Page images
PDF
EPUB

It was my intention to carry out the plan given in Captain Judson's report as estimate B. This would, according to the assumed price, (35 cents per cubic yard,) have exhausted the appropriation. It would have made a channel-way up to Norwich, having 11 feet at mean low water, and 14 feet at mean high water, with a minimum width of 100 feet. This depth was contemplated in 'the first plan of improvement made in 1829. The following is the abstract of the proposals received for doing this dredging, in answer to my advertisement, on April 29, 1871:

Abstract of proposals for improving the Thames River, Connecticut, received at the Engineer Office United States Army, Newport, Rhode Island, Wednesday, June 7, 1871.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

* Guarantee not filled out, and no certificate that the guarantors are responsible parties.

I certify that the above abstract is correct.

G. K. WARREN,
Major of Engineers.

The contract was awarded to the lowest bidder, Mr. Emory R. Seward, of Albany, New York, for doing the dredging, at 20 cents per cubic yard. This price is so much below that in the estimate, that the amount of work that can be done considerably exceeds that first contemplated, and it may become a question whether to make the channel-way wider than 100 feet at the shoals below the middle ground, or to widen the channel at that point.

The common council of Norwich have expressed their preference for the latter project.

The contractor has not yet commenced operations, and some indulgence should be allowed him on account of the very low rate at which he undertakes the work. The material to be dredged is easy digging, but there are no convenient places for dumping the scows, which makes this part of the work expensive.

An annual appropriation of $10,000 could be expended with much advantage to commerce in maintaining or widening and deepening the channel of the Thames River.

The appropriations made by Congress prior to 1866 amount to $40,000. General Delafield, in a report to the Secretary of War, dated February 14, 1868, says: "In 1829, before any of this expenditure was made, there was 7 feet 10 inches depth at the shoalest point at low water."

The survey by Colonel Houston, in 1866, before any work was done under the appropriation made that year, shows a depth of 7 feet at mean low water over the shoals in the channel.

The appropriation of $10,000 in 1866 and the two appropriations of $36,000 each in 1867 were expended in dredging, and after this the survey in 1869 shows that vessels drawing 83 feet could reach Norwich at mean low water. General Delafield condemns the use of jettees for tidal rivers, which was the system employed before Major Bache's survey, and which the latter recommended with modifications.

General Delafield's report above referred to states that a flood-wave of from 4 feet 1 inch to 4 feet 8 inches once flowed uninterruptedly to and from the Sound to Norwich every twelve hours.

According to the map made under Colonel Houston in 1866, tide observations made during thirty-three days, at Norwich, gave a mean rise of 3 feet 1 inches, the highest tide being 3 feet 9 inches. From the above we should infer the jettees cut off about 1 foot of the rise at Norwich, so that vessels could originally reach Norwich at high tide, drawing 1 foot more water than they could in 1866, and that all the dredging done under the appropriations only succeeded in allowing the same-sized vessels to reach Norwich in 1869 as could do it before any work was done. The data is not sufficient to decide the question, but it certainly suggests the propriety of investigating the matter, to deter mine whether it would not be desirable to remove some of the lower jettees, so as to re-establish the ancient flow of the tide. The mean rise of the tide at New London is only 23 feet, and this makes it seem rather surprising that it could have caused originally a tide of about 4 feet at Norwich, as stated by General Delafield. I will institute a thorough inquiry into the subject during the prosecution of the further improvement.

New London is the port of entry, and it is in the New London collec tion district. The revenue collected during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1871, was $54,058 54.

ENGINEER OFFICE, UNITED STATES ARMY,
Newport, Rhode Island, March 1, 1871.

GENERAL: I have the honor to submit the following report in relation to the Thames River, Connecticut, together with a map of a portion of the river immediately below the city of Norwich, showing the results of a survey made by me in the summer of 1870. This survey had been contemplated by Colonel D. C. Houston, United States Engineers, while he was in charge, and, after his temporary relief by Captain A. H. Holgate, United States Engineers, during the month of May, 1870, that officer applied to the Engineer Department for authority to make it, which was granted in departmental letter, dated May 13, 1870. Unfavorable weather and duties here prevented anything being done until the 1st of June, when I proceeded to Norwich, and during that month prosecuted the work as the weather, much of which was unfavorable, permitted. Until this time, owing to the pressure of other duties, I have been unable to complete the office work, which I now respectfully submit.

As before remarked, Colonel Houston had intended making this survey, as will be seen in his annual report, dated August 27, 1869, printed in the report of the Chief of Engineers for that year.

The object of the survey, as intended by Colonel Houston, and expressed by Captain Holgate in his orders to me, was to ascertain the changes, if any, that had taken place in the channel of the Thames since the last dredging was done in August, 1869; to fix upon the causes thereof and the possible remedy, and, should the remaining funds admit, to apply the remedy as far as practicable. Before entering into this, however, I propose reviewing the history of this river since the first work was done on it by the General Government, believing this to be essential to a proper understanding of the subject.

From the records in this office it appears that the question of the improvement of the channel of this river was agitated many years since by the people of Norwich and others, and that in 1836 Congress appropriated $10,000, in 1837 $20,000, and in 1838 $10,000; all of which, amounting to $40,000, was expended chiefly in the construction of wing-dams or jettees at various points on either bank of the river for a distance of about three miles below the city of Norwich. These dams, their object and effect, will be alluded to further on. In 1848 an estimate was made for $10,000 for continuing the system of contemplated improvement by constructing jettees, but it failed to become a law. No further action was taken until 1866, when an act of the Thirty-ninth Congress, first session, approved June 23, 1866, appropriated the sum of $10,000 for the "improvement of Thames River, Connecticut." This was followed, in the second session of the same Congress, by two additional appropriations, each for $36,000. The first is embodied in Chapter CXLIV, entitled "An act making appropriations for the repair,

preservation, and completion of certain public works heretofore commenced under the authority of law, and for other purposes," approved March 2, 1867, for "improvement of Thames River, Connecticut," for $36,000. The second is embodied in Chapter CLXVIII, entitled "An act making appropriations and to supply deficiencies in the appropriations for the service of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1867, and for other purposes," also approved March 2, 1867, and "for dredging and maintaining the channel of the river Thames, near Norwich, in the State of Connecticut, to complete the work, $36,000." The total appropriated, then, since 1866, is $82,000, and, including the former appropriations of 1836, 1837, and 1838, amount in all to the sum of $122,000, which has been expended by the United States in improving the navigation in this river, except the sum of $556 08, which was all that was available at the close of the last fiscal year, and which reverted to the Treasury of the United States, under the act approved July 12, 1870, relating to unexpended balances.

It appears from the report of General Delafield, the then Chief Engineer of the Army, to the Secretary of War, dated February 14, 1866, that "an attempt to improve the navigation of this river was in progress previous to 1829. At that time there existed four jettees, projecting from the shore toward the channel that had been constructed to deepen the channel over existing bars. At that early period the system then adopted had not succeeded, and some of the piers that had been constructed had been, in part, removed, and at the same time it was proposed to construct eleven other and additional piers, to narrow the water-way, with the hope of deepening and maintaining a permanent channel of 14 feet water," (at high water.)

A number of jettees were finally built, and are still in existence and in fair condition, and some dredging was done on the "Haycocks," a shoal shown on the map, the work being paid for from the appropriations of 1836, 1837, and 1838, already mentioned. The results obtained were for a time, and at the localities worked upon, advantageous, and the opinion prevailed that whenever the system of jettees and dredging should be fully completed, that the channel of the river could be essentially improved.

The jettees now possess of themselves alone a certain value, since they furnish behind them secure places of deposit for material dredged from the channel-way, either by diggers or by the scouring power due to the increased volume and velocity of which they are the undoubted aids. In the latter case it is found that most of the piers have flats below them that have been formed by eddies setting in around the piers, carrying sand and other particles that find rest in still water. Most of these flats are bare at low water. In the former case it is believed that none of the material which has from time to time been dredged from the channel and deposited below these piers has ever found its way back again. So far as they go, the jettees seem to have answered the purposes for which they were built.

Since the completion of these piers, work has been confined to dredging in the channel. Some little work was done from time to time by parties in Norwich, but it was not until the late appropriations of 1866 and 1867 became available, that the United States again took the matter in hand. In August, 1866, Colonel Houston, of the Engineers, was directed to have a survey made of the river below Norwich, with a view to the contemplated improvements. I was designated by Colonel Houston for this work. The map showing results of the survey, with the report of Colonel Houston on the subject, were both forwarded to the Department on the 19th of November, 1866. The original of the map is on file in this office, and the report referred to is printed in House Ex. Doc. No. 56, part 2, Thirty-ninth Congress, second session, pp. 197, 198. Colonel Houston's recommendatious as to the mode of improvement of the river were approved by the Department in a letter of April 11, 1867. The contract made by him with Mr. E. A. Bill, of Norwich, Connecticut, requiring a channel 100 feet wide, with 14 feet at high water, was approved on the 27th of June, and dredging commenced in July, 1867, and was carried on with good results during the working seasons of that year, and of 1868, and up to August, 1869, when the appropriation being nearly exhausted, work was suspended, leaving a small sum available, part of which was expended in making the survey, of which this is the report.

The main shoals on the river that have given trouble are five in number. Their location may be understood by reference to the accompanying map. The first is the "middle ground," in front of the new wharf of the Norwich and Worcester Railroad Company. The survey of 1866, made before this wharf was built, shows a small island as a part of this great shoal, which formed below a jettee built in 1837 or thereabouts. The island and jettee were both built into the new wharf. Their line of low water is shown on the map, as it was before the construction of the new wharf, in heavy red lines. It is the generally received opinion that the material composing this island and the whole "middle ground" is foreign to the Thames, and owes its presence there to the following circumstance, an account of which I quote from Colonel Houston's report of August 6, 1866. He says:

"It seems that some years previous to the construction of these piers, a canal was cut across a bend of the Shetucket River, about four miles above Norwich, intended as a water-power, but that, by some accident, the water was allowed to pass unobstructed

through the canal until it became an uncontrollable current, and that the effect of this was to carry off a large quantity of sand between the canal and the river, which was deposited in the Thames, immediately below Norwich, to the great injury of the river. The amount of sand carried away by the canal was very great, and I was informed the amount of it was estimated by Colonel Bache at a million of cubic yards."

This mass, I am told, came down during a heavy freshet on the 7th of February, 1807. The cut referred to is known as "Howe's Ditch" and "Howe's Folly," Howe beng the name of the unfortunate man who thus immortalized himself. Since that time it is believed no further material has come down the river, the numerous dams on the branches of the Thames and their tributaries, extending far back into the surrounding manufacturing regions, effectively preventing the progress of any sediment. The old pilots and others familiar with the river, though they do not agree as regards. many other points relating to the river, all agree in this story of "Howe's Ditch," and in the belief that nothing of consequence has come into the Thames from the Shetucket since that time.

The next shoal is opposite the "coal-yards." There has always been plenty of water close in shore on the east side, but the bend in the channel-way was exceedingly sharp. Considerable of this was cut off and the channel straightened under Colonel Houston's direction, to the great relief of navigation. Sharp channel-curves are especially objectionable in this river, since almost all the vessels going up and down, unless favored with a fair wind, are towed by steamer from the mouth of the river at New London to the head of navigation at Norwich, and return in "tows," varying in number of vessels of from 1 to 8. Such long lines of vessels are difficult to manage in a tortuous channel-way. Some change has taken place here since the close of operations in 1869, the channel having narrowed and filled from the west eastward. A small amount of dredging will be needed here.

The next shoal is between "upper rolling-mill wharf,” (pier G,) and the neighborhood of "Bushnell Reef," and has always been the shoalest part of the channel. This has filled considerably since 1869.

The next shoal stretch is known as the "Haycocks," extending from a point a little below pier L to where the channel hugs the west shore below Cooper's Point, it being in fact the east boundary of "Trading Cove Flats." This, too, has filled in to some extent. Below this there is plenty of water, and always has been, except at the extreme part of the river shown on the south end of the map, about three-eighths of a mile below Craig's and Whiptop Points, where a shoal spot has at times existed on which heavilyladen vessels sometimes have touched. This, however, is now unobstructed, with plenty of water for any vessels that ever come up the Thames.

This, it will be remembered, was the state of the channel last June. Of course changes may have taken place since then, and probably have, (though I hear that up to this time they have had no spring freshet,) so that the map does not show the river as it now actually is; but if any dredging is done this season, it will be useful as affording a means of comparison with the survey that may be made before the work begins. Changes are constantly going on in the channel, owing, no doubt, to a variety of causes, but, in my belief, chiefly to the presence of the "middle ground," and the prevalence of freshets in the Shetucket and Quinnebaug (the two confluents of the Thames) in early spring. These freshets are confined principally to the Shetucket, and entering the Thames, the swollen waters carrying immense quantities of ice and snow, meet the first obstacle at the "middle ground." Colonel Houston describes this in his report of August 6, 1866, already quoted, when he says:

"The only cause now at work to injure the channel is the ice. The ice coming down the branches of the river piles up below their junction, and forms at times a mass which reaches to the bottom. When this mass of ice moves, its effect has been to move the loose material at the bottom, cutting out new channels and filling up the old. Within the last few years dredging has been resorted to to remedy these injuries." It may be suggested that in time this "anchor-ice" would scour out the entire "middle ground." Whether it would or not I am not prepared to say, though I doubt if it would; but I feel safe in stating that were this shoal once entirely removed to 14 feet at high water, say, there is no agency now at work to reproduce it. Even if the ice did cut away the entire shoal, its material would still remain in the river, and would still require to be taken out, for it would lodge somewhere on the shoals below in its passage down stream. The excavation can be done better and cheaper as it now lays. The sand and gravel which is now being cut away, not only by the ice and spring freshets, but by the greatly increased volume and velocity of the river at many times after heavy rains, is certainly carried down stream, the material thus detached finding lodgment at various points along the channel. This will continue as long as the "middle ground" remains to furnish the material. Material is no doubt set free at other places on the river, particularly at the sharper turns of the channel, and this goes to help make the shoals, but, with the experience we now have of this river, it would seem best to first remove the main cause of difficulty, which seems to be the "middle ground," and then, if necessary, attend to those subordinate.

Aside from the probabilities of preventing in this way the increment of shoals below, the removal of this shoal will be of great advantage to the city of Norwich, in affording more anchorage and harbor-room for general purposes, now much needed. It will also be of very direct advantage to the Norwich and Worcester Railroad Company, in improving the river approach to and frontage of their new wharf, and for this reason I believe that, in fairness, that corporation should share the expense equally, or, at any rate, in some proportion with the General Government. So long as the "middle ground" remains, they will never be able to keep a channel-way open in front of their wharf. In 1869, on the completion of this structure, the railroad company had a cut dug immediately in front of it, 125 feet wide, and 14 feet deep at high water. This left a shoal, having barely 2 feet water on it at low water, between the main channel and the wharf-cut.

The line of the cut is shown on the map in a heavy blue-dotted line.

In the spring of 1870 there was a heavy freshet in the Shetucket, and the result was that when the current struck the "middle ground," an eddy was formed that set in against the face of this wharf, and carried with it sufficient sand and gravel to produce the resultant filling shown by the soundings on the map, which, supposing the cut to have been thoroughly made in 1869, to the width and depth given above, (as I believe it was,) would amount to 14,120 cubic yards of filling, between that time and June, 1870.

I would therefore respectfully recommend as follows: That whenever sufficient funds are available, the "middle ground" be removed to 14 feet at high water, thus corresponding with the desired depth of the main channel, provided the railroad and steamboat companies and those directly interested in the wharf property benefited by the improvement contribute their proper share. If, however, the next appropriation made by the United States be small, I would recommend it to be expended in giving immediate relief to navigation, by dredging at the points needing the earliest attention, viz, at the "coal-yards;" on the stretch between the upper rolling-mill wharf" and the neighborhood of "Bushnell's Reef;" and on the "Haycocks," leaving the work on the "middle ground" until more money is available, for, unless its entire removal is undertaken, no work there is necessary, there being plenty of water in the main channel to the west of it. All these cuts are indicated on the map in parallel, heavy red lines, showing a channel 100 feet wide, except at the "coalyards," where the additional width of 100 feet is shown by a heavy, dotted red line. While at this point a channel of 100 feet width will perhaps answer, a 200-foot cut, as is shown on the map, would be better. This was done heretofore by Colonel Houston's direction. It seems probable that the increment here is due to the material displaced from the "middle ground" immediately above. In the estimates following, I have considered both a 100-foot and a 200-foot cut at this locality.

Estimate A.-For excavation in the Thames River, Connecticut, to obtain the following results:

1st. The removal of the "middle ground," to obtain a depth of 14 feet at mean high water, from the front of the wharf of the Norwich and Worcester Railroad Company to the main channel over the entire area44,614 cubic yards, at 35 cents per cubic yard

.$15,614 90

2d. To obtain a channel, connecting the deep-water channel west of the
"middle ground" with that below the "coal-yards," 100 feet wide at some
points, and 200 feet wide at others, as shown on the map, with 14 feet at
mean high water-12,128 cubic yards, at 35 cents per cubic yard...
3d. To obtain a channel from the upper rolling-mill to and beyond
Bushnell's Reef, 100 feet wide and 14 feet deep at mean high water, as
shown in the map-12,685 cubic yards, at 35 cents per cubic yard....
4th. To obtain a channel from Pier K, over the Haycocks, 100 feet wide
and 14 feet deep at mean high water, as shown on the map-9,334 cubic
yards, at 35 cents per cubic yard

4,244 80

4,439 75

3,266 90

Add for contingencies, engineering, superintendence, together with removal of sunken trees, sometimes found in the channel and not detected in the surveys, say 20 per centum....

27,566 35

5,513 27

Total

33, 079 62

Estimate B.--For excavation in the Thames River, Connecticut, to obtain the following results:

1st. To obtain a channel, connecting the deep-water channel west of the "middle ground" with that below the "coal-yards," 100 feet wide at some points, and 200 feet wide at others, as shown on the map, with 14

feet at mean high water-12,128 cubic yards, at 35 cents per cubic yard.. $4, 244 80

« PreviousContinue »