in position during the first days of the present fiscal year, and the contract closed July 5, 1888. Dike C 4, 1,260 feet long, had been built to the height of extreme low water, and 4 feet wide on top, except for a distance of 30 feet at its junction with Dike C, where it was only raised to 2 feet below mean low water to permit the passage of row-boats. It has cost thus far $2,585.15, as follows: The cost is therefore shown to be $2.05 per linear foot, or $1.96 deducting the cost of inspection, which is a favorable showing in comparison with the cost of Dikes C 1 and C 2, which was $4.75 per linear foot. In order to ascertain the effect of Dike C 4 upon the bottom of the river in immediate proximity thereto, a careful survey was made during April and May, 1889. The result of this examination, when compared with hydrographical features existing before the dike was built, show that it has exerted no material influence in modifying the channels, but as the past winter has been a very mild and open one the action of floating ice is still practically undetermined. The project of July 13, 1887, recommended among other modifications. the abandonment of the Southern Channel in the vicinity of Oceanic, and the adoption of the Northern Channel, which was to be connected with the main channel below Upper Rocky Point by an oblique transverse cut. On the arrival of the United States dredging plant in the river, May 15, 1889, work was begun as soon as practicable on this cross-over channel, and has been steadily in progress until the close of the fiscal year. The amount of material removed was 11,945 cubic yards. This dredged material was dumped in the abandoned southern channel, which is no longer used by the steamers and other shipping. The resulting channel has a width of 100 feet, and, although dredged to a depth of 7 feet, appears to be gradually filling with drifting sand. The construction of Dike M may ultimately prove a necessity, unless some better means can be devised to maintain the channel in this portion of the river, a problem by far the most difficult connected with the improvement. As the performance of the new dredging plant to the close of the fiscal year may prove of general interest, it is given below in tabular form: For description of dredge and other plant see report on the Raritan River. NOTES. 1. The dumping ground was about 1 mile from the dredge, the current attaining at some stages of the tide a velocity of between 3 and 4 knots per hour. 2. The following extract from one of the recent reports of Mr. E. L. Ingram, captain of the dredge and inspector, will serve to show that the dredging in the Shrewsbury River has been under quite unfavorable conditions aggravated in addition by the fact that, owing to the slight depth of material to be removed, the dipper can only be worked to about one-third of its capacity: SIR: * UNITED STATES DREDGE ALPHIA, I beg to call your attention to the following points which I have not yet brought into prominence: 1. The Alpha is a very large dredge, and is designed for deep digging. The depth we are making here is out of all proportion to the size of the machine. The spnds, for instance, are necessarily hoisted so high as to be extremely top-heavy, giving them great wrenching power, while at the same time they can not be dropped far enough to take much hold in the sand, thus occupying extra time and care to keep the dredge truly on line. An unfortunate wrench on the 13th tore two teeth from the after spud spur-wheel, causing eight hours' delay to put them in again. The dipper handle likewise acquires the same wrenching power from being drawn in so far, continually cutting of the bolts which hold the friction plates in place. On the 14th it became necessary to replace the bolts, causing a delay of two hours. I think I can prevent this trouble by bolting the timbers more thoroughly together in the neighborhood of the friction plates. Of course this would not be at all necessary where the work was proportioned to the machine. 2. In view of the above facts the machine requires great care in handling in order to avoid serious injury, and can not with safety be run at a high rate of speed. The machine is not doing the amount of work I would like to see her do, but if she is forced any more the delay by break-downs would more than balance any gain thereby. As one of the points which occupies time not usually needed in dredging, I may mention the hauling in of the dipper handle with the backing chain, which frequently has to be done two or three times over before it gets back to the unusual point desired. 3. The instructions were to dig not under 6 nor over 7 feet at mean low water, with as near an approach as possible to 7 feet. As far as possible this is done, but on lowwater work the dipper can not always be got in far enough for this, so that the amount dredged exceeds what would be expected from my calculation based on the chart. 4. The cuts already finished have commenced filling in with loose sand. Cut No. 1 was dredged 7 feet and over at mean low water, and now has a depth ranging only from 6 to 6 feet. The change in Cut 2 is not yet very decided. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Capt. Thos. L. CASEY. 3. The working day, as above considered, consists of 10 hours. 4. The interest on plant is computed at 4 per cent. E. L. INGRAM, The condition of the river as a whole is practically the same as last year. A depth of 5.9 feet exists on the bar at the mouth of the river at mean low water, and 5.5 feet can be carried to Red Bank, and 4.5 feet to Branchport. The expenditures during the fiscal year amount to $10,104,87, as follows: Construction of stone dikes (contract of June 7, 1888), Cost of pro rata share of 1 tug-boat Cost of operating U. S. dredging plant (wages and supplies) Cost of examination of river (1889).. Cost of draughting.. Cost of inspection.. Cost of administration. Total..... $2,915.95 2, 172.00 1,647.00 520.00 1,230.90 360.49 206.00 358.60 693.93 10, 104. 87 Whatever appropriation may be made by the next Congress will be expended in completing the dikes and dredging the shoals. The most economical results in the prosecution of the work can be obtained if the full amount required to complete the project be appropriated at once. In addition to the steamers which regularly use the river a large number of small sailing vessels are engaged in the shipment of coal, lumber, sand, fish, and oysters. Capt. Jas. S. Throckmorton of Red Bank, who has reported the commerce on the Shrewsbury River in past years, states that the aggregate for the year 1888 would amount to about the same as in 1887. A record of the craft passing the Highlands draw-bridge, recorded during July, August, and September 1888, is as follows: Probably 20,000 craft pass this draw annually. This river is in the collection district of Perth Amboy, which is the nearest port of entry; nearest light-house, Navesink Light; and the nearest fort, at Sandy Hook, N. J. Amount of revenue collected at the port of Perth Amboy during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889, $59,632.83. July 1, 1889, amount expended during fiscal year, exclusive of liabilities outstanding July 1, 1888 July 1, 1889, outstanding liabilities July 1, 1889, balance available...... $1,354, 12 10,000.00 11, 354. 12 $7,087.57 8,086.29 3,267.83 (Amount (estimated) required for completion of existing project.... Amount that can be profitably expended in fiscal year ending June 30, 1891 Submitted in compliance with requirements of sections 2 of river and harbor acts of 1866 and 1867. 40, 062.00 40, 062. 00 F 12. IMPROVEMENT OF KEYPORT HARBOR, NEW JERSEY. Keyport Harbor was originally accessible at low water only to vessels drawing less than 4 feet. Before its improvement was undertaken by the United States, a 6-foot channel had been dredged at private expense, which had shoaled in 1872 to 5 feet, and in 1882 to 5 feet, the range of the tide being 4.7 feet. A large commerce was carried on, however, valued at $2,932,000. The project for the improvement was adopted in 1873, aud provided for dredging a channel 4,700 feet long, 8 feet deep at mean low water, and 200 feet wide from the steam-boat dock to the 8-foot contour in Raritan Bay, at an estimated cost of $30,475. The amount expended under this project to June 30, 1888, was $30,042.89, with which a channel had been dredged from the 8-foot curve in Raritan Bay to Keyport Wharf, a distance of 5,000 feet, with a width of 200 feet for the first 4,200 feet, and 160 feet for the remainder. The commerce of the harbor had increased greatly, being estimated at $5,000,000, besides 150,000 passengers carried annually. There has been no appropriation for this work since 1882, and the expenditures for the last fiscal year amounted to $290.83 for office expenses. The dredged channel is stated to have shoaled in places to about 6 feet mean low water, but it is reported that the commerce as yet shows no falling off. If it is the intention of Congress to complete this improvement, the balance of the estimate, $10.000, can be expended profitably as regards the efficient prosecution of the work during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1891, and would be applied to dredging the channel to the dimensions required by the project, which would add materially to existing facilities. The estimated amount required for the completion of the improvement is $10,000. This work is in the collection district of Perth Amboy, N. J., which is the nearest port of entry. Nearest light-house, Great Beds Light, in Raritan Bay; nearest fort, fort at Sandy Hook, N. J. Amount of revenue collected at the port of Perth Amboy during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889, $59,632.83. July 1, 1889, amount expended during fiscal year, exclusive of liabilities outstanding July 1, 1888 July 1, 1889, outstanding liabilities... $285.83 355.43 July 1, 1889, balance available.............. 71.68 10,000.00 Amount (estimated) required for completion of existing project.. F 13. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF EAST ROCKAWAY CREEK, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK. ENGINEER OFFICE, U. S. ARMY, New York, N. Y., October 25, 1888. GENERAL: In compliance with Department letter of September 29, 1888, I have the honor to submit the following report on the preliminary examination of East Rockaway Creek, Long Island, N. Y. The act of August 11, 1888, provides for surveys of East Rockaway Creek, Long Island, and of East Rockaway Creek, and both items were referred to me for report by Department letter of August 28, 1883. As far as I am aware there is but one East Rockaway Creek in this neighborhood, and it is believed that the item is repeated in the bill unintentionally. East Rockaway Creek, Long Island, N. Y., is a small stream that flows into Hempstead Bay on the south side of Long Island. The villages of East Rockaway, Pearsalls, and Rockville Centre are situated on or near its banks, and contain a population of from 2,000 to 3,000 inhabitants. The only shipments from the locality are oysters and garden truck, both of which go mainly by rail to New York, and would, I think, be likely to continue to do so were the stream improved as desired. The receipts consist of the coal and building materials required for this small community, whose main industries are farming, fishing, and a small amount of summer resort business; they do not exceed 10,000 tons annually. East Rockaway Creek formerly discharged a considerable volume of fresh water, and was then navigable for schooners of 40 tons from the Bay to the village, about 3 miles. But the stream has been dammed a short distance above East Rockaway and the fresh water diverted as a water supply to Brooklyn, causing the creek to shoal so that its depth is now in places only 1 foot at low tide. The range of the tide is about 43 feet. The improvement desired consists in straightening the creek at the sharp bends and dredging a channel 60 feet wide and 4 feet deep at mean low water from Hempstead Bay to East Rockaway. As far as I am able to judge, in the absence of a detailed survey, such an improvement would probably cost about $25,000; on account of the light draught of the channel, the small amount of work to be done, and the difficulty of reaching the locality, dredging would be expensive. As the creek has shoaled once it would undoubtedly shoal again; and in the course of time would have to be dredged again. Finally, by comparing this creek with Sumpawams Inlet, Rahway River, and Woodbridge Creek, where improvements were first begun and then abandoned by Congress, I am forced to the conclusion that East Rockaway Creek is not now worthy of improvement, for the pos sibilities of the creek itself are less than those of the streams mentioned and the population and interests that would be benefited are also less. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, GEORGE MCC. DERBY, Captain of Engineers, in temporary charge. The CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. A. F 14. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF HACKENSACK RIVER, NEW JERSEY, FROM THE LOWER BRIDGE AT THE TOWN OF HACKENSACK TO THE ERIE RAILWAY BRIDGE. UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, New York, October 24, 1888. GENERAL: In compliance with Department letter of September 29, I have the honor to submit the following report on the preliminary examination of Hackensack River from the lower bridge at the town of Hackensack to the Erie Railway Bridge. |