Lake Charles goes first to Sabine Pass or Port Arthur, Tex., by rail, not less than 1,000,000 feet, or 2,500 tons, being exported in this way each month. A prominent exporter of Lake Charles informed me that during the month of May, 1905, three ships left Port Arthur, Tex., carrying over 5,000,000 feet of lumber, of which lumber he estimated 75 per cent was cut in Calcasieu Parish, La., and 60 per cent was cut and shipped by rail from Lake Charles, La. In the advent of a good barge channel from Lake Charles to the Gulf there is every reason to expect that this 2,500 tons of lumber would be diverted from the railroads, and not only that, but the business should increase to not less than 10,000 tons per month. This, I think, is a safe estimate, and many times smaller than the sawmill men would estimate it. Sending lumber from Lake Charles to Sabine Pass by rail for export on ships is accompanied by many annoying and expensive features. The rail rates are high, the staking and loading of cars is expensive, and the delays from car shortages both annoying and expensive. With a good barge stage in Calcasieu River the amount of lumber barged down the river and across the Gulf to Sabine Pass, Tex., would undoubtedly show a great increase and that without appreciable loss to the railroads, since they have not now over a great part of each year the facilities for moving what is offered them. Rice.-Along the Calcasieu River and tributary streams there is a large acreage of land devoted to the raising of rice. There are four large rice mills at or near Lake Charles. Only 6,248 tons of rough rice, a small proportion of the total receipts of these mills, was received by water during calendar year 1904. No great increase in rice shipments is certain, due to improved river, but the rice and lumber men of Lake Charles are sanguine that with the shipping of lumber by barges and schooners to Texas and Mexican points a large return business of rough rice for Lake Charles rice mills would result, as well as a possible export business of clean rice through Sabine Pass, Tex. Sulphur. The vast sulphur beds 4 miles south from the Houston River, a navigable tributary of Calcasieu River, are being extensively mined by the Union Sulphur Company. This company is at present shipping out about 500 tons of sulphur per day by rail to New Orleans, La., from which point it is taken in vessels to eastern and foreign points. None of this tonnage is at present moved on Calcasieu River. I visited the mines and offices of the Union Sulphur Company and was impressed at the magnitude of the business and the efforts being put forward to still increase the output of sulphur. The officials of the company informed me that they were very anxious to do away with their present rail haul to New Orleans, which was proving both slow and expensive and which threatened to be still more unsatisfactory as their output was increased. At the present time this company has a survey party in the field making a survey for a canal from their sulphur mines to the Sabine River, a distance of 18 miles, in order to reach deep water at Port Arthur, Tex. They expect that this canal may cost them in the neighborhood of $100,000. If a barge outlet through Calcasieu River was available the resident officers of the Union Sulphur Company stated that without doubt their company would dredge a canal to the Houston River, improve that river themselves, if found necessary, and barge daily between 400 and 500 tons of sulphur via Calcasieu River and Gulf to Sabine Pass for shipment by steamers to eastern and foreign points. Unless conditions very materially change or the work of improvement is too long delayed, I believe the above estimate of prospective tonnage from an improved waterway is logically bound to follow. To secure a 9 or 10 foot navigable channel from the head of navigation in Calcasieu River to Gulf of Mexico, which is all that is asked for by the interests involved, the only work of improvement necessary is in Calcasieu Lake. The last Congress appropriated $100,000 for the improvement of Calcasieu River, mouth and passes, and a 4 survey party will be put in the field about July 1, 1905, to make a complete survey of Calcasieu Lake for the purpose of determining the cost of securing a uniform depth of water through this lake. As this close estimate will soon be available I do not think it advisable to make any rough preliminary estimate of cost of this improve ment. I consider the Calcasieu River worthy of improvement to the extent of a uniform 9 or 10 foot navigable depth from head of navigation to Gulf of Mexico. This depth is at present obtainable everywhere throughout the river and pass, and the survey ordered of Calcasieu Lake will determine the cost of the improvement of that lake. No survey in addition to the survey at present ordered is recommended. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Capt. J. F. MCINDOE, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army. F. F. AXTELL, Junior Engineer. PLAN AND ESTIMATE OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF CALCASIEU LAKE AND PASS TO THE UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, New Orleans, La., January 9, 1906. GENERAL: In compliance with Department letter of September 27, 1905, I have the honor to submit herewith plans and estimates of cost of a channel 10 feet in depth in Calcasieu Lake and River, from the mouth of Calcasieu Pass to the head of navigation, the depth being increased to 12 feet between the jetties. By authority of the Chief of Engineers a survey was made during the summer of 1905 from the mouth of Calcasieu River to the outer pass, including Calcasieu Lake. Calcasieu River has never been surveyed under the direction of the War Department, and it was considered unnecessary for the purpose of the present estimates, to extend the survey to the head of navigation in the river, because it appeared from the results of the preliminary examination that a channel, with a depth of 9 to 10 feet, now exists from the head of navigation at Jones Bluff to the Gulf of Mexico, a distance of about 81 miles, with the exception of the stretch of about 17 miles through Lake Calcasieu. The survey of Calcasieu Lake developed the fact that the bottom is very flat, the deepest water being approximately in the center, where, in an area from 4,000 to 5,000 feet wide and about 12 miles long, the depth varies from about 5 feet to less than 7 feet. It was believed that the middle of the lake was over 8 feet deep, but at no place in the lake was a greater depth than 7 feet found. Borings were made at a number of points in the lake to a depth of 10 feet and the material was found to consist almost entirely of silt and soft blue clay. Five routes are considered for the proposed channel, 10 feet in depth, through Calcasieu Lake: Route 1, from the mouth of Calcasieu River through Cut-off Point, thence in a straight line near the west shore of the lake to the bay inside of Long Point, thence through Long Point in a straight line to the head of Calcasieu Pass; route 2, from the mouth of Calcasieu River through Cut-off Point, thence in a straight line along the western shore of the lake, keeping outside of Long Point, to the head of Calcasieu Pass; route 3, from the easterly mouth of Calcasieu River through the middle of the lake, where the water is deepest, to a point east of the site of the wrecked revetment, thence along this revetment to the head of Calcasieu Pass; route 4, from the easterly mouth of Calcasieu River along the eastern shore of the lake, keeping outside of Williams Point and along the southern shore of the lake to the present channel along the old wrecked revetment, thence to the head of Calcasieu Pass; route 5, the same course as route 4 along the eastern shore of the lake to a point near Williams Point thence through the lake and along the same course as route 3 to the head of Calcasieu Pass. In determining the location of the channel, the following matters must be considered from an engineering point of view: (a) Calcasieu Lake is shallow and the bottom very soft. During storms the silt on the bottom of the lake would be deposited by the wave action in any dredged channel not protected by revetment. (b) The usual type of dredged channel in the center of the lake would be entirely filled up, as is evidenced by the flatness of the bottom of the lake and by the history of the channels heretofore dredged at the head and foot of the lake. (c) A channel on either side, near the margin of the lake, would be partially protected by the shoal water, especially if the dredged material were deposited to the lake side of the channel, but since the material to be dredged is soft, it is believed that this protection would be temporary and unreliable. (d) It is believed that revetments constructed of creosoted piles and timbers would give full protection to the channel, would be strong enough to resist storm action, and by reason of the creosoted material would be very durable and require but little expense for repairs. (e) A bottom width of 80 feet and side slopes of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical is thought to be ample for the needs of navigation at the locality. If a greater width becomes necessary the channel can be cheaply widened. The following estimates are based on a channel 11 feet deep, thereby allowing payment for an overcut of 1 foot and insuring a navigable depth of 10 feet. The necessary revetment work is also included in the estimate in each case, as well as cost of right of way and a reasonable amount for engineering and contingencies. For purposes of comparison estimates of cost of channels 9 feet deep (8-feet navigable depth) are also presented. The estimated cost of completing the jetties at Calcasieu Pass in order to secure a channel 12 feet deep at mean low gulf level is as follows (estimate is made for extending jetties to the 12-foot contour and to build them of riprap stone on mattress foundation, cross section to be 12 feet wide on top, with height of 4 feet above mean low gulf level and side slopes of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical): East jetty, extension 2,000 feet: Mattress foundation, 17,777 square yards, at 90 cents West jetty, extension 4,000 feet: Mattress foundation, 33,333 square yards, at 90 cents Total Contingencies. Grand total. The estimate of cost for route No. 1 is as follows: Dredging, 2,591,477 cubic yards, at 10 cents Right of way, 103 acres, at $10.... Revetment, one side, 65,000 feet, at $8. Protection work at head of channel.. Engineering and contingencies Jetty work, as estimated above.... Total cost for route No. 1................ $259, 145 1,030 520,000 10,000 34, 825 825,000 325,000 1,150,000 A channel 9 feet deep on same route would cost $750,000, including revetments. The estimate of cost for route No. 2 is as follows: Dredging, 2,100,666 cubic yards, at 10 cents Right of way, 35 acres, at $10.. Revetment, one side, 73,000 feet, at $8 Protection work at head of channel.. Jetty work, as estimated above..... Total cost for route No. 2 .......... $210, 067 350 584,000 10,000 35, 583 840, 000 325,000 1, 165, 000 A channel 9 feet deep on same route would cost $770,000, including revetments. The estimate of cost for route No. 3 is as follows: Dredging, 1,550,975 cubic yards, at 10 cents Revetment, both sides, 154,000 feet, at $10.. Engineering and contingencies... Jetty work, as estimated above.... Total cost for route No. 3... $155, 098 1,540, 000 47,000 67, 902 1,810, 000 325,000 2, 135, 000 A channel 9 feet deep on same route would cost $1,740,000, includ A channel 9 feet deep on same route would cost $1,170,000, including revetments. The estimate for route No. 5 is as follows: A channel 9 feet deep on same route would cost $1,010,000, including revetments. The following alternative estimate for route No. 3 is also submitted, based on a channel 100 feet wide on bottom, 11 feet deep, side slopes 5 horizontal to 1 vertical, without revetments except the old revetment in the southern part of the lake: Dredging, 2,043,476 cubic yards, at 10 cents. Marking channel with pile clusters. Jetty work, as estimated above.......... Total cost for route No. 3, without revetments.... $204, 348 47,000 4,500 9, 152 265,000 325,000 590,000 A channel 9 feet deep on same route and without revetments would cost $172,000. It is estimated that the annual cost of maintenance of the revetted channel on routes 1, 2, 3, or 4 would not exceed $5,000 on the supposition that the shoaling would occur only at the head and foot of the lake; that the annual cost of maintenance of the channel on route No. 5 would not exceed $10,000, and that the annual cost of maintenance of the unprotected channel on route No. 3, assuming a fill of approximately 1 foot per year for a length of 77,000 feet, would be about $25,000. From a consideration of the above estimates, I am of the opinion that, including the cost of maintenance, the most advantageous channel is that along the western margin of the lake on route No. 1, with revetment on one side where necessary and costing $825,000. To this amount must be added the cost of extending the jetties, so as to secure a depth of 12 feet between them, which will make the total cost $1,150,000. The present commerce on the Calcasieu River does not in my opinion justify this expenditure. Lake Charles does a heavy export business in lumber, and exporters are at present compelled to ship most of their output by rail to Port Arthur, Tex. They are most desirous of having a barge channel about 10 feet in depth, so that their lumber can be taken in barges or schooners to Port Arthur or Sabine Pass. It is believed that the provision of such a channel would result in a heavy increase in water traffic, but would this increase be great enough to justify the expenditure of the sum necessary to provide the 10-foot channel? Mr. Axtell's report on the prospective commerce of the improved river, which was submitted with my preliminary report of July 19, 1905, estimates an increase in lumber and rice from about 15,000 tons to 130,000 tons annually. This estimate is considered by me to be conservative. When the preliminary report was made it was generally believed that there would be a large amount of sulphur barged down the Calcasieu River; but recently it has been stated in the newspapers that the Union Sulphur Company has adopted the project of constructing a canal about 17 miles long to the Sabine River, and if this is true it is not to he expected that any sulphur will be carried on the Calcasieu River. It might be concluded, therefore, that the amount of the prospective commerce involved (estimated at about 150,000 tons annually) is too small to justify the cost of a channel 10 feet in depth. On the other hand, it appears from the estimates, based on the survey of 1905, that to provide an 8-foot channel through the lake (located on |