J.03_200008_Controlling_Water_on_Border_Sup_Rpt_Pearsons.pdf

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT

CONTROLLING WATER ON THE BORDER:

THE AMERICAN CANAL SYSTEM,

UNITED STATES SECTION,

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION,

EL PASO, TEXAS

Prepared for Prepared by United States Section Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.

International Boundary and Water Austin, Texas Commission United States and Mexico August 2000 El Paso, Texas Contract # IBM 99-30

Supplement to the American Canal System Report i

Table of Contents

ERRATA 1

INTRODUCTION 2

DESCRIPTION OF OPEN CHANNEL ALTERNATIVE 2

REFINEMENT OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE 8

DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS 13

PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES 15

REFERENCES CONSULTED 16

LIST OF PREPARERS 17

Supplement to the American Canal System Report ii

List of Tables

Table 1 Comparison of Proposed Alternatives

List of Figures

Figure 1 Location of the American Canal Figure 2 Location of Smelter Bridge Figure 3 Location of Globe Street and Hart’s Mill Road Bridges Figure 4 Open Channel Alternative – Typical Cross Section

List of Plates

Plate 1 Section of Smelter Bridge, February 10, 1937 Plate 2 View prior to construction of the Smelter Bridge or American Canal, looking west, March 31, 1937 Plate 3 Pouring the concrete deck for Smelter Bridge, looking southeast, October 29, 1937 Plate 4 View of the completed Smelter Bridge and the construction of the

American Canal, looking south, December 31, 1937 Plate 5 View of the Smelter Bridge and American Canal, looking south, June 11, 1938 Plate 6 View of Smelter Bridge from the eastern side of Paisano Drive, looking northeast, March 20, 2000 Plate 7 View of Smelter Bridge toward Paisano Drive, looking west, March 21, 2000

Supplement to the American Canal System Report 1

ERRATA

The purpose of this errata page is to correct the text and captions related to bridges that were misidentified in the historical and archaeological investigation conducted by Human Systems Research, Inc. (HSR) in 1999.

The photographs listed below were incorrectly labeled and the correct captions are as follows:

• Plate 30: Photograph depicts 12 March 1938 view of Hart’s Mill Road Bridge; and

• Plate 66: Photograph depicts 1999 view of the remnants of the Hart’s Mill Road Bridge.

The descriptions of the Globe Street and Hart’s Mill Road Bridges on pages 62, 66, and 67 of the HSR report contain incorrect information. The description and dimensions provided correctly describe only the Hart’s Mill Road Bridge. A revised description of the two bridges can be summarized as follows:

An examination of USIBWC construction drawings, maps, and photographs reveals that while the Globe Street Bridge was constructed as a footbridge across the canal, the structure at Hart’s Mill Road was a timber vehicular bridge. Although remnants of the Globe Street Bridge no longer exist, the original Hart’s Mill Road Bridge has been replaced with a sewer line and only the abutments remain. Photograph #ADC-385 in the USIBWC archives depicts the construction of the Globe Street footbridge in an April 1938 view. Furthermore, a construction drawing dated May 28, 1938, and entitled “Earthwork & Gravel Surfacing at American Dam and Canal – General Plan” (#2693-49) corroborates the location and method of construction of both the Globe Street and Hart’s Mill Road Bridges. No construction drawings have been found for the Globe Street pedestrian bridge, perhaps indicating the structure’s simplicity of design.

Furthermore, the HSR study claimed that a third bridge, which led to the American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) plant, was likewise of wood-frame construction, has been replaced by a new structure, and that no original remnants exist.

However, the Smelter Road Bridge still stands and is addressed in detail in the August 2000 Supplemental Report, Controlling Water on the Border: The American Canal System, United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission, El Paso, Texas. The correct station for the Smelter Road Bridge is 63.00.

Supplement to the American Canal System Report 2

INTRODUCTION

The United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC), the agency which operates and maintains the American Canal in El Paso, Texas, has proposed to reconstruct the canal in order to improve its structural stability and increase its overall capacity from 1,200 to 1,535 cubic feet per second. This supplemental report serves as an addendum to the historical investigation and archaeological inventory of the American Canal conducted in 1999 by Human Systems Research, Inc. (HSR). The previous analysis assessed the potential impacts of four alternatives for the proposed reconstruction of the canal, including a No Action Alternative in which the canal would be maintained in its current configuration. The three action alternatives proposed the replacement of varying amounts of the open channel segments (ranging from a total of 2,941 feet to 7,360 feet) with closed conduits. Additionally, HSR conducted extensive archival research on the construction of the American Canal, as well as repeat photography and on-site inspections of the existing canal system. Figure 1 depicts the location and layout of the American Canal, which is situated on the American side of the international boundary between the United States and Mexico. Figures 2 and 3 provide detailed views of portions of the canal.

Thus, the purpose of this subsequent study is two-fold: (1) to address a new alternative that was proposed following the submission of the previous analysis; and (2) to refine the statement of historical significance for the American Canal. Evaluation of the additional alternative, as well as fieldwork and photographic research of the only bridge associated with the canal that remains intact, was conducted in March 2000.

In general terms, the American Canal possesses significance for its political and agricultural contributions to the El Paso Valley. Completed on June 2, 1938, construction of the American Canal represents the earliest attempt by the United States to ensure the distribution of waters to the United States and Mexico under the terms of the 1906 Treaty with Mexico. Although the HSR report stated that the American Canal exhibits historically significant engineering and construction characteristics typical of Depression-era Federal irrigation projects, this claim was not established. Upon consideration of both the previous investigation and this more recent evaluation, this supplemental report emphasizes the retention of the design and configuration of the canal as opposed to the supposed significance of its method of construction and use of materials. It should be noted that by the time of the construction of the American Canal, the use of reinforced concrete was common and hardly more representative of Depression-era construction than of any other period during the 20th century.

DESCRIPTION OF OPEN CHANNEL ALTERNATIVE

Implementation of the newly proposed alternative would retain the headgate structure and two closed conduit sections, yet require the removal and reconstruction of all concrete lining in the open channel portions, which constitute approximately 74% of the total

S upplem ent to the A m erican C anal S ystem R eport 3

Figure 1: Location of the American Canal

Figure 3 ~~~-----~-----\(' ~v , .. ·-/ . '\. .._,- ~ L ' ~ -.:'" ""' ''it]'v.j :::,_-s_- ~~ , • "" • I • ~ ~ ,. .. ,.. " " " ~

''I'C ' ~-..· J ·- ·y, ~ •·. ' ~-:<off·:~~ ~

.._ .... ~·:~".: ~~:~•~------------r .. -~ >-~"·::.:_<:;~ =-z ·~;;

\1 I ' ' t f Cl

Sour~.-c: ln1cmnion:ll &undal)' Commission, January 194 I

A Smelter Bridge B Globe Srreer Bridge C Approximate Location of Han's Mi ll Road Bridge

Supplement to the American Canal System Report 4

~ . ~ ~"' $'-~ ,.·>~ ..... ·~~-o, .. ~.~;/ ~

" -S

~J) :-2 ...

a:~

<Itt",. o~.J.

4~4··:"'~ ...... " v

-v E -V) 0 ~ c:

0 -- 1j

. "'-~"· Q~· .. C\ llJ j

~.::,.,o.~q:;., ) ... "\..;.s;r--. ·~""

<'i v ...

:I

OJ)

u:

S upplem ent to the A m erican C anal S ystem R eport 5

Figure 3: Location of Globe Street and Hart's Mill Road Bridges

@ O#Dtllt CuJ"-~ CITY $rRIET3

•• f , ... -~~~~ ..

{/\'4-}' ···\·)·~·":·

~fJ~.~;{

~.~ ··)}·' . .p'-', • . 0\ t)..c.: ,t'o ~ ;IJ.

"''-~ ;IJ . ~"'·fJ '> .\..,'

~"-' loc.h:or, of ! Ofl ~t,.

MtJIWU.TIOtML. IOUf!IOMV QOMIWISSION U111Tt:0 ll&TU ,_ ~ITATUKCT'm

KEY NAP TO RlGHT OF WAY

Supplement to the American Canal System Report 6 length of the canal. Prior to installation of the new concrete lining, the open channel dimensions would be slightly enlarged to convey higher design flow. Anticipated characteristics of the new open channel portions are illustrated in Figure 4, which shows the cross section of the new lining superimposed over top of a sketch of the old (existing) lining. Improved panel joints in the new lining are also proposed. The fourth alternative would retain the original aesthetic character of the canal’s design by preserving its open channel segments and eliminating the construction of new closed conduits as recommended in the other three action alternatives.

Implementation of any of the four action alternatives would involve retaining the two original closed conduits since they appear to be in excellent structural condition and have sufficient capacity to handle the new design flow. However, any of the four action alternatives would require the removal of the original concrete panels that line the open channel segments in order to accommodate the increased flow. Most of these panels are currently in an extremely deteriorated state, as evidenced by cracking, spalling, and shifting. Depending on the alternative selected, this lining would be replaced with either a new lining of concrete that measures two feet wider and two feet higher than the existing panels (as depicted in Figure 4), or new precast concrete closed conduits with a double barrel opening. Additionally, in order to accommodate the proposed widening of the canal, the original transition areas flanking the closed conduits also would be removed so as to allow the extant closed conduits to properly tie into the new canal (Seiger 2000). The variations between the five different alternatives are illustrated in Table 1 in the Determinations of Effect and Recommendations section of this report.

Supplement to the American Canal System Report 7

Fi gu re

O p en

C h an n el A lt er n at iv e

T yp ic al C ro ss

S ec ti o n

Supplement to the American Canal System Report 8

REFINEMENT OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Construction of the American Dam and Canal was intended to ensure the distributions of waters to the United States and Mexico under the terms of the 1906 Treaty with Mexico. This treaty provides a guaranteed amount of delivery to Mexico. The Juarez Acequia Madre complex provides delivery of approximately 60,000 acre-feet of water. The El Paso Valley receives about 376,862 acre-feet of water. The American Canal complex is significant in that it prevented disruptions in United States – Mexican relations by separating United States from Mexican waters. As such, and in accordance with the findings of HSR, the American Canal is significant under National Register Criterion A for several reasons: its importance in international relations between the United States and Mexico; its role in water distribution to ensure compliance with the Treaty of 1906; and its contributions to the development of irrigated agriculture in the El Paso Valley. Furthermore, the American Canal possesses significance under Criterion C for its overall design, specifically its open character and configuration, and continues to exhibit such aspects of its historic integrity as location, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling.

Although the HSR investigation addressed three bridges originally associated with the American Canal, the report included historic documentation of only two of these structures – the Globe Street and Hart’s Mill Road Bridges. An examination of USIBWC construction drawings, maps, and photographs reveals that while the Globe Street bridge was constructed as a footbridge across the canal, the structure at Hart’s Mill Road was a timber vehicular bridge. Although remnants of the Globe Street Bridge no longer exist, the original Hart’s Mill Road Bridge has been replaced by a sewer line and only the abutments remain. Furthermore, the HSR study claimed that a third bridge, which led to the American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) plant, has been replaced by a new structure and no original remnants exist. The report also mistakenly stated that all three bridges were of wood construction with concrete abutments.

However, this supplemental report specifically addresses the existence of this third bridge, known as the Smelter Bridge. With a total width of 34 feet, the bridge is of poured concrete construction, leads east from Paisano Drive, extends over the canal, and provides access to the ASARCO plant. The bridge features a poured concrete approach road, deck, and abutments. Each side of the bridge is composed of low guardrails consisting of four poured concrete piers connected by two rails square in plan. The guard rails, curbs, and span have a rough-faced aggregate surface. Barbed wire fencing flanks each side of the bridge. A modern poured concrete barrier abuts the eastern span at its northern corner.

The USIBWC Headquarters in El Paso possesses extensive archives pertaining to the construction of the American Canal. This collection includes historic photographs, maps, and construction drawings for the canal and its associated features and bridges.

A review of historic photographs within the archives reveals that construction of the Smelter Bridge was completed by December 1937. By March 1938, the portion of the canal on each side of the bridge, as well as neighboring Conduit A, also was completed.

Supplement to the American Canal System Report 9

Plates 1 through 5 illustrate the construction of the Smelter Bridge, and include a portion of the original construction drawing (Plate 1), a view of the land prior to construction (Plate 2), the pouring of the concrete deck (Plate 3), and its appearance upon completion (Plates 4 and 5).

Additionally, two contemporary views of the bridge are included in order to illustrate that the Smelter Bridge remains largely intact and relatively unchanged (Plates 6 and 7). However, it should be noted that the images offered in this supplemental report represent only a sampling of the documentation that exists for both the Smelter Bridge and the American Canal and were selected as representative views.

Plate 1: Section of Smelter Bridge, February 10, 1937.

Source: Construction drawing for Smelter Bridge and Transitions. Courtesy of USIBWC.

Supplement to the American Canal System Report 10

Plate 2: View prior to construction of the Smelter Bridge or American Canal, looking west, March 31, 1937.

Source: USIBWC Archives, Photograph No. ADC-703.

Plate 3: Pouring the concrete deck for Smelter Bridge, looking southeast, October 29, 1937.

Source: USIBWC Archives, Photograph No. ADC-240.

Supplement to the American Canal System Report 11

Plate 4: View of the completed Smelter Bridge and the construction of the American Canal, looking south, December 31, 1937.

Source: USIBWC Archives, Photograph No. 302.

Plate 5: View of the Smelter Bridge and American Canal, looking south, June 11, 1938.

Source: USIBWC Archives, Photograph No. 1586.

Supplement to the American Canal System Report 12

Plate 6: View of Smelter Bridge from the eastern side of Paisano Drive, looking northeast, March 20, 2000.

Plate 7: View of Smelter Bridge toward Paisano Drive, looking west, March 21, 2000.

Supplement to the American Canal System Report 13

DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Implementation of any of the four action alternatives, including the newly proposed Open Channel Alternative, would have an adverse effect on the American Canal for purposes of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act due to the removal of original materials (e.g., concrete lining) and demolition of associated structures (e.g., extant Smelter Bridge and abutments of Hart’s Mill Road Bridge). With the exception of the two original closed conduits, most of the remaining material composing the canal is in a deteriorated state and of insufficient size to handle the proposed increased capacity. Thus, the replacement of these materials would be necessary in order to eliminate the need for continual repairs and monitoring of the condition of materials. Additionally, although original to the construction of the American Canal, the Smelter Bridge is too narrow to accommodate large trucks that traverse the bridge to enter and exit the ASARCO plant. In fact, vehicular damage is evident on the pier at the northwestern corner of the northern side of the bridge.

Despite the loss of these original materials and structural components, implementation of the Open Channel Alternative would retain the visual character of the canal’s original design by maintaining its open channel configuration. In contrast, the other three action alternatives propose disrupting the character of the original design of the canal with the construction of some segments of closed conduits. Although enclosing the uncovered portions of the canal presents a safety advantage, the construction of closed conduits is typically more costly than simply relining the canal with slightly enlarged replacement concrete panels. As such, Alternative 4 would be the most cost effective option and have the least impact on the original character and design of the American Canal, with the exception of the No Action Alternative.

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS

Table 1 on the following page highlights the characteristics of each of the alternatives, and their respective effects. The American Canal System is significant primarily for its association with American history, and much less so for its engineering and construction characteristics. With the exception of the removal of the Smelter Bridge, the proposed open channel alternative will largely preserve the overall visual characteristics and original design and feeling of the canal.

For this reason, the length of open channel remaining in each alternative was chosen as the indicator issue.

Supplement to the American Canal System Report 14

Table 1

Comparison of Proposed Alternatives

Effects Alternative 1

(Closed Conduit)

Alternative 2 (Partial Closed

Conduit Alternative

A)

Alternative 3 (Partial Closed

Conduit Alternative

B)

Alternative 4 (Open

Channel)

Alternative

(No Action)

Number of original 1938 bridges removed

1 1 1 1 0

Number of original 1938 bridges remaining

0 0 0 0 1

Number of original 1938 bridge abutments removed

2 2 2 2 0

Numb er of original 1938 bridge abutments remaining

0 0 0 0 2

Number of original 1938 closed conduits remaining

2 2 2 2 2

Length of closed conduit (in feet)

9,774 5,490 8,210 2,470 2,470

Length of open channel (in feet)

675 4,959 2,239 7,979 7,804

Length of original 1938 open channel lining remaining (in feet)

0 0 0 0 7,804

Sources:

Ackerly, 1999.

Seiger, 2000.

Supplement to the American Canal System Report 15

PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES

For purposes of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the American Canal System is significant primarily for its history, and much less so for its engineering and construction characteristics. The proposed open channel alternative will have the least effect of the possible alternatives other than the no-action alternative, since it will largely preserve the overall visual characteristics and original design and feeling of the canal, with the exception of the removal of the Smelter Bridge. Nevertheless, removing the Smelter Bridge will have an adverse effect on the canal.

In order to mitigate the adverse effect of the loss of this bridge, the USIBWC will prepare documentation of the resource according to Level III Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards. Preparation of the HAER documentation will draw on the extensive existing documentation and archival records pertaining to the construction of the American Canal. The Headquarters of the USIBWC in El Paso maintains a substantial collection of historic documentary materials, including photographs, maps, and construction drawings. In addition, an uncataloged collection of materials is located in the vaults at the USIBWC American Dam field office.

Furthermore, Record Group 76 housed at the National Archives Southwest Region branch in Fort Worth contains assorted monthly reports related to construction, technical, and budgetary progress for various Rio Grande canalization projects, including the American Canal (Hacker 2000). Some of these reports include photographs, maps, and blueprints relevant to these canalization projects.

The HAER documentation of the Smelter Bridge would consist of the following three components:

• Drawings: Creating a sketch plan of the Smelter Bridge, as well as compiling a set of existing drawings of the resource, including the original construction drawings on file at the USIBWC, in order to illustrate the dimensions and historic value of the bridge;

• Photographs: Producing photographs with large-format negatives of exterior and interior views of the Smelter Bridge in either a 4 x 5”, 5 x 7”, or 8 x 10” format. All photographs will be perspective-corrected, contain full captions, and convey both the appearance and significance of the resource; and

• Written data: Completing a one-page HAER Data Form, which includes such information as location, builder, present owner, present use, and other descriptive information about the resource. Additionally, the cultural resources documentation of the American Canal System provided in the initial study prepared by Human Systems Research, as well as in this Supplemental Report, will contribute to the textual record of the Smelter Bridge.

Supplement to the American Canal System Report 16

REFERENCES CONSULTED

Ackerly, Neal W.

1999 Controlling Water on the Border: The American Canal System, International Boundary and Water Commission, El Paso, Texas. Prepared by Human Systems Research, Inc., for the United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission.

Hacker, Meg 2000 Director of Archival Operations for National Archives Southwest Region, Fort Worth, Texas. Personal communication with Cynthia Liccese of Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., 19 April 2000.

Seiger, Andrew 2000 Project Engineer, USIBWC. Personal communication via electronic mail with Cynthia

Liccese of Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., 28 March 2000.

United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) 1936 American Dam and Canal Construction Progress Photographs. Albums commence with

Volume 1 (October 2, 1936 to May 3, 1937) and conclude with Volume 9 (June 2, 1938 to October 1939). On file at the USIBWC Headquarters, El Paso, TX.

1937 Construction drawings for the “Smelter Bridge and Transitions” (Sheets 2240-49, 2241-49, 2242-49, 2244-49, and 2245-49) dated February 10, 1937. Original drawings on file at the USIBWC Headquarters, El Paso, TX.

Supplement to the American Canal System Report 17

LIST OF PREPARERS

USIBWC Project Manager: Steve Fox, M.S.

Parsons ES Program Manager: R.C. Wooten, Ph.D.

Architectural Historian: Cynthia Liccese, B.A.

Graphics: Karen Rasmussen, Ph.D.

Quality Assurance: Brian D. Crane, Ph.D.