Ontario is called, is a dangerous place for vessels in a storm. A light which would lead them to avoid it would save many; while, on the other hand, a harbor would save many of those which might unavoidably be driven into the bay. Lieut. Col. John M. Wilson, in his annual report of 1871, in referring to this improvement, says: There seems to be no urgent necessity for a harbor of refuge at this place, Oswego and Sackett's Harbor being within reasonable distance. The statements made in these reports would hold good to day, except ing that there is not so much need of a harbor of refuge to-day as when these surveys and reports were made; and, on account of the increased draught of the vessels, a harbor of refuge to day would cost probably double what it would have cost in 1871, when the latest of these reports was made. Then Port Ontario, on the Salmon River, a mile from its mouth, was of enough importance to be a port of entry, which it ceased to be some eight years ago. The railroads have entirely destroyed the prospects of the mouth of Salmon River as a shipping port. At pres ent there is practically no commerce, a few fishing boats appearing to be the only vessels frequenting the harbor. Larger vessels could not enter the river at present; and I could not see or hear of any evidence that the improvement of the mouth of the river would make a port of any commercial importance. Oswego Harbor, within 20 miles, on the one hand, and Sackett's Harbor, within 25 miles, on the other, seem to render unnecessary a harbor of refuge at this point, though of course every additional harbor is a convenience. The cost of making the harbor serviceable has an important bearing on the question as to whether it is worthy of improvement. If a serv iceable harbor of refuge could be made at this locality for $20,000, I think the improvement should be made, but if it were to cost $200,000 I would think the improvement unworthy of being made. The Welland Canal is being deepened so as to pass vessels drawing 14 feet, and a harbor of refuge on Lake Ontario would now have to be planned on that basis instead of for 10 feet draught, as in the previous estimates for this harbor. This would require 4 feet greater depth of dredging, and would require the piers to extend out into water 4 feet -deeper. A rough estimate, made on the spot, with the help of the map of the survey of 1870, convinced me that a harbor of refuge adapted to the requirements of modern vessels, as they will be when the enlargement of the Welland Canal is completed, could not be constructed at the mouth of the Salmon River for anything less than $300,000, and it might cost much more. I cannot learn of anything to justify such an expenditure. For the reasons given, it is my opinion that the "mouth of Salmon River, and the inner natural harbor thereat, on Lake Ontario" is not worthy of improvement. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, The CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U S. A. HENRY M. ROBERT, APPENDIX O O. IMPROVEMENT OF OGDENSBURG HARBOR ON THE RIVER SAINT LAWRENCE; OF HARBORS ON LAKE CHAMPLAIN, AND OF GRASS AND TICONDEROGA RIVERS, NEW YORK, AND OF OTTER CREEK, VERMONT REPORT OF MAJOR MILTON B. ADAMS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OFFICER IN CHARGE, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1985, WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE WORKS. UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, GENERAL: I have the honor to transmit herewith annual reports of river and harbor works in my charge for part of the fiscal year ending. June 30, 1885. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, The CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. A. M. B. ADAMS, O O 1. IMPROVEMENT OF OGDENSBURG HARBOR, NEW YORK. A project was formed for this improvement by a Board of Engineer Officers in 1868, which provided for dredging the channel of the Oswe-gatchie River below the bridge, deepening the channels along the city front on the Saint Lawrence River and across the bar northeast of the light-house, and the construction of pile piers to prevent the water of the Oswegatchie spreading over the bar, or shoal, between these chan nels. The pile-work was only recommended in the event of the water of the Oswegatchie not following the lines of the deepened channels after the dredging had been completed. Operations were carried on successfully, and the dredging, as provided for in the project, was completed in 1876. The piling was found unnecessary; consequently operations had been confined to dredging in the channels, which were left in good condition. There was a suspension of operations for a few years after the completion of the project of 1868. A resurvey of the harbor was ordered in 1879, which being made in 1880, showed that there had been considerable shoaling of the channels during these four years of inactivity, and, furthermore, that the obstructions found in the channels were mainly due to sawdust and other waste products of saw-mills, which had been thrown into the Oswegatchie River in violation of local regu lations forbidding it. The same nuisance existed during a part of the time when the channels were being improved, and gave rise to a correspondence between the officer in charge of the work and the city officials as early as 1871, at which time an attempt was being made by the mill-owners to cause a repeal of an ordinance prohibiting them from depositing their mill refuse in the river. Instead of the repeal being effected, the correspondence caused the city officials to bring suit against the offenders, and in a general term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York judgment was obtained against them to the amount of $500. Small as this judgment was in comparison with the damage to the channels, I am informed it was never enforced; consequently the injury continues in defiance of law. The amount of the damage or shoaling, as shown by the survey of 1880, was 40,000 cubic yards, which it was estimated would cost $12,000 to remove, so as to place the channel in good condition again. The estimated cost of the original project was $175,000, and there had been expended up to 1880, exclusive of $3,000 for a survey in 1852, $107,000, leaving $68,000 still due the general improvement, owing to the piling estimated for in the project not being required. In 1882 it was recommended that the harbor be prepared for the admission of the largest vessels which will be able to pass the Welland Canal when completed, at an estimated cost of $76,000, as follows: Outer bar, 1,500 feet by 400 feet by 3.1 feet, about 80,000 yards, at 30 cents per yard Inside and below bridge: $24,000 Channel along city front, 7,200 feet by 150 feet by 4 feet, 160,000 yards, at 20 cents per yard... Near Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Railroad Wharves, 1,150 feet by 16,000 4,000 32,000 This estimate was intended to provide for a depth of 15 feet in the channels and 16 feet over the outer bar. By an act approved August 2, 1882, $10,000 were appropriated for this work, and operations were resumed that year, being directed towards the completion of the above modified project. The first contract indicated, however, that the prices to be paid for the dredging should be increased above those given in the estimate, since the lowest price bid for the work as comprehended in that contract, and being along the city-front channel, was 22 cents per cubic yard. Furthermore, a survey made in August, 1884, with borings, showed that hard clay and bowlders are to be encountered at depths of 14 to 24 feet in the Oswegatchie Channel, and at 12 to 17 feet depths in the city-front channel; consequently the contract made for this work, dated August 26, 1884, provides that nardpan, indurated or bowlder clay, or bowlders larger than 10 cubic feet, shall be paid for at the rate of 493 cents per cubic yard, and ordinary material at the rate of 193 cents per cubic yard. It would seem, therefore, that the estimate under the modified project should be increased in the last item-that for the channel along the city front-to 40 cents per yard, and the entire estimate to $108,000, instead of $76,000. I can see no good reason why this item for the city-front channel should not be omitted from the estimate, since private and incorporate enterprise should, it seems to me, extend the channels along the city front, as the necessities of their business may require, after the Government secures two good channels, upper and lower, from deep water in the Saint Lawrence to the docks or wharves nearest to these respective entrances. Under this view of the case the entire estimated cost would be reduced to $44,000, and 10 per centum for contingencies, or $48,400. Operations thus far completed under the modified project were carried on under contracts dated December 13, 1883, and August 26, 1884. Under the first, the lower channel was completed so as to afford 15 feet of water from the Saint Lawrence River to the vicinity of the Central Vermont Railroad Wharves, being nearest that entrance, and under the second contract a good channel affording depths of 15 to 16 feet has been secured from the Saint Lawrence River to the vicinity of the Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Railroad Wharves and the ferry landing, they being the nearest to the upper entrance. There were 35,345 cubic yards removed under the first contract, at a cost, including contingencies, of $9,510.72; and under the second, 48,194 cubic yards were removed, at a cost of $11,113.81, inclusive of contingencies. Under the existing project, which contemplates the removal of about 300,000 cubic yards, there remain some 215,461 cubic yards yet to be removed, mostly in the city front channel. There are $35,000 asked for this harbor, which could be advantageously expended during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1887, in dredging operations, in case the plan of improving the city-front channel is followed. Should the improvement of this channel be omitted from the scheme of improving the harbor, then $23,400 would be sufficient for the completion of the work. Money statement. July 1, 1884, amount available...... Amount appropriated by act approved July 5, 1884. July 1, 1885, amount expended during fiscal year, exclusive of outstanding liabilities July 1, 1884. July 1, 1885, outstanding liabilities. July 1, 1885, amount available. $489 28 15,000 00 15,489 28 $9,432 94 11, 113 81 4,375 47 83,000 00 35,000 00 (Amount (estimated) required for completion of existing project.. Amount that can be profitably expended in fiscal year ending June 30, 1887 Submitted in compliance with requirements of section 2 of river and harbor acts of 1866 and 1837. |