Page images
PDF
EPUB

UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, Chattanooga, Tennessee, October 9, 1871. GENERAL: I have the honor to transmit herewith an abstract of the bids received, and to-day opened, in accordance with advertisement from this office, dated August 30, 1871, and relating to the improvement of the Upper Tennessee, a copy of which was sent you under date of September 9. It will be observed that but two of the number are formal, and of these, that made by Albert Blaisdell, of Haverhill, Massachu setts, is the most favorable, and is reasonable. I therefore recommend that the contract for doing the work under his bid be awarded to him. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

WALTER MCFARLAND,
Major of Engineers.

Brigadier General A. A. HUMPHREYS,
Chief of Engineers, Washington, D. C.

Ross's Tow-head:

Rock excavation.

Abstract of bids received at Louisville, Kentucky, September 24, 1870, in response to advertisement dated Louisville, Kentucky, July 24, 1870, calling for proposals for improving the Tennessee River, below Chattanooga, Tennessee.

No. 1.-Bidder: O. J. Jennings, Syracuse, Onondaga County, New York. Guarantors: C. J. De Graw and D. E. Fay. Fulton, Oswego County, New York. Certified by James D. Lusher, assistant assessor 3d division of 22d district, New York.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Abstract of bids received at Louisville, Kentucky, September 24, 1870, &c.—Continued. No. 2.-Bidder: J. H. Dennis, Louisville, Kentucky. Guarantors: Isham Henderson and E. Graves, Louisville, Kentucky. Certified by I. L. Divine.

[blocks in formation]

Abstract of bids received at Louisville, Kentucky, September 24, 1870, &c.—Continued. No. 3.-Bidder: J. J. Hinds, Decatur, Morgan County, Alabama. Guarantors: D. C. Whitney and J. M. Hinds, Decatur, Morgan County, Alabama. Certified by George E. Spencer.

[blocks in formation]

Number.

Abstract of contracts between Major G. Weitzel, Corps of Engineers, on behalf of the United States, and J. H. Dennis, for the improvement of the Tennessee River at certain points.

[blocks in formation]

Respectfully submitted.

[blocks in formation]

1

J. H. Dennis. Louisville, Ky. Isham Henderson $50, 000 Oct.20, 1870 Ross Tow-head. $4.00 $225 J. D. Osborne.

2 J. H. Dennis. Louisville, Ky.

1.50

The Pot
Colbert Shoals.. 3 75
Bee-Tree Shoals 3.75
Feb. 1, 1871 Bee-Tree Shoals

225

2.25

* Supplementary contract.

G. WEITZEL.

Major of Engineers.

M 1.

UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE,

Chattanooga, Tennessee, August 9, 1871. MAJOR: In compliance with verbal instructions, and in reply to Department letter of the 14th ultimo, approving of the application of $35,000 for the improvement of the Tennessee River above Chattanooga, and suggesting that a report of the project in detail be submitted, I have the honor to submit the following:

GENERAL CHARACTER OF OBSTRUCTIONS.

The obstructions to navigation above Chattanooga, like the majority of those below, are "low-water obstructions," and consist of bars, either rock or gravel, extending across the river, with a length varying from 60 feet to two miles; the depth of water over these bars varying from 10 inches to 30 inches, at extreme low water; and the current varying from three to six miles per hour.

Between these bars the stream is deep and the current less swift, and the river is thus divided into pools and chutes. The general nature of the rock-bed is limestone, at some points largely interpersed with flints.

Across these bars the water has, in many instances, cut for itself, at low water, a channel-way, always crooked, generally narrow, and with isolated rocks or loose boulders obstructing them, thus rendering the navigation of these passages both difficult and dangerous.

FORMER IMPROVEMENTS.

Attempts to improve the navigation have already been made at some of the obstructions. The first, in 1832, by Colonel Long; the second, in 1856, by Colonel J. McClellan. The method employed in both instances was the construction of "wing-dams," for the purpose of contracting the water-way at low water, with a view of deepening the water on the shoals. Time and experience have shown that the work done at those periods was inadequate, if not, to a certain extent, incorrect. The following are the defects as now seen:

1. Cross-section of the dam too small,

Rock excavation,

per cubic yard.

Riprap, per cu

bic yard.

« PreviousContinue »