HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT SINGLE-SPAN AQUEDUCTS HISTORICAL DATA CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK MD.-D.C.-W.VA By Harlan D. Unrau Denver Service Center Historic Preservation Team National Park Service United Stated Department of the Interior Denver, Colorado March 1974 CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS iii PREFACE iv ADMINISTRATIVE SECTIONS v Statement of Historical Significance v Administrative Data v Recommendations vi I. THE CONSTRUCTION OF AQUEDUCT NO. 6: 1835–1839 1 II. PREPARATIONS FOR LETTING THE CONTRACTS FOR THE “FIFTY MILE SECTION”: 1835–1837 29 III. THE CONSTRUCTION OF AQUEDUCT NO. 8: 1837–1842 33 IV. THE CONSTRUCTION OF AQUEDUCT NO. 9: 1837–1842 46 V. THE CONSTRUCTION OF AQUEDUCT NO. 11: 1837–1842 61 VI. THE COMPLETION OF THE AQUEDUCTS: 1842–1850 75 VII. THE AQUEDUCTS IN OPERATION: 1850–1950 86 APPENDIXES 90 A. “1837. Specification for Aqueducts of One Arch.-Segment of a Circle, on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal” 91 B. “Estimate of the Cost of all the Masonry from Licking Ck to Little Tonoloway Ck. inclusive on Section No. 222.—The Licking Aqueduct” 96 C. Payments Made by the Company for the Construction of Aqueducts Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 11 97 D. Plan: “Entrance Walls of Aqueducts Nos. 6 and 7” 105 E. Contract, Specifications and Price Proposals for Aqueduct No. 8 106 F. Plan: Railway for Deep Cut Athys Hollow, June 21, 1838 114 G. Plan: Railings of Aqueduct No. 8 116 H. Plan: Railings of Aqueduct No. 9 117 ILLUSTRATIONS 118 BIBLIOGRAPHY 132 ii ILLUSTRATIONS 1. Licking Creek Creek Aqueduct, river side, 1961. 119 2. Great Tonoloway Creek Aqueduct and waste weir, downstream end, berm side. 120 3. Great Tonoloway Creek Aqueduct, berm side, berm side. 121 4. Great Tonoloway Creek Aqueduct and waste weir from downstream towpath. 121 5. Great Tonoloway Creek Aqueduct, berm side, 1965. 122 6. Great Tonoloway Creek Aqueduct, downstream (river) side, 1965. 122 7. Sideling Hill Creek Aqueduct, late operating period with pedestrian bridge. 123 8. Sideling Hill Creek Aqueduct complex, 1956 124 9. Sideling Hill Creek Aqueduct, downstream side, 1961. 125 10. Sideling Hill Creek Aqueduct, towpath and guardrail, looking northwest, 1960 125 11. Sideling Hill Creek Aqueduct, towpath in foreground, Looking southeast, 1960 126 12. Fifteen Mile Creek Aqueduct, towpath side, railroad viaduct in background, 1965 126 13. Fifteen Mile Creek Aqueduct, berm side, 1965. 127 14. Fifteen Mile Creek Aqueduct, towpath side, close-up of arch, 1965 127 15. Fifteen Mile Creek Aqueduct, Potomac River in Background. 128 16. Town Creek Aqueduct, berm side. 129 17. Town Creek Aqueduct, downstream (river) side. 129 18. Evitts Creek Aqueduct, late operating period. 130 19. Evitts Creek Aqueduct, late operating period, with cyclists. 130 20. Evitts Creek Aqueduct, berm side, 1960 131 21. Evitts Creek Aqueduct, berm side (eastern abutment), 1960 131 iii PREFACE This report has been prepared to satisfy in part the research needs for the preserva- tion/stabilization of Aqueducts Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 11 on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. Altogether 11 aqueducts were built by the canal company to span the major tributaries of the Potomac River. Of these, six were single-span aqueducts located on the waterway above Dam No. 5. Previous to this report, Edwin C. Bearss did historic structure reports on Aqueduct No. 7 (June 1967) and Aqueduct No. 10 (February 1966). The purpose of this present study is to complete the historical research on the single-span aqueducts above Dam No. 5. Because of the common histories of these structures, an effort has been made to deal with them in a comprehensive manner while at the same time pointing out their distinctive characteristics. A number of persons have assisted in the preparation of this report. Thanks are due to Park Ranger Ellwood Wineholt for assistance at the park headquarters; to Maria Joy and Robert Xvasnicka of the National Archives, who were especially helpful in suggesting and locating unpublished documents; and Dr. Harry Pfanz and Barry Mackintosh of Park Historic Preservation (WASO), Superintendent William R. Failor of C & O Canal NHP, Supervisory Historian John F. Luzader, Historical Architect Thomas N. Crellin, and Edi- tor Linda Greene for reading the manuscript and providing editorial assistance. Harlan D. Unrau April 16, 1974 iv ADMINISTRATIVE SECTIONS Statement of Historical Significance The study of the single-span aqueducts on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal is basic to an understanding of the functioning of the waterway. It was necessary to build masonry aq- ueducts in order to carry the canal across the larger tributaries that flow into the Potomac River. At the time of their construction, the aqueducts represented major engineering ac- complishments. Altogether, 11 aqueducts were built by the Canal Company to span the major tributaries of the Potomac. Of these structures, 6 were single-span aqueducts located on the canal above Dam No. 5. This report focuses on four of these single-span aqueducts: No. 6 at Licking Creek, No. 8 at Sideling Hill Creek, No. 9 at Fifteen Mile Creek and No. 11 at Evitts Creek Administrative Data Name of Structure Aqueduct No. 6 (Licking Creek), Aqueduct No. 8 (Sideling Hill Creek), Aqueduct No. 9 (Fifteen Mile Creek) and Aqueduct No. 11 (Evitts Creek), Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, Washington and Allegany counties, Maryland. Proposed use of Structures and Justification for Such Use The list of Classified Structures has not been completed yet for the canal. Therefore, the Order of Significance of the above-named aqueducts has not been established, nor has the level of treatment been determined. Since the single-span aqueducts were basic to the functioning of the waterway and are considered major engineering accomplishments of the period, they will undoubtedly figure prominently among the historic resources of the canal. Accordingly, it is recommended that appropriate preservation/stabilization treatment be given immediately to Aqueducts Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 11 to prevent further deterioration of the structures. In view of the limited access to their remote locations, little development is contemplated for the sites of Aqueducts Nos. 6, 8 and 9. However, because the draft mas- ter plan proposes to rewater the canal from the terminus in Cumberland to North Branch v vi Single Arch Aqueducts HSR Administrative Sections —the section of the waterway on which Aqueduct No. 11 is located—it is proposed that future consideration be given to the full restoration of this structure. Provision for Operating Structures Aqueducts Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 11 should be used as historic structure exhibits in-place to interpret the construction, maintenance and operation of the canal. Cooperative Agreement, if any, Executed or Proposed for Operating Structures There are no cooperative agreements or other documents bearing on the management, operation or use of these structures. Description of Proposed Construction Activity A definitive description of proposed construction activity cannot be made until the struc- tures are fully studied. However, it is imperative that appropriate preserva- tion/stabilization treatment be given immediately to Aqueducts Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 11 to prevent their further deterioration. Recommendations The records pertaining to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company in the National Ar- chives, the Library of Congress, the Maryland State Archives at Annapolis, and the Maryland State Historical Society ay Baltimore have been thoroughly investigated for this report. Therefore, it is the opinion of the author that no further historical research needs to be done on Aqueducts Nos. 6, 8, 9, and 11. I. THE CONSTRUCTION OF AQUEDUCT NO. 6: 1835–1839 The year 1835, in which bids were opened for construction of the 27 miles of waterway between Dam No. 5 and the Cacapon River, was a trying one for the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company. When the financial condition of the company became desperate in the early months of 1835, the directors sought aid from Congress and the States. After Congress refused to grant the requested aid, the board made an unsuccessful attempt to obtain $500,000 from the dividend of the Bank of the United States, offering in return perpetual release from tolls for government business on the canal. Even this proposal failed to pass the Senate.1 The failure of Congress to support the canal placed the future of the work in the hands of the district cities and the interested States. The former were financially hard-pressed and incapable of offering further aid, and the latter, except Maryland, were no longer interest- ed. The company brought great pressure to bear on the Maryland legislature to pass a bill to loan the entire $2,000,000 required to complete the eastern section of the waterway up to Cumberland. The Maryland Assembly eventually passed the act authorizing the loan, support for the measure stemming from the hope that future revenues of the canal would provide sizeable financial returns to the State later on. The stockholders formally accept- ed the loan and authorized the mortgage at a special meeting on April 22, 1835.2 Immediately upon acceptance of the loan, the canal engineers were directed to plan the entire line to Cumberland with the objective of placing it under contract. Charles B. Fisk, the Chief Engineer, was asked by the board to prepare a detailed study of the line of the canal from Dam No. 5 to the mouth of the Cacapon. This division, about 27 ½ miles in length, had been previously surveyed in the spring of 1834 by Engineer Alfred Cruger, who estimated the work to cost $663,676.3 Fisk was instructed to review Cruger’s esti- mates and the specifications for locks, culverts and aqueducts to see what economies could be effected. In his report submitted to the board on June 16, he revised Cruger’s estimate to $1,022,534 on the basis of work actually done.4 In reference to the two aqueducts, that were slated to be built in this section, Fisk report- ed: 1 Walter S.