Page images
PDF
EPUB

the Illinois River from the junction of the Illinois and Michigan Canal to its mouth, showing the location of the bridges on the river, together with skeleton sections of each after the manner adopted in the maps attached to General Warren's report of 1878.

On April 7, 1886, I submitted a project for carrying ont these instructions. Under date of April 10, 1886, I was informed that "in view of your report of the expense of procuring the information desired and of the delay attendant upon awaiting for a fall in the river to make the necessary examinations, the above mentioned instructions are for the present recalled."

Since this time nothing more has been done in this matter.

It has been my intention to refer to it again and ask that the origi. nal instructions be renewed in order that they might be carried out during the coming summer and fall as favorable opportunity offered. There is no doubt but our information concerning the bridges over the Illinois River is very incomplete, especially in view of the important bearing that these will have upon the navigation of the river when it becomes a highway for vessels passing from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River.

I will also invite attention to the fact that there are three railroad, seven wagon •road, and one aqueduct bridges over the Illinois aud Des Plaines rivers, between the the mouth of the canal and Joliet, that will have to receive consideration whenever the upper part of the river is to be made navigable. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

Trios. H. HANDBURY,

Major, Corps of Engineers. Brig. Gen. J. C. DUANE,

Chief of Engineers, U. S. A,

REPORT OF MAJOR MILTON B. ADAMS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE,

Burlington, Vt., December 14, 1886. GENERAL: In compliance with General Orders No. 7, Headquarters Corps of Engineers, Washington, D. O., November 30, 1886, I bave the honor to report there is one case in this district in which a bridge in. terferes with free and safe navigation, being that of the Lamoille Valley Extension Railroad in its crossing of Missisquoy Bay.

At least one accident has been reported to me as having occurred at this bridge, due to the narrowness of the draw, which, with projections that exist below water-level, affords a clear opening of only some 36 feet and renders a passage through the draw somewhat ditficult and dangerous.

This bridge is not now in use, never was much more than merely placed in operation, and is not likely to be used in the near future; all considerations would therefore seem to render it uuwise to allow such an obstacle to free navigation to remain. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

M. B. ADAMS,

Major of Engineers. The CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. A.

REPORT OF CAPTAIN A. H. PAYSON, CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE,

San Francisco, Cal., December 23, 1856. SIR: In compliance with the instructions in General Orders No. 7, dated Headquarters Corps of Engineers, Washington, D. C., November 30, 1886, I hare the honor to report as follows: Concerning bridges in the district under my charge, in my opinion there is no reasonable ground for complaint against any of the existing bridges, nor have any such complaints been made by the navigation interests save in the case of the bridge across the Sacramento River at Butte City, now under construction, but nearly completed. Under date of June 18, 1836, L wrote to the Department about this bridge, which had not then been begun, and inclosed a copy of a letter which I had received on the sub). ject from the President of the Sacramento Transportation Company. I quote from my letter as follows:

My own knowledge of the circumstances and locality convince me that the bridge, if bnilt in this part of the river, will be a serions obstacle to navigation, if it does not entirely prevent it at certain seasons of the year.

There is abreast of Butte City a straight reach of river less than 300 feet wide between permanent banks, in which the current at high water is so swift that an empty barge cannot be towed up in midstream by existing steamers. As the water is deep enough at all stages, this objection might be met by a draw-span vext the bank ons the Butte City side, but this even, if there was any way of forcing it, would not remedy the great danger to which descending boats witt loads will be exposed.

A boat coming down-stream at high water with a loaded barge, on account of the narrowness of stream and swift current, could not round to between the bend above and the bridge to drop the barge through from above, and could not tow through without great risk.

I may add that my opinion about this bridge, as above expressed, remains unchanged, as does that of Captain Dwyer, President of the Sacramento Transportation Company, who may be considered as fully representing the navigation interests on the Sacramento River. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

A. H. PAYSON,

Captain of Engineers. CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. A.

REPORT OF CAPTAIN CHARLES F. POWELL, CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE,

Portland, Oreg., January 7, 1887. SIR: I have the honor to make the following report concerning certain structures now erected or in process of erectiou which interfere, or will interfere, with free and safe navigation:

POUND-NETS, FISII-TRAPS, AND FISH-WHEELS. The former of these structures are extensively used near the montis of the Columbia River, and the fish-wheels in the river next below the Cascades Canal. Fish-traps are coming into use on the bays and lower parts of streams of the Oregon and Washingtou coasts.

The pounds and traps and their effect on navigation have been described in special reports and in my report of December 12, 1884, required by Department letter, for compliance with a provision of the river and barbor act of July 5, 1881, concerning structures interfering with navigation.

The fish traps and pounds in a lesser degree generally cause sboaling. The traps are, in effect, permeable dikes, which check the cur. rent and cause more or less of a fill. They contract the water-way and deflect the current, on account of the obstacle to the flow which they form in themselves and from the fills made by them.

Wherever the channel is good enough this contraction or deflection is unnecessary and is apt to be injurious to the channel, and there. fore obstructive to pavigation. The traps are also obstructions in another view, and that is, that a vessel may in darkness or fog run into the trap and suffer damage, be delayed, or be thrown out of her compass course.

On the other hand, where the channel is not good, fish-traps may be arranged to improve it, and at such places be, on the whole, a benefit to navigation.

The location of fish-traps and similar structures, consequently, ought to be regulated for the protection and amelioration of navigable waters, and preferably by the War Department, which is charged with the ex ecution and maintenance of works for the objects named, and which has agents in direct supervision of such works.

No authority is exercised or delegated by Oregon or Washington Territory in locating or limiting fish pounds, traps, or wheels. Existing laws concern size of openings and times of use of traps. Stractures named are built as a right of the land owner, the same as a public wharf or landing pier would be.

The waters are public property. Bridges and the location of wharves generally are regulated, but they are for use of the public, while fishtraps, of which tish-pounds are one kind, and fish-wheels are wholly pri. vate.

Some of the Cascades fish-wheels are permanent structures of cribs and rough stone walls; others are floating.

They are generally located on the low sharp points which help to form the rapids, and all of them have runs or chutes and sometimes wings partly made by building walls of rip-rap in the river-bed.

The fish-wheel structures decrease the river cross-sections, and, consequently injuriously affect the current at the rapids, although not to a large degree. The removal of the fish-trap structures from along the channel shores will be advisable when this part of the river becomes navigated, and be necessary when the work of a radical open-river im. provement is undertaken, as contemplated by the Cascades Canal project.

LOG.BOOMS IN NAVIGABLE WATERS.

Besides the instances of obstructive log-booms of this district, named in my report of December, 1884, the following have since been noticed or reported:

A boon at Coquille City, Oreg., extends half a mile up-stream following the shore. The opposite bank is fairly well protected by natural plantations; but an erosion there is plain, and one probably caused by the channel contraction made by the boom and large logs held in it.

A boom about 2 miles above Parkersburg, also on the Coquille River, is in deep water, and occupies about one-quarter of the river's width where that is somewhat narrow.

There is a boom of logs moored close to the channel at the mouth of the Nootsack River, Bellingham Bay, Washington Territory. This

boom is pivoted at one end, and at times swings across the channel. It is also reported that this boom has caused, and will continue to cause, a shoal at tbat place. BRIDGES AND BULKHEAD AT WATERS OF YAQUINA BAY, OREGON.

The railroad bridges and trestles and county bridge at Yaquina Bay, named in my report for December, 1834, remain without change.

The Oregon Development Company, singly or in connection with the railroad company, is building a crib.work bulkhead along the channel edge at Yaquina City, the terminus of the Coast and Willamette Valley Railway, and filling behind the bulkhead with earth and stone from adjacent bluffs.

The location and the bulkhead, now about constructed, are shown on the accompanying sketch.* The injury to navigation due to tbis bulk. head is inappreciable, and perhaps none exists whatever. It is under: stood that the bulkhead is to be extended along the channel edge in front of the tide flat between Yaquina City and Newport. The channel edge is close to the low-water line.

A filling of this tide flat would appreciably curtail the tidal prism of the bay and be prejudicial to the improvement at its entrance.

If the bulkhead were placed at about the half-tide line, and the bottom from there to the channel dredged, deep water for landing-wharves would be obtained and the encroachment of the tidal prism by the fill. ing compensated for.

The railway company claim a grant from the State of actual ownership of the tide flat referred to and other tide flats. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

CHAS. F. POWELL,

Captain of Engineers. The CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. A.

LETTER OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR.

WAR DEPARTMENT,

Washington City, December 10, 1887. The Secretary of War has the honor to transmit to the House of Representatives a letter of the 8th instant from the Chief of Engineers, together with copies of reports of officers in charge of river and harbor districts, received since February 21, 1887, and made to meet the requirements of section 4 of the river and harbor act of August 5, 1886, requiring that report be made to Congress whether any bridges, causeways, or structures of any kind now erected, or in process of erection, do or will interfere with free and safe navigation.

WILLIAM C. ENDICOTT,

Secretary of War. The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,

UNITED STATES ARMY,

Washington, D. C., December 8, 1887. SIR: I had the honor to submit, 21st February last, a communication containing reports from officers in charge of river and harbor districts, made, under orders from this office, to comply with a provision of section 4 of the river and barbor act of August 5, 1886, requiring that report be made to Congress whether any bridges, causeways, or structures of any kind, now erected or in process of erection, do or will interfere with free and safe navigation. This was transmitted to the Senate by the War Department, February 24, 1887, and printed as Senate Ex. Doc. No. 105 of the last session of Congress.

* Omitted.

The instances of interference therein enumerated were such as had not been included in a previous report from this office, made to comply with similar provision of the river and harbor act of July 5, 1881, transmitted to the Senate December 18, 1885, and printed as Senate Ex. Doc. No. 12, Forty-ninth Congress, first session.

In further compliance with the act of August 5, 1886, I now have the honor to submit herewith reports received since my communication of February 21, 1887, of instances of interference with free and safe navigation by bridges and other structures, additional, with few exceptions, to those previously reported. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

J. C. DUANE,

Brig. Gen., Chief of Engineers. llon. WILLIAM C. ENDICOTT,

Secretary of War.

REPORT OF MAJOR JARED A. SMITH, CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE,

Portland, Ale., June 21, 1887. Sir: In compliance with instructions in General Orders, No. 7, from Headquarters Corps of Engineers, dated June 2, 1887, I have the honor to submit the following report:

Regarding the railroad and highway bridge between Portsmonth, N. H., and Kittery, Me., my annual report for Cocheco River, New Hampshire, for fiscal year ending June 30, 1886, contained the following paragraph :

The bridge across the Piscataqua River, near Portsmouth Harbor, has its draw very narrow and badly arranged, so that it is generally a very inconvenient, slow, and tedious process to pass vessels through. In passing through the draw with the tide it is generally necessary to moor the vessel and allow it to drop through the narrow space steru foremost, requiring great pains to accomplish it without injury.

Across the channel leading to the Back Cove in Portland Harbor, Maine, are two bridges. The first bridge is that of the Grand Trunk Railway, which has a draw giving a clear opening of only about 40 feet, and is inconveniently arranged for enabling vessels to pass.

The second bridge is known as Tukey's Bridge, and is used for a common high way; the draw is no wider than that of the railway bridge, and owing to the narrow channel and lack of suitable guard-piers it is a difficult and tedious operation to pass vessels through the draw, so that it forms a serious obstruction to the navigation of that channel.

My report of a preliminary examination on the Kennebec River, Maine, submitted December 27, 1886, contained the following paragraphs:

The draw of the bridge from Gardiner to Pittston is difficult and somewliat dangerous to pass, owing to the lack of suitable piers as guides to the current and guards for the passing vessel. I give this upon the statement of pilots and others, without personal knowledge obtained from observation.

The bridge seems to have had an effect in forming a shoal in front of the wbarves immediately above, and the shoal has extended downward until it has injured the channel through the draw; opposite the railroad wharf the shallow water causes great inconvenience and expense in getting vessels to and from the landing.

« PreviousContinue »