of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1888, $32,500 had been expend the General Government. A new project based upon a survey made in 1887 was adopted in providing for a channel 12 feet deep at low water and 150 feet from the Choptank River to the railroad wharf and for dredgin inner harbor below the drawbridge to a depth of 10 feet and the bridge to a depth of 8 feet below low water, at an estimate c $17,736.60. At the close of the fiscal year ending June 30, 189 sum of $4,918.72 had been expended in the execution of this pr resulting in a channel 12 feet deep at low water and 88 feet wide a the bar as far as the Maryland Steamboat Company's Wharf, and th 22 feet wide to the railroad wharf. Vessels drawing 113 feet of that formerly could not enter the harbor at all can now come up t wharf without much difficulty. There were no operations during the fiscal year ending June 30, as the expenditure of the appropriation of $5,000 made Septembe 1890, is being delayed by the contemplated construction of a v draw in the county bridge across the harbor. July 1, 1891, balance unexpended June 30, 1892, amount expended during fiscal year. July 1, 1892, balance unexpended Amount appropriated by act approved July 13, 1892. Amount available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1893.. (See Appendix H 14.) $5,0 5,0 7,7 12, 8 15. Wicomico River, Maryland.-Wicomico River flows in a so westerly direction through Wicomico County, Eastern Shore of M land, into Tangier Sound, Chesapeake Bay. Its tidal portion is 23 m long. Salisbury, the county seat, is at the head of navigation, and tide rises there about 3 feet. The original depth in the river 1 Salisbury was 18 inches before the improvement of the river begun in 1872. Under a project made in that year and completed 1885, $50,000 was expended, resulting in a channel 7 feet deep at in low water and from 75 to 100 feet wide at and below Salisbury. The present project for improvement, necessitated by the increa business of the port, was submitted in a report upon a survey made 1889 and was adopted in 1890. It provides for a channel 9 feet deep mean low water, 100 feet in width from near Fruitland wharf to drawbridge in Salisbury, at an estimated cost of $23,000. The leng of the proposed channel is about 3 miles. The first work under the new project was done during the past fi year. A channel about 30 feet wide and of the approved depth, 9 fe was dredged from Goose Island wharf to the drawbridge in Salisbu for a distance of 9,250 feet. The increased depth afforded at once gr relief to deep-draft vessels during low tides. Amount (estimated) required for completion of existing project..... Submitted in compliance with requirements of sections 2 of river and harbor acts of 1866 and 1867. 6,700. (See Appendix H 15.) 16. Manokin River, Maryland.-Manokin River is a small tidal tributary of Tangier Sound, Chesapeake Bay, and flows in a southwesterly direction through Somerset County on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Its length is about 18 miles, the lower 10 miles forming a wide estuary. The main channel is interrupted at the head of the estuary for nearly 3 miles by shallow mud flats, which rendered the upper river almost useless for the purposes of navigation. The average rise and fall of the tide near the obstruction is 2.6 feet. The project for improvement proposed in a report on a survey made in 1889 and adopted under an appropriation of $7,500 made by act approved September 19, 1890, provides for dredging a channel 6 feet. deep at mean low water, and 100 feet wide, from Locust Point to Sharp Point, embracing the section called the "Mud Flats," at an estimated cost of $30,000. With the appropriation above referred to, a cut was made during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1891, at the section indicated, 13,515 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 5 feet deep at low tide, at an expense of $7.360.12. There were no operations during the past fiscal year. The dredged cut, which, after being completed, enabled the steamboat plying between Princess Anne and Deal Island to make regular trips, is reported to be in fair condition. July 1, 1891, balance unexpended... June 30, 1892, amount expended during fiscal year July 1, 1892, balance unexpended Amount appropriated by act approved July 13, 1892 . Amount available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1893...... (Amount (estimated) required for completion of existing project...... Submitted in compliance with requirements of sections 2 of river and harbor acts of 1866 and 1867. (See Appendix H 16.) $139.88 10.80 129.08 7,500.00 7,629.08 15,000.00 17. Onancock Harbor, Virginia.-Onancock Harbor or Onancock Biver, is about 5 miles long and flows through the western portion of Accomac County, Va., into Chesapeake Bay. At the town of Onancock, which is situated at the head of the river, the depth of water was originally 4 feet at low tide. At the mouth of the river, where a bar forms the most serious obstruction, the original depth was 5 feet. The average rise and fall of the tide is about 2 feet. During the years 1880 and 1881, $8,000 was expended in dredging a channel 100 feet wide across the bar to a depth of 8 feet below mean low water, and in dredging the shoals at Onancock and above Wise Point to a depth of 7 feet. The improvements were of great benefit to the shipping in the river, but the channel at the bar slowly filled up again to nearly its original depth. The present project for improvement proposed in a report on a survey made in 1889, and adopted under an appropriation of $6,000, made September 19, 1890, provides for dredging a channel 300 feet wide at the outer bar and 200 feet wide at the inner bar, called the "middle ground," both to a depth of 8 feet below mean low water, at an estimated cost of $12,511. The first work under the new project was done during the past fiscal year. A channel was dredged across the outer bar for a width of 150 feet and across the inner bar for a width of 100 feet, both to the required depth of 8 feet. Since then no delays have ENG 92- -9 occurred to vessels wishing to enter at low tides and during northw Amount available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1893.. (See Appendix H 17.) 18. Harbor at Cape Charles City, Virginia, and approaches by Cher (Cherrystone) Inlet.-The harbor of Cape Charles City is an artifi rectangular basin of about 10 acres area, excavated in the shore of Chesapeake Bay, about 12 miles north of the cape of the same na It is in Northampton County, Virginia, and forms the shore termi of the New York, Philadelphia, and Norfolk Railroad, from wh transfers of freight and passengers are made to and from Norfolk, The average rise of the tide is 2.6 feet. The project for improvement proposed, in a report on a survey ma in 1889, provides for dredging the harbor to a depth of 14 feet, a the entrance thereto and the channel in Cherrystone Inlet and aer Cherrystone Bar to a depth of 16 feet, below mean low water, the wi of the two last-named channels to be 100 and 200 feet, respectively, a for protective works of stone at the entrance to the harbor. The es mated cost of the project is $142,340. The harbor was originally a small fresh-water pond, and was inclos with bulkheads by the railroad company and then dredged, togeth with its new entrance leading into Cherrystone Inlet, to a depth about 12 feet below mean low water. This depth was, however, sufficient for the large boats and barges employed of necessity in t increasing traffic; the entrance was also too narrow, and during t prevalence of northerly winds and low tides frequent delays occurr by grounding of vessels at the entrance or in the channel across Che rystone Bar. The portion of the project relating to dredging was adopted in 189 and at the close of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1891, the sum $21,676.89 had been expended in dredging about one-half of the ar of the harbor to 14 feet and in widening the entrance gradually fro 50 feet at its shore end to 480 feet at its junction with the chann in Cherrystone Inlet, the depth made being 16 feet, and in removi to the same depth a small shoal in the main channel 1 mile sou of the harbor. The difficulties formerly encountered in leaving entering the harbor have been much lessened. There were no operations during the past fiscal year. The dredge area within the harbor and in the entrance is shoaling again, accordin to a survey recently made by the railroad company, and to a greater de gree in the entrance than in the harbor. The material is readily swep in from the adjacent shoals on each side of the cut, and will continue t do so unless arrested by artificial works. July 1, 1891, balance unexpended.. June 30, 1892, amount expended during fiscal year July 1, 1892, balance unexpended............ Amount available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1893 $3,323. 1 668.6 2, 654. 4 10,000.0 12, 654. 44 Amount (estimated) required for completion of existing project....... $10, 400.00 Submitted in compliance with requirements of sections 2 of river and harbor acts of 1866 and 1867. (See Appendix H 18.) 19. Removing sunken vessels or craft obstructing or endangering navi gation.-During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1892, the following wrecks were removed under the provisions of the act of June 14, 1880: The schooner Harvey W. Anderson, off Hog Island, Virginia, and schooner Ann R. Rogers, off Cobbs Island, Virginia. (See Appendix H 19.) EXAMINATIONS AND SURVEYS, MADE IN COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF RIVER AND HARBOR ACT APPROVED SEPTEMBER 19, 1890. The required preliminary examinations of the following localities were made by the local engineer in charge, William F. Smith, United States agent, and reports thereon submitted through Col. William P. Craighill, Corps of Engineers, Division Engineer, Southeast Division. It is the opinion of Maj. Smith and of the division engineer, based upon the facts and reasons given, that these localities are worthy of improvement. The conclusions of these officers being concurred in by me, Maj. Smith was charged with and has completed their survey and submitted reports thereon. The reports were transmitted to Congress and printed as executive documents of the Fifty-second Congress, first session. 1. Murderkill River, Delaware.-The proposed improvement contemplates the formation, by dredging, of a channel 7 feet deep at low water from Frederica to the 7-foot curve in Delaware Bay, 80 feet wide down to the mouth, and 150 feet wide at bottom and 250 feet wide at top from the mouth to the 7-foot curve in the bay; the cut at the mouth to be protected by forming an embankment of the dredged material on each side to a height of at least 2 feet above high spring tides. The cost of this work is estimated at $47,550. Printed as House Ex. Doc. No. 21. (See also Appendix H 20.) 2. Mispillion River, Delaware, with a view of cutting a canal so as to shorten the distance to the bay and making an outlet in the bay which would furnish deeper water.-The improvement proposed contemplates dredging a channel 150 feet wide and 6 feet deep at mean low water, extending from the outlet of the river in a southeasterly direction to the 6-foot depth in Delaware Bay, the cut being protected by forming a wall of the dredged material, a stiff blue clay, along its northern side. The cost of this work is estimated at $24,000. Printed as House Ex. Doc. No. 57. (See also Appendix H 21.) 3. Susquehanna River, above Havre de Grace, Maryland.-The plan of improvement, proposed with a view to preventing damage by ice gorges in Susquehanna River in the vicinity of Port Deposit and Havre de Grace, Md., contemplates deepening the shoal below the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad bridge so as to enlarge the cross section of the river at that point, and constructing eight piers at the Hog Back, above Port Deposit, so as to break up the ice or cause the gorges to form at that point. The estimated cost of this work is as follows: Dredging.. Total.. $345, 109.05 80,000.00 425, 109. 05 Col. William P. Craighill, Corps of Engineers, Division Engineer, marks upon this subject as follows: It should be understood, if this work is to be undertaken by the United Sta that it is not for the benefit of navigation. It is an expensive work, both in first cost and in maintenance. The shoals surely reform and require redredging. It would be interesting to know how m an ice gorge actually costs the town of Port Deposit and its inhabitants. It mi be found cheaper to let the gorges come as they do, occasionally, and for the Un States to pay the expense entailed each time rather than to incur a heavy expe for works which will not guarantee protection. Printed as House Ex. Doc. No. 52. (See also Appendix H 22.) 4. Rock Hall Harbor, Maryland.-The improvement recommend contemplates dredging a 10-foot low-water channel, 100 feet wide, fr the channel in Swan Creek Inlet to the old pier in the harbor, at an mated cost of $9,513. Printed as House Ex. Doc. No. 56. (See a Appendix H 23.) IMPROVEMENT OF PATAPSCO RIVER AND CHANNEL TO BALTIMOI MARYLAND, AND OF JAMES RIVER, VIRGINIA. Officer in charge, Col. William P. Craighill, Corps of Engineers. 1. Patapsco River and channel to Baltimore, Maryland.-The dep of this channel has by successive steps been increased from 17 feet mean low water to 27 feet, with an average rise of tide of about inches. The project of improvement first adopted and commenced in Octobe 1853, had for its object to give a channel 22 feet deep at mean lo water, with a width of 150 feet. Little was done before the late war, but afterwards these dimension were increased, a depth of 24 feet at mean low water being determine upon, with a width of channel ranging from 250 to 400 feet. This channel was completed in 1874, important changes of positio having been given to a portion of it, by which the distance was ma terially lessened and the expense of maintenance decreased. The object of the improvement was to permit the approach to Balt more, at mean low water, of vessels drawing from 22 to 23 feet, an at ordinary high water of vessels drawing 24 and 243 feet. Later th project had in view a depth of 27 feet at mean low water, with a widt of 600 feet, to allow the entrance and departure of the largest vessels Operations were brought to a close in August, 1889, for want o money and were not resumed in the year ending June 30, 1890. Th channel throughout had then been excavated to 27 feet at low water The Craighill Channel below the cut off, the Cut-off Channel, and th Brewerton above the cut-off had been excavated to 400 feet width. The Fort McHenry division was generally 250 feet in width, except at the upper end, where it was 500. All the angles were much wider, the object being to facilitate the movement of large ships at these turns The portions of the Brewerton below the cut-off and of the Craighil above it have not been dredged for years, and are not now considered a part of the channel under improvement by the United States. Their width is about 250 feet and the depth 24 feet. Up to June 30, 1891, the United States had expended $2,561,010.48. The city of Baltimore and the State of Maryland, chiefly the former, have also contributed to the same object more than $500,000. The expenditure up to June 30, 1892, by the United States was $2,932,517.01. The river and harbor act of September 19, 1890, appropriated |