The amount of dredging required at the several points may be roughly estimated as follows: Cubic yards. Highway bridge to railroad bridge, 2,300 feet; deepening channel part of the Railroad bridge to Oldfield ship-yard, 2,600 feet; deepening channel and re- Reducing two bends at either end of the reach south of Sixpenny Island and Total 4,000 35,000 21,000 60,000 40,000 160,000 Katuis Rocks appear to be a cluster of bowlders, some of them of large size, lying in about 7 feet of water, on the west side of the channel half-way between Mystic Bridge and Noank. To remove these to the depth of the surrounding bottom would cost, at a very rough estimate, $3,000; it would only serve to widen the channel for light-draught vessels at a point where it is already 200 feet wide or over, and it would seem that if the rocks were properly marked they could be easily avoided. The Ballast Rocks lie on the east side of the channel, nearly half a mile below Katuis Rocks; they consist of stones, probably all of small size, extending at intervals along about 400 feet. As in the case of Katuis Rocks, buoying them properly is all that is really needed; it is probable that they could be taken out by a dredge at a cost of $500. Dredged material could be dumped on the flats southwest of and close to Mason's Island without danger of washing back into the channel; if any private interests would be injured by dumping there it could be done in over 7 fathoms of water in Fisher's Island Sound, at an average distance of less than 3 miles from the work. The material to be dredged would be chiefly soft sand and mud, and the whole work outlined above would cost, at 16 cents per cubic yard, measured in scows: 160,000 cubic yards, at 16 cents Supervision and contingencies, say Total...... $25, 600 4,400 30,000 To maintain these channels it is estimated that an average annual expenditure of about $2,000 would be required. The above estimates are based upon a tracing of Coast Survey soundings taken in 1882. Respectfully submitted. Col. D. C. HOUSTON, HENRY N. BABCOCK. Corps of Engineers, U. 8. A. STATEMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND TRAFFIC FOR 1887 OF MYSTIC RIVER, CONNECTICUT. [Compiled by Mr. George A. Slack, secretary Mystic Valley Board of Trade.] The prosperity of the villages of Noank, Mystic River, Mystic Bridge, Upper Mystic, and two other small factory villages, covering an area of about 15 square miles, with a population of 7,000, depends mostly on the navigable condition of the Mystic River. The industries of these villages are: One large and 2 smaller ship-yards, in full operation; a spar-yard, a foundry, 2 machine-shops, 2 grist-mills, 2 woolen-mills, 2 stone-quarries, silex works (connected with one of the largest and best deposits of silex in this country), and about 10 other small manufacturing industries. The traffic is as follows for 1887: Cargoes. Vessels. Draught. Tonnage Eighty-five cargoes of quarried stone, 27,000 tons; all is freighted by three barges Two cargoes of piles.. .... ..... (Several cargoes of wood, and also a number of trading vessels, of which no record is kept of draught, tonnage, or number of trips.) Forty-one cargoes of coal, gross tonnage, 13, 500 Three cargoes of pig-iron, gross tonnage, 600; 1 cargo of molding sand, 4 cargoes of lumber, 8 feet draught; 3 cargoes of brick, 74 feet draught; 5 fishing steamers, 9 feet draught, and 15 other vessels engaged in coast trade and fishing. There have been 146 cargoes received and shipped from the wharves on this river, with a recorded tonnage of about 50,000. This has required the towing of 120 cargoes by tugs, feet draught. Two passenger steamers of 74 feet draught have made 230 round trips. Other special boats, fishing steamers, and fishing boats, making 260 trips; making a total of 769 crafts of which there is a record kept. No appropriations have ever been made for the improvement of this river. SUMMARY OF THE SHIP-BUILDING INTERESTS ON THE MYSTIC RIVER, IN THE TOWNS OF STONINGTON AND GROTON, STATE OF CONNECTICUT. There are six ship-yards on the river, from which many large steamers, ships, barks, brigs, and schooners have been built, besides a number of smaller yards, where small steam and sail yachts and other small craft are built. Most of these large yards are now suspended on account of the depression in the commercial and ship-building interest of our country; but in the palmy days of the shipping interest of the country these yards were swarming with men and materials. In the ship-yard of George Gruuman & Brothers, from about 1840, there were built 21 steamers, 13 ships, 5 barks, 6 brigs and schooners, besides a number of smaller craft. The amount of the tonnage of these vessels we have no data for. In the ship-yard of Charles Mallory, esq., there were built since 1851 42 steamers, of 23,955 tons; 12 clipper ships, mostly for the California trade, of 12,365 tons; 6 barks and schooners, of 3,494 tons; besides a number of craft, barks, and schooners, having been built by Capt. Peter Forsyth in this yard previous to its being occupied by Mr. Mallory. In the ship-yard of Irons & Grinness there were built, from about 1840 to 1858 (the death of Mr Irons), 8 ships, of about 7,300 tons; 12 brigs and schooners, of about 2,800 tons; and by Hill & Grinness, in the same yard, after the close of the war (they having been engaged in Government employ during the war), 16 steamers, barks, and schooners, of about 2,882 tons; and by M. C. Hill, after the retirement of Mr. Grinness, 8 steamers, of about 1,200 tons, besides smaller craft. These yards are all on the east bank of the river in the town of Stonington. On the west bank of the river in the town of Groton is the ship-yard of John A. Forsyth, where were built several vessels, ships, schooners, and yachts, the data of which I am unable to procure on so short notice. In the ship-yard of Maxon, Fish & Co., and their successors, there have been built a large number of steamers, ships, barks, brigs, and schooners, besides barges and other craft, probably in all from 30 to 40; but the exact number of which I am unable to state; some war vessels were built in this yard and one iron-clad vessel. Also in the ship-yard of John and Robert Palmer, and Robert Palmer & Sons, which is now in active operation, there have been a large number of large steamers, ships, barks, brigs, and schooners built, besides many other craft of various kinds, the data of which I am unable to give, but I am just informed that Mr. Palmer will give by letter himself. t And right here I would say that during the late war all of + I have been promised a copy of this letter, but have not yet received it. these yards, with the exception of two (and the proprietors of these were in the em ployment of the Government), were actively engaged in building war vessels and transports for Government use, and since the war there have been built in the three first yards named 15 steam gun-boats for the Spanish Government. As our commerce increased the demand for larger and still larger vessels it became a very embarrassing subject how we could overcome the disadvantages of our crooked and shallow channel, and to this, doubtless, with other causes, may we attribute the loss of our commercial and building interest. During the days when the whaling interest was prosperous there was a large number of whale-ships that sailed from this place (somewhere from fifteen to twenty or more ships), and they were very much embarrassed, and suffered much loss on account of the bars in the river and the crookedness of the channel, and I think, if I am not mistaken, they obtained some assistance from the State through the charter of a bank. Respectfully submitted. MYSTIC BRIDGE, January 31, 1888. M. C. HILL. D 26. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF PORT JEFFERSON INLET, NEW YORK. ENGINEER OFFICE, U. S. ARMY, New York, December 5, 1888. SIR: I have the honor to submit the following report of a preliminary examination of Port Jefferson Inlet, Long Island, N. Y., made in pursuance of the river and harbor act of August 11, 1888, and directed in letter from the Chief of Engineers, dated August 28, 1888. An examination of the harbor was made in October, 1888, by Mr. Henry N. Babcock, assistant engineer, who has collected the necessary information in reference to the harbor. GENERAL DESCRIPTION. Port Jefferson Harbor is on the north shore of Long Island and about 50 miles east from New York City. It is a mile long and averages threequarters of a mile wide, and a large part of the area has depths of 18 feet or more at low tide. Tributary to this harbor on the west are Setauket Harbor and Conscience Bay, two shallow tidal basins. Port Jefferson Harbor is surrounded on three sides by hills and is separated from Long Island Sound on the north by a beach of sand and gravel through which, and nearly in the axis of the harbor, is a single entrance 400 feet wide; this entrance is Port Jefferson Inlet, and through it a tidal reservoir of 2 square miles area receives and discharges some 300,000,000 cubic feet of water with every tide, producing a current whose maximum velocity is over 4 miles per hour. In the narrow part of the inlet the depth has always been considerable, but a short distance out into the Sound was a bar which originally had a depth of 4 feet at mean low water. Until the beginning of Government improvement the location of the inlet had been shifting; from 1838 to 1871 it had moved westward 790 feet, an average annual rate of 24 feet. The village of Port Jefferson, with a population of about 3,000, lies at the head or south end of the harbor. The mean rise of tide at the village wharves is 6.2 feet, in Long Island Sound outside the inlet it is 7 feet; the dif ference is altogether in the low-water levels. Port Jefferson is a port of delivery in the collection district of New York. The nearest light-house is on Oldfield Point, a mile and a half west of the inlet. PREVIOUS IMPROVEMENTS BY THE UNITED STATES. A survey of the harbor was made in 1853 by Lieutenant Harrison, U. S. Engineers. In 1870 an examination of the harbor was ordered by Congress, and in 1871, after the examination, a project for improvement was submitted by General G. K. Warren, Corps of Engineers (see An. nual Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1871, page 805), which provided for building a breakwater or jetty on the east side of the inlet to extend to the 9-foot curve, and for dredging a channel 200 feet wide and 7 feet deep at mean low water. Under this project, with modifications made in 1875 and 1877, the east jetty was built 1,390 feet long, terminating in 10 feet depth, and rising to 5 feet above high water, with triangular cross-section and side slopes of one upon one; a west jetty of similar cross-section was built 940 feet long, terminating in 64 feet depth, the inner part of which was made 4 feet above high water and the outer part (450 feet) 2 feet above low water, except a point at the outer end and one intermediate point, which were made 4 feet above high water, to mark the location of the jetty; a channel was also dredged 100 feet wide and 8 feet deep. The last work done was in 1883. PRESENT CONDITION OF CHANNEL AND JETTIES. The east jetty, for about 100 feet at its outer end, has settled or been undermined so that it stands at or below high water; thence into highwater mark on the beach it averages about 2 feet above high-water level with about 5 feet top width. The peaks in the outer half of the west jetty, which were built 4 feet above high water, now stand at about high water level; the low part does not seem to have settled materially; the part at the shore end, which was built to 4 feet above high water, has settled about 2 feet; the top width of this jetty would average 4 feet. Both the jetties are in rough, irregular condition, so that their average width and height can only be estimated approximately. The channel dredged in 1880 retains its depth of 8 feet, but the width, originally made 100 feet, is now about 75 feet. A wooden fence built at the shore end of the east breakwater to catch drifting sand is now nearly covered. The published Coast Survey chart of 1888 (hydrography in 1886) represents the depths in and outside the inlet practically as they now exist. DESIRED IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATES OF COST. The improvement which it is desired to secure in this harbor is the making of a channel through the inlet of 200 feet width and, if practicable, of 12 feet depth at mean low water, with such enlargement and extension of the jetties as may be necessary to preserve the channel; and particularly to have the low part of the west jetty raised above high water level; it is said that small vessels have been injured by trying to enter the harbor across this submerged jetty, supposing it to be an open passage. Such a channel would involve dredging for a length of 2,200 feet where the present depth ranges from 3 to 12 feet, and where the bottom is for the most part a very compact bed of sand, gravel, and stones. The channel would then extend about 200 feet beyond the east jetty, and it would be desirable and probably necessary to extend the jetty, say 250 feet, to make the channel permanent. The west jetty would not require extension. The jetties were built on about a triangular cross-section, with little top width, and with side slopes of one upon one; the tops have fallen down, reducing the height and increasing the width. This is too small a cross-section for permanent work; the position of the east jetty is about as exposed as any on Long Island Sound, and its cross-section should not be much less than that adopted for the New Haven Breakwater, say 10 feet top width, rising to 6 feet above high water, with outer or east slope of one on two and inner slope of one on one. The west jetty is partly sheltered, the east jetty protecting it on one side and Oldfield Point partly covering its exposure to the west; it would perhaps be sufficient to make it 4 feet above high water, with 6 feet top width and with both slopes one upon one. On the east jetty it is proposed to carry the enlarged cross-section from the outer end into high-water mark, 950 feet; on the west jetty, to a point 600 feet in from the outer end; the parks further inshore are protected to some extent by shoal water and by the sand which has banked up against them; they need slight repairs. The cost of the work above indicated would be approximately as fol lows: Enlarging east jetty, to make it 6 feet above high water, with 10-foot top $33,000 Enlarging west jetty, for the outer 600 feet, to make it 4 feet above high wa- Extending east jetty, for 250 feet to 21 feet depth of water, with same dimen- 1,200 15,750 2,400 35, 200 40,500 2,560 Dredging inside inlet, to make a straight channel of the same depth and width, and about 1,300 feet extreme length; 16,000 cubic yards, at 16 cents. Dredging outside narrow part of inlet if the channel be made only 19 feet deep, 200 feet wide, and 2,100 feet long; 55,000 cubic yards, at 45 cents.... 24,750 Dredging inside inlet for 10 feet depth; 4,000 cubic yards, at 16 cents 640 The 10-foot channel would probably not require an extension of the east jetty, but any estimate should include repairing and enlarging both jetties; this could be done sufficiently for present purposes at about onehalf the estimated cost, but further and extensive elargement would probably be needed in a few years. The estimates above given are believed to cover what is required to put the jetties in permanent condition, after which but slight repairs from time to time would be needed, though in any case it may be necessary to further extend the east jetty in course of time. |