[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71126-71128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30079]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION


``Reconstruction of the American Canal Project,'' Located in El 
Paso, Texas; Notice of Draft Finding of No Significant Impact

AGENCY: United States Section, International Boundary and Water 
Commission, United States and Mexico.

ACTION: Notice of draft Finding of No Significant Impact for a draft 
Environmental Assessment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Based on a draft environmental assessment (EA), the United 
States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC), 
finds that the proposed action of reconstruction of the existing 
American Canal is not a major federal action that would have a 
significant adverse effect on the quality of the human environment. An 
environmental impact statement will not be prepared for the project 
unless additional information which may affect this decision is brought 
to the attention of the USIBWC within thirty (30) days of the date of 
this Notice. The draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and 
draft EA have been forwarded to the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency and various Federal, State and local agencies and 
interested parties. The draft FONSI and EA are also available at the 
reference desk at University of Texas At El Paso Library and El Paso 
Main Library, and on the USIBWC Home Page at http://www.ibwc.state.gov 
under ``What's New.'' A limited number of copies of these documents are 
available

[[Page 71127]]

for review and comment upon request from USIBWC at the following 
address: Ms. Sylvia Waggoner, Division Engineer, USIBWC, 4171 North 
Mesa Street, C-310, El Paso, TX 79902. Telephone: (915) 832-4740, e-
mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d7a4aebba1beb6a0b6b0b0b8b9b2a597beb5a0b4f9a4a3b6a3b2f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="44373d28322d25332523232b2a2136042d2633276a37302530216a232b32">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Proposed Action

    The proposed rehabilitation and enlargement of the 1.98-mile-long 
American Canal (also known as Reach F of the Rio Grande American Canal 
Extension or RGACE) involves demolishing the deteriorating concrete 
open channel segments of the canal and replacing them with reinforced 
concrete-lined canal segments. The USIBWC is authorized under the Rio 
Grande American Canal Extension Act of 1990 (the Act of 1990), Public 
Law 101-438, dated October 15, 1990, to construct, operate, and 
maintain an extension of the existing American Canal in El Paso, Texas; 
which ``would provide for a more equitable distribution of waters 
between the United States and Mexico, reduce water losses, and minimize 
many hazards to public safety.''
    Water for both irrigation and domestic use in El Paso County is 
diverted into the American Canal at the American Dam located on the Rio 
Grande approximately 3 miles upstream from downtown El Paso. The 
American Dam and American Canal were constructed from 1937 to 1938, 
within United States territory to divert United States waters away from 
the Rio Grande, and to allow into the international reach of the Rio 
Grande only those waters assigned to the United Mexican States under 
the Convention of 1906. This ensured that United States waters diverted 
at the American Dam would be completely retained within the United 
States.
    In the Act of 1990, the United States Congress also authorized the 
negotiation of international agreements for the RGACE to convey Mexican 
waters authorized under the 1906 Convention. In view of the conveyance 
water losses and the safety issues inherent in Mexico's existing canal 
system, the RGACE was designed to accommodate Mexico's annual 60,000 
acre-foot allotment of water at 335 cubic feet per second (cfs), should 
Mexico request its allotment delivered at this location.

Alternatives Considered

    Five alternatives, including the Open Channel Alternative (the 
Proposed Action Alternative) and the No Action Alternative, were 
considered during the preparation of the environmental assessment. All 
four action alternatives include (1) increasing the canal capacity to 
1535 cfs, (2) demolition of existing canal structures and open channel 
concrete lining, (3) reconstructing and enlarging the 400-foot open 
channel segment immediately downstream from the headgates and the 100-
foot open channel segment upstream from the gaging station, (4) not 
repairing or replacing the two closed conduit segments under West 
Paisano Drive, (5) installing fences to minimize entrance into the 
canal, (6) installing safety equipment to reduce canal drownings, (7) 
removing the Smelter Bridge and the abutments of Hart's Mill Bridge, 
and (8) providing mitigation of the loss of the Smelter Bridge by 
preparing Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Level III 
documentation of the structure (including existing and original 
construction drawings, captioned photographs, and written data). The 
alternatives are summarized below:
    Alternative 1--Closed Conduit Alternative: All existing open 
channel segments (Upper, Middle, and Lower) between the American Dam 
and International Dam would be replaced with closed conduits, with the 
two excepted open reaches in the Upper Open Channel segment. This 
Alternative would be the most expensive to construct and would lose the 
historic open visual character of the canal.
    Alternative 2--Closed Conduit/Open Channel Alternative A: The 
Middle Open Channel segment would be replaced with a closed conduit. 
The Upper and Lower Open Channel segments would be reconstructed and 
enlarged. This alternative would accomplish all the objectives, but 
would lose the historic open visual character of the canal in the 
segment most visible to the public. It would likely triple the number 
of pedestrian traffic fatalities on nearby highways.
    Alternative 3--Closed Conduit/Open Channel Alternative B: The 
Middle and Lower Open Channel segments would be replaced with closed 
conduits. The Upper Open Channel segment would be reconstructed and 
enlarged. This alternative would accomplish all the objectives, but at 
a cost second highest among the action alternatives. It would also 
likely triple the number of pedestrian traffic deaths on nearby 
highways.
    Alternative 4--Open Channel Alternative (the Proposed Action 
Alternative): The Upper, Middle, and Lower Open Channel segments would 
be reconstructed and enlarged. This Alternative would accomplish all 
the necessary objectives at the lowest construction cost. It would 
result in the lowest number of pedestrian traffic fatalities on nearby 
highways. Though the original canal lining would be replaced, this 
Alternative would preserve the visual open character of the canal.
    Alternative 5--No Action Alternative: The three open channel 
segments would be left untouched, with no replacements, enlargements, 
or repairs of any canal segments. While this alternative preserves 
intact the historic Smelter Bridge, it does not accomplish any of the 
stated objectives. The annual number of drownings in the Canal would 
not be reduced. Without reconstruction or major repair of the canal, a 
serious canal failure is likely within the next five years, especially 
during the peak irrigation period with the highest canal flow. Such a 
canal failure would likely close the American Canal for at least one 
month during costly emergency repairs. If the canal flow was disrupted 
due to a month of repairs, the El Paso Water Utilities production of 
potable water would be reduced by 80 to 120 million gallons per day, 
and over a thousand El Paso County farmers could lose their crops, 
likely resulting in up to 500 bankruptcies. The No Action Alternative 
is not considered to be a viable alternative.

Environmental Assessment (EA)

    The USIBWC completed the Draft EA for the proposed action on August 
22, 2000. The Draft EA is available for review and comment at the 
previously-cited address.
    The Draft EA finds that the proposed action does not constitute a 
major federal action that would cause a significant local, regional, or 
national adverse impact on the environment, because the Proposed Action 
Alternative would:
    1. Improve structural stability of the American Canal, ensuring an 
uninterrupted flow of allotted water from the Rio Grande to El Paso 
County farms and to existing and planned El Paso Water Utilities water 
treatment facilities.
    2. Minimize seepage loss through the cracks in the canal lining;
    3. Provide the full design capacity (1535 cfs) influent into the 
RGACE;
    4. Improve safety and reduce the risk of accidental drownings in 
the American Canal by installing fences and safety equipment;
    5. Preserve the historical open channel character of the Canal, and
    6. Preserve historical and photographic documentation of the

[[Page 71128]]

historic Smelter Bridge per HAER Level III Standard.
    Based on the Draft Environmental Assessment and the implementation 
of the proposed historical mitigation, it has been determined that the 
proposed action will not have a significant adverse effect on the 
environment, and an environmental impact statement is not warranted.

    Dated: October 26, 2000.
William A. Wilcox, Jr.,
Attorney-Advisor (General).
[FR Doc. 00-30079 Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7010-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>