Abstract of proposals for removing obstructions from rivers, as per advertisement, dated April 17, 1871; bids opened 12.10 p. m., May 17, 1871. To remove, as per printed specifications, provided contract is awarded for all. O 5. BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, October 31, 1870. GENERAL: An interesting and valuable report concerning the James River was made November 26, 1852, by a commission composed of Colonel Mansfield, of the Corps of Engineers, Professor Bache, Superintendent of the Coast Survey, and Major I. I. Stevens, of the Corps of Engineers. Their report is printed in Ex. Doc. No. 1, Senate, Thirty-third Congress, First Session, Part II, 1853, beginning at page 389. The natural obstructions to navigation are much the same now as at the time of the report of the commission; and the map of the James River, for which the survey was begun shortly after, is a good map of the river to-day, except that it does not show, as it could not be expected to do, the artificial obstructions to navigation, which were placed in the river during the late war. These consist of sunken vessels, cribs filled with stone, and remains of the supports of military bridges. Their location is shown on the sketch transmitted to the Engineer Bureau with my letter of August 29, 1870. There is now also a cut-off at Dutch Gap, which did not exist until opened, first by the troops under General Butler during the war, and recently re-opened by the great freshet of this autumn. Very little money has ever been appropriated by the General Government for the James River. What has been available from that source has been chiefly expended in dredging, generally in co-operation with the authorities of the city of Richmond, who have from time to time spent considerable sums in the purchase of dredges and other machinery and in operating it. Numerous large and small boulders have been removed by them from the upper part of the river near the city, and a portion of the rocky ledge at Rocketts has been excavated. This removal of rock is, of course, a great and permanent improvement of the river. A very important defect in the dredging operations in the past has been the deposition of the material removed from the river in places where it could eventually find its way back into the channel again. The selection of proper places of deposit for the material removed from the river is quite as important as its original removal. At some points in the river deflectors are required, to concentrate the water in proper directions, and at these places the material removed by the dredges will be used in forming artificial banks with suitable timber revetments, to be ultimately replaced by stone. At other points, where it would be otherwise necessary to remove the dredged material through great distances, receptacles should be provided for it near at hand. This can be done at natural concavities in the banks at convenient points, by extending timber-work along the chords of the concaves and placing the material behind. The direction of the banks will thus be improved, while the great point will be gained of preventing the return into the channel of what has been already removed from it, perhaps more than once. A variety of operations will be required for the permanent improvement of the James River below Richmond, viz: the removal of rock in boulders and in beds near the city; the excavation of sand and more compact matter from the natural bars of the river, and its deposit in suitable places; the removal by blasting, dragging, lifting, and dredging, of artificial obstructions placed in the channel during the late war; the construction of deflecting-dikes and the facings of spoil-banks; the excavation of the cut-off at Dutch Gap, and probably the excavation of cut-offs through Jones's Neck and near Bermuda Hundred. While premising that any scheme of river improvement should be tentative and progressive, rather than dogmatic and absolute, I will now proceed to state generally what I propose for the James River, referring for details to the maps and other drawings accompanying this report. The Dutch Gap The artificial obstructions should be first removed. cut-off should be made as soon as practicable, advantage being taken of what the river did there for itself during the late freshet. This cutoff will shorten the river by several miles, and entirely avoid the bad bar in Trent's Reach, of which the permanent improvement, if practicable, will be quite expensive. While the cut-off is making at Dutch Gap, a short deflector should be built just above the upper end of it. The rock excavation near the city should have early attention in the progress of the improvement. The chief expenditure will be for dredg ing. The location and kind of dikes are shown on the maps and draw. ings. It is proposed to give first a channel 180 feet in width by 15 feet in depth at high water. Such a channel, supposing the Dutch Gap Cut to be opened and made the avenue for navigation, will cost $120,000, including dredging, dikes, and rock excavation. A channel of the same width and depth, supposing the old route by Trent's Reach to be used, and the Dutch Gap Cut-off not made, will cost $125,000. A channel 180 feet in width and 18 feet in depth at high water will cost, by the route of the Dutch Gap, $250,000. A similar channel by the route of Trent's Reach will cost $270,000. The accompanying estimate in detail will show the cost of the im provement of each locality of the river where it is needed. The idea of cutting through Jones's Neck and near Bermuda Hundred deserves careful consideration. Should Congress make further appropriations for the James River, I would recommend that authority be given for an examination into the cost of those cuts. At present, have not considered it my duty to go to the expense of obtaining the data upon which to base such estimates. I The long straight reach, extending from Rocketts nearly to Drury's Bluff, will almost certainly require work upon it annually to maintain a channel of greater depth than nature gives. This may be the case at some other points. An annual appropriation of $15,000 should be made for the river for this object. At the expiration of (say) ten years, when the timber-work above low water will have decayed, some of the banks will require a permanent revetment of stone, which will cost $50,000. It is recommended that an appropriation of $100,000 be made for this river for the year ending June 30, 1872. After notice of thirty days, several proposals were received on the 12th of September for removing the sunken ships, &c., from the river, of which an abstract was sent to the Engineer Bureau September 13. It was finally decided to reject them all, and call for new proposals for removing the obstructions, and at the same time proposals were invited for opening the Dutch Gap Canal. Several bids for each of these objects have been received to-day. It is expected that advantageous contracts will very soon be signed, and a balance left of the appropriation of $50,000 made at the last session of Congress, which will be applied, before the close of the present fiscal year, to excavation of rock near Richmond, or to other useful work in the river. Several maps and drawings are sent by express, as follows, viz: 1 sheet, James River, from Richmond to City Point. 1 sheet, James River, from Mayo's Bridge to Drury Island. 1 sheet, James River, from Rockdale Creek to Curl's Neck. 1 sheet, James River, from Curl's Neck to City Point.. 1 sheet, James River, showing Harrison's Bar 1 sheet, James River, showing Hog Island Bar.. Scale. 1 40000 1 5000 1 3000 5000 1 10000 20000 1 sheet, showing proposed cut-off at Dutch Gap, in plan, 1 inch to 40 feet. 1 sheet, sections proposed cut-off at Dutch Gap, 1 inch to 20 feet. 1 sheet, details of proposed dikes, &c., 3 inch to 1 foot. The plan and sections of the Dutch Gap Cut shows its condition before the freshet. The mass closing one of its mouths was removed by the action of the water during the freshet, and the cut was excavated to an average depth of about 7 feet at low water. It is proposed to make the cut there at present only 100 feet in width. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Brigadier General A. A. HUMPHREYS, WM. P. CRAIGHTILL, Chief of Engineers, U. S. A., Washington, D. C. Estimate of cost of improvement of James River, Virginia, from canal-locks at Richmond, to and below Goose Hill Flats. From canal-locks to Rocketts: Channel 180 by 15 feet at high water, 20,000 yards, at 50 cents.... Across Rocketts Reef: Channel 180 by 15 feet at high water, 5,000 yards rock, at $4. Channel 180 by 15 feet at high water, 146,000 yards, at 20 cents.. Across Richmond Bar: Channel 180 by 15 feet at high water, 60,000 yards, at 20 cents.... Across Warwick Bar: Channel 180 by 15 feet at high water, 25,000 yards, at 20 cents... Channel 180 by 18 feet at high water, 96,000 yards, at 20 cents.......... $19.200.00 2,970 00 Kingsland Reach: Dutch Gap, (canal:) Channel 180 by 15 feet at high water, (no excavation)... Channel 100 by 15 feet at high water, 60,000 yards, at 33 cents.. Trent's Reach, (in event of not using Dutch Gap:) At Vavina or Aiken's: 4,000 00 19,800 00 23,100 00 5,000 00 24.000.00 40,000.00 6,300 00 Channel 180 by 15 feet at high water, (no excavation). Channel 180 by 18 feet at high water, 48,000 yards, at 20 cents.. 9,600 00 3,600 00 Harrison's Bar: 11.900 00 Channel 180 by 15 feet at high water, (no excavation). Channel 180 by 18 feet at high water, 34,000 yards, at 35 cents... Annual report upon the improvement of the Appomattox River, Virginia, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1871. Under the appropriation act of July 11, 1870, such examinations as were necessary were made of this river in August, 1870. It was then found that the city of Petersburgh, through the agency of the Lower Appomattox Company, had appropriated $200,000 for the improvement of the river, according to a plan proposed by Mr. H. D. Bird. A special board of engineers was organized to consider and report upon the improvement. Their report was printed in Ex. Doc. No. 60, (H. R.) Forty first Congress, third session. The board of engineers found a large amount of work already done according to Mr. Bird's plan, the adoption of much of which they deemed it expedient to recommend, for reasons set forth in their report. In making recommendations for work to be done, the board stated their object to be, to lay down a plan as good as existing circumstances permitted, and such as, with the means likely to be furnished by the General Government and the city of Petersburgh, would result in a decided improvement of the river. It was to give as soon as practicable, chiefly by dredging, a channel 60 feet wide and 12 feet deep at ordinary high water, avoiding as much as possible abrupt bends or long straight reaches, or regulating them where they could not be avoided, and never abandoning the actual navigable channel of the river without strong reasons. An appropriation of $50,000 was made by the act approved March 3, 1871. A re-examination of the river was made soon after, from which it was discovered that the work had been carried forward to a very considerable extent since the meeting of the board of engineers in Petersburgh and the publication of their report. The opinions expressed by the board had been practically ignored. It became necessary for the superintendent engineer to reject the work done by the city, or to follow the rule laid down by the board, i. e., to adopt recommendations for further works on the river to its existing conditions, considering what had already been done, and making the best of it, notwithstanding the fact that it did not meet with the approval of the board. A report was made under date of May 2, 1871, of which a copy is given below: UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, Baltimore, Maryland, May 2, 1871. GENERAL: Within a few days I have made an examination of the Appomattox below Petersburgh, Virginia, and find that since the meeting of the board of engineers in that city last September, and notwithstanding the opinion of the board was intimated to the president of the Lower Appomattox Company a few days thereafter, that opinion has been disregarded, and the work has been continuously carried on in accordance with the plan of Mr. Bird. The opinion of the board was certainly not obligatory on the city, as the expenditure on Mr. Bird's plan has been borne entirely by the city. In the report of the board is found the following: "The board do not wish to be understood as saying that the line of which the improvement is recommended in this report would be regarded as the best, if a large sum of money would be available, as required in the progress of the work, and if nothing had been already done in carrying out particular plans. The object has been to lay down a plan as good as existing circumstances permit, and such as, with the means likely to be furnished by the General Government and by the city of Petersburg, will result in a decided improvement of the river." As the work progresses, the advantage or the necessity of adding to or modifying what has been recommended above may become apparent. Any well-devised scheme of river improvement should be progressive and elastic, and too great haste in executing may result in injuries which more deliberation, joined to careful watching of effects, would have avoided. Following the principle here announced, but observing that the circumstances are different from those existing when the report was adopted, I have now to suggest a modification of the plan therein laid down. Referring to the report of the board, I propose that their recommendations, marked 1 and 2, be adhered to, and that thence the route laid down by Mr. Bird be followed, without, however, adopting his proposed manner of execution. It is proper here to state the reasons inducing me to agree now to a departure from a course some time ago approved unanimously by a board of which I was a member. The general explanation is given in the quotation already made from the report of the board. The particular reasons are the following: It will be observed, on referring to the report of the board, that in the recommendations marked 2, it was proposed to adopt Mr. Bird's line to e, thus making use of the pile-work already executed by him from d to e." The motives of this adoption are found in previous quotations, in that just made, and in other portions of their report. Mr. Bird's work has since been carried much beyond e. A large sum of money, about $125,000, has been expended upon it by the city of Petersburgh. Some of this money is, it is true, invested in machinery, of which a considerable portion is valuable for future operations. Although Mr. Bird's scheme of improvement is not approved by all, and although his own expectations of results have not been realized, sufficient evidence has been presented to cause me to believe that a majority of the people of Petersburg, upon whom the burden of this expenditure falls, desire a further trial of Mr. Bird's plan. I think no objection should be interposed to their making this experiment at their own expense, provided the interests of the General Government are protected. The theory of the appropriation of money from the United States Treasury for the improvement of the Appomattox River is, I suppose, that it is a work in which not only Petersburgh is interested, but the whole country. Had nothing been done on the river at the time of my first examination of it last August, I should have recommended the improvement of the line marked in red on the accompanying Coast Survey map. It will be observed that there is a fine bluff bank on the northern side, as far down as X, whereas the bold bluff then appears on the southern side at O, nearly opposite, and thence continues on that side towards the mouth of the river, bordering what is known as the south channel. The indications from the map, and more from the river itself, are strong that the route just re |