DOCSLIB.ORG

Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Evaluation Findings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Evaluation Findings Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Evaluation Findings Authors Prepared for Prepared by Debra Rog, Ph.D. United States National Park Service Westat Emanuel Robinson, Ph.D. Washington, D.C. 1600 Research Boulevard Daniela Barragan, M.S. Rockville, Maryland 20850-3129 Joanna Nelson (301) 251-1500 August 2015 Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................................................................4 Purpose of the Report ........................................................................................................................... 4 Key Evaluation Questions ....................................................................................................................... 4 Key Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Structure of the Report ....................................................................................................................... 12 Section 1– Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................................................13 1.1 National Heritage Areas ............................................................................................................... 13 1.2 Report Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 13 1.3 Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area ........................................................................................... 15 1.4 Evaluation Methodology .............................................................................................................. 16 1.14 .Methodology .................................................................................................................... 16 1.4.2 Site Introduction and Background Research .......................................................................... 17 1.4.3 Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 17 1.4.4 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 18 1.4.5 Evaluation Limitations ....................................................................................................... 18 1.5 Roles ....................................................................................................................................... 19 1.5.1 External Evaluator .............................................................................................................. 19 1.5.2 National Park Service (NPS) ......................................................................................................... 19 1.5.3 Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area ........................................................................................... 19 Section 2 – Overview of the YCNHA................................................................................................................................................................ 20 2.1 Introduction to the YCNHA & the YCNHA Corporation . 20 2.2 Introduction to the YCNHA Corporation ....................................................................................... 21 2.2.1 Authorizing Legislation and YCNHA Vision and Mission ......................................................... 22 2.3 YCNHA’s Relationships with Partners/Stakeholders and NPS ............................................................ 23 2.3.1 Partners and Stakeholder Organizations Relationships ............................................................ 23 2.3.2 NHA Partnership with NPS ................................................................................................ 25 2.4 NHA Timeline ............................................................................................................................. 25 Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Evaluation Findings 2 Section 3 – NHA Fulfillment of the Authorizing Legislation and Management Plan ....................................... 26 3.1 Goals and Objectives of the NHA ................................................................................................. 26 3.2 NHA Activities and Impacts .......................................................................................................... 27 3.2.1 Capital Construction .......................................................................................................... 29 3.2.2 Conservation, Restoration, and Preservation ......................................................................... 32 3.2.3 Operation and Management ............................................................................................... 35 3.2.4 Marketing and Advertising ................................................................................................. 37 3.2.5 Technical Assistance .......................................................................................................... 38 3.2.6 Economic Development ..................................................................................................... 40 3.2.7 Event Management ........................................................................................................... 41 3.3 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 42 Section 4 – Public/Private Investments in YCNHA and their Impact .............................................................................. 43 4.1 Investments in NHA Activities ....................................................................................................... 43 4.2 Use of Financial Resources ............................................................................................................ 46 4.3 Impact of Investments ................................................................................................................. 50 Section 5 – NHA Sustainability .............................................................................................................................................................................51 5.1 Defining Sustainability .................................................................................................................. 51 5.2 Honoring the Legislative Mandate of the NHA ............................................................................... 51 5.3 YCNHA Corporation’s Management Capacity ................................................................................ 51 5.3.1 Governance, Leadership, and Oversight ............................................................................... 51 5.3.2. Staffing and Operations ...................................................................................................... 53 5.3.3 Strategic Planning and Adaptive Management ....................................................................... 53 5.3.4 Monitoring and Record Keeping .......................................................................................... 54 5.4 Partnerships ................................................................................................................................ 54 5.5 Financial Sustainability, the Importance of NPS Funds, and the Importance of NHA Designation ........... 55 5.5.1 YCNHA Corporation Need for Financial Resources ................................................................ 55 5.5.2 YCNHA Need for Financial Resources .................................................................................. 55 5.6 Sustainability Summary ................................................................................................................ 57 Appendix 1 – Evaluation Legislation ............................................................................................................................................................... 58 Appendix 2 – Authorizing Legislation ........................................................................................................................................................... 59 Appendix 3 – Evaluation Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................ 64 Appendix 4 – Evaluation Protocols ..................................................................................................................................................................71 Appendix 5 – Timeline of YCNHA Key Events ........................................................................................................................................ 95 Appendix 6 – YCNHA Board Members and Affiliations ............................................................................................................... 96 Appendix 7 – YCNHA Partners ..............................................................................................................................................................................97 Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Evaluation Findings 3 Executive Summary Purpose of the Report Key Evaluation Questions The purpose of this report is to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE EXPLORERS by Richard F. Pourade CHAPTER ONE: BEFORE
    THE EXPLORERS By Richard F. Pourade CHAPTER ONE: BEFORE THE EXPLORERS San Diego was a well populated area before the first Spanish explorers arrived. The climate was wetter and perhaps warmer, and the land more wooded than now. The remnant of a great inland lake covered most of Imperial Valley. The San Diego River wandered back and forth over the broad delta it had formed between Point Loma and Old Town, alternately emptying into Mission Bay and San Diego Bay. The natural food supply was so abundant that the state as a whole supported an Indian population far greater than any equal area in the United States. The native population of the southern counties alone must have been at least 10,000. The early maps made of San Diego Bay by the Spanish explorers show the same general configuration as of today, except, of course, for the many changes in the shoreline made by dredging and filling in recent years. The maps, crudely drawn without proper surveys, vary considerably in detail. Thousands of years ago, in the late part of the Ice Age, Point Loma was an island, as were Coronado and North Island. Coronado used to be known as South Island. There was no bay, as we think of it now. A slightly curving coastline was protected by the three islands, of which, of course, Point Loma was by far the largest. What we now know as Crown Point in Mission Bay was a small peninsula projecting into the ocean. On the mainland, the San Diego and Linda Vista mesas were one continuous land mass.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Historic Preservation Plan 2000
    ARIZONAHistoric Preservation Plan UPDATE 2000 ARIZONAHistoric Preservation Plan UPDATE 2000 ARIZONASTATEPARKSBOARD Chair Executive Staff Walter D. Armer, Jr. Kenneth E. Travous Benson Executive Director Members Renée E. Bahl Suzanne Pfister Assistant Director Phoenix Jay Ream Joseph H. Holmwood Assistant Director Mesa Mark Siegwarth John U. Hays Assistant Director Yarnell Jay Ziemann Sheri Graham Assistant Director Sedona Vernon Roudebush Safford Michael E. Anable State Land Commissioner ARIZONA Historic Preservation Plan UPDATE 2000 StateHistoricPreservationOffice PartnershipsDivision ARIZONASTATEPARKS 5 6 StateHistoricPreservationOffice 3 4 PartnershipsDivision 7 ARIZONASTATEPARKS 1300WestWashington 8 Phoenix,Arizona85007 1 Tel/TTY:602-542-4174 2 http://www.pr.state.az.us ThisPlanUpdatewasapprovedbythe 9 11 ArizonaStateParksBoardonMarch15,2001 Photographsthroughoutthis 10 planfeatureviewsofhistoric propertiesfoundwithinArizona 6.HomoloviRuins StateParksincluding: StatePark 1.YumaCrossing 7.TontoNaturalBridge9 StateHistoricPark StatePark 2.YumaTerritorialPrison 8.McFarland StateHistoricPark StateHistoricPark 3.Jerome 9.TubacPresidio StateHistoricPark StateHistoricPark Coverphotographslefttoright: 4.FortVerde 10.SanRafaelRanch StateHistoricPark StatePark FortVerdeStateHistoricPark TubacPresidioStateHistoricPark 5.RiordanMansion 11.TombstoneCourthouse McFarlandStateHistoricPark StateHistoricPark StateHistoricPark YumaTerritorialPrisonStateHistoricPark RiordanMansionStateHistoricPark Tombstone Courthouse Contents Introduction 1 Arizona’s
    [Show full text]
  • Once-Rugged Old Spanish Trail Celebrates 90Th Year Yuma
    Local News Once-rugged Old Spanish Trail celebrates 90th year BY PAM M. SMITH, SUN STAFF WRITER Dec 9, 2005 Today is the 90th birthday of the Old Spanish Trail, a route that opened the way for cross-country vehicular traffic — with some help from Yuma's Ocean-to-Ocean Bridge. The Old Spanish Trail started in Mobile, Ala., Dec. 10, 1915, as the shortest vehicle route between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, said John W. Murphey, a historian with the New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs Historic Preservation Division, in a telephone interview with The Sun. "Its route wound through several states, a path for the old Highway 80 — today's Interstates 8 and 10," Murphey said. The Ocean-to-Ocean Bridge, crossing from Arizona into California, was the last bridge on the southern Old Spanish Trail route. It was dedicated in 1915, a few months prior to the beginning of the trail itself. The 20th century automobile route was actually the second of two Old Spanish Trails. The first, dating back to the early 1800s, started in Santa Fe, N.M., and went north into Colorado, west through Utah, then southwest in Nevada, through the Mojave desert and into Los Angeles. The original Old Spanish Trail had been used by Native Americans and various explorers and traders before the modern highway route was opened. That highway route — the one celebrating its birthday today — was envisioned as a means for tourists to see Florida towns, go through Mobile and continue on their way west. During a convention in Mobile, 419 delegates from Alabama, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona created the future highway.
    [Show full text]
  • National Heritage Areas Congress Has Designated 55 National Heritage Areas (Nhas) to Recognize the Unique National Significance of a Region’S Sites and History
    ^ NATIONAL PARK SERVICE National Heritage Areas Congress has designated 55 National Heritage Areas (NHAs) to recognize the unique national significance of a region’s sites and history. Through local and regional partnerships with the National Park Service (NPS), these large lived-in landscapes connect heritage conservation with recreation and economic development. NHAs may be managed A site of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage by federal commissions, nonprofit groups, Area, Harper’s Ferry National Historical Park in West Virginia tells a diverse, multi-layered history. Some of the stories the universities, and state agencies or municipal park interprets includes John Brown’s attack on slavery, Harriet authorities, guided by a management plan Tubman’s heroic efforts on Underground Railroad, the arrival of the first successful American railroad, the largest surrender of approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Through Federal troops during the Civil War, and the education of former slaves in one of the earliest integrated schools in the United this partnership strategy, heritage areas combine States. historic preservation, cultural and natural resource PHOTO BY FRANK KEHREN conservation, local and regional preservation planning, and heritage education and tourism. FY 2022 Appropriations Request Background National Heritage Areas are Please support $32 million for National Heritage Areas in the FY partnerships among the National 2022 Interior Appropriations bill. Park Service, states, and local communities, in which the NPS APPROPRIATIONS BILL: Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies supports state and local conservation AGENCY: National Park Service through federal recognition, seed ACCOUNT: National Recreation and Preservation money, and technical assistance. ACTIVITY: Heritage Partnership Programs/National Heritage Areas NHAs are designated by individual legislation with specific provisions Recent Funding History: for operation unique to the area’s FY 2019 Enacted Funding: $20.321 million specific resources and desired goals.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 PEIR, Draft December 2015
    3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES This section of the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) describes cultural resources in the SCAG region, discusses the potential impacts of the proposed 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (“2016 RTP/SCS,” “Plan,” or “Project”) on cultural resources, identifies mitigation measures for the impacts, and evaluates the residual impacts. Cultural resources were evaluated in accordance with Appendix G of the 2015 State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Cultural resources within the SCAG region were evaluated at a programmatic level of detail, in relation to the general plans of the six counties and 191 cities within the SCAG region; review of general information characterizing the paleontological resources that have been reported from the SCAG region and review of Dibblee maps of geology and soils; general information characterizing prehistoric and historic human occupation within the SCAG region; general sensitivity of the SCAG region with respect to Native American Sacred sites and tribal cultural resources available through coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and direct outreach to tribal governments within the SCAG region, including two Native American consultation workshops hosted by SCAG during preparation of the 2016 RTP/SCS and related PEIR; and review of known cemeteries in the SCAG region; a review of related literature germane to the SCAG region; as well as a review of SCAG’s 2012 RTP/SCS PEIR.1 Cultural resources within the SCAG region are recorded in the paleontological fossils; archeological sites and artifacts, historic sites, artifacts, structures and buildings; and the built environment. There is a rich record of archived fossils that are estimated to represent over 500 million years.2 The archaeological record provides evidence of over thousands of years of human occupation.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Historic Bridge Inventory | Pages 164-191
    NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet section number G, H page 156 V E H I C U L A R B R I D G E S I N A R I Z O N A Geographic Data: State of Arizona Summary of Identification and Evaluation Methods The Arizona Historic Bridge Inventory, which forms the basis for this Multiple Property Documentation Form [MPDF], is a sequel to an earlier study completed in 1987. The original study employed 1945 as a cut-off date. This study inventories and evaluates all of the pre-1964 vehicular bridges and grade separations currently maintained in ADOT’s Structure Inventory and Appraisal [SI&A] listing. It includes all structures of all struc- tural types in current use on the state, county and city road systems. Additionally it includes bridges on selected federal lands (e.g., National Forests, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base) that have been included in the SI&A list. Generally not included are railroad bridges other than highway underpasses; structures maintained by federal agencies (e.g., National Park Service) other than those included in the SI&A; structures in private ownership; and structures that have been dismantled or permanently closed to vehicular traffic. There are exceptions to this, however, and several abandoned and/or privately owned structures of particular impor- tance have been included at the discretion of the consultant. The bridges included in this Inventory have not been evaluated as parts of larger road structures or historic highway districts, although they are clearly integral parts of larger highway resources.
    [Show full text]
  • YUMA COUNTY MULTI- JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN March 2019
    YUMA COUNTY MULTI- JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN March 2019 YUMA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: JURISDICTIONAL ADOPTION AND FEMA APPROVAL...................................................... 6 1.1 DMA 2000 Requirements ............................................................................................................................ 6 1.1.1 General Requirements............................................................................................................................. 6 1.1.2 Tribal Government Assurances ............................................................................................................. 6 1.2 Official Record of Adoption........................................................................................................................ 6 SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 8 2.1 Plan History..................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Plan Purpose and Authority ....................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 General Plan Description............................................................................................................................. 8 SECTION 3: COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Evaluation of 12 National Heritage Areas
    AN EVALUATION OF 12 NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS In 2016, the National Park Service will celebrate its 100th birthday. By any objective measure, the past century has been a resounding success for the National Park Service as it has evolved into the most effective natural and historic resource preservation institution in the world. But despite its past success, future challenges abound. Not the least of these will be in the area of funding. In August of 2011, Congress enacted legislation that will reduce government-wide federal spending by more than $1 trillion over the next decade. Like other federal agencies and departments, this action will necessarily constrain federal funding of the National Park System. At the same time, the American public has not shown any sign of tiring of their national parks or desiring reductions in park opportunities. This is especially true in growing urban areas. To meet these seemingly incongruent realities, the National Park Service will be required to appreciably expand its current use of public-private partnerships. National Heritage Areas are a model for how such partnerships can create dynamic, business-oriented approaches to our nation’s preservation and conservation opportunities and needs. National Heritage Areas, some of which have been in operation for more than two decades, are grassroots, community- driven organizations that enhance local economic development by bringing to life historic preservation, natural resource conservation, recreation, and heritage tourism projects at a fraction of the cost of a traditional national park. By working in conjunction with local business and civic leaders, National leveraging these dollars four-fold and undertaking the timely implementation of projects in a more Heritage Areas have significantly compounded the effectiveness of federal tax dollars by routinely entrepreneurial environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovation and Creativity in the Great Recession
    Y RK UMA QU C PA ART RI ERM STO A I S T H E E R T A D T E S P O IO T ID S S T A E T R P E H C I A S B T O U T R I C P A R K Y U M A T E R R I K T O R A R P I A E L T P A T R S I S I ’ O V N O L S T O A T M E O H H I S T O R I C P A R K F O R T VER PARK DE STATE HISTORIC ARIZONA’S STATE CULTURAL PARKS: Innovation and Creativity in the Great Recession Governor’s Archaeology Advisory Commission ARIZONA’S STATE CULTURAL PARKS: Innovation and Creativity in the Great Recession Governor’s Archaeology Advisory Commission October 2014 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The Governor’s Archaeology Advisory Commission has prepared this report to examine and celebrate the community partnerships that sustained Arizona’s archaeological and historic parks when state funding was cut in the wake of the nationwide economic crisis that began in 2008- 2009 and is known as the “Great Recession.” Through their efforts to avert park closures, while supporting programs and facilities that benefit local communities and Indian tribes, such partnerships represent excellent examples of “public archaeology.” The Commission is a statutory body charged with advising the Governor and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on: • the protection of Arizona’s archaeological heritage • public education • related issues and activities As the SHPO is housed within Arizona State Parks, the Commission has a great interest in supporting resource protection, educational programs, and heritage tourism within the parks whose primary purpose is the preservation of prehistoric and historic sites.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submission Listings Arizona
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES MULTIPLE PROPERTY SUBMISSION LISTINGS ARIZONA Grace Lutheran Church, Maricopa, Arizona, 93000835 FINDING AID Prepared by National Park Service - Intermountain Region Museum Services Program Tucson, Arizona August 2017 National Register of Historic Places – Multiple Property Submission Listings –Arizona 2 National Register of Historic Places – Multiple Property Submission Listings – Arizona Scope and Content Note: The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America's historic and archeological resources. - From the National Register of Historic Places site: http://www.nps.gov/nr/about.htm The Multiple Property Submission (MPS) listings records are unique in that they capture historic properties that are related by theme, general geographic area, and/or period of time. The MPS is the current terminology for submissions of this kind; past iterations include Thematic Resource (TR) and Multiple Resource Area (MRA). Historic properties nominated under the MPS rubric will contain individualized nomination forms and will be linked by a Cover Sheet for the overall group. Historic properties nominated under the TR and MRA rubric are nominated
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues
    Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues Updated July 22, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL33462 Heritage Areas: Background, Proposals, and Current Issues Summary Over more than 30 years, Congress has established 55 national heritage areas (NHAs) to commemorate, conserve, and promote important natural, scenic, historic, cultural, and recreational resources. NHAs are partnerships among the National Park Service (NPS), states, and local communities, in which the NPS supports state and local conservation through federal recognition, seed money, and technical assistance. Unlike lands within the National Park System, which are federally owned and managed, lands within heritage areas typically remain in state, local, or private ownership or a combination thereof. Supporters of heritage areas argue that NHAs protect lands and traditions and promote tourism and community revitalization. Opponents, however, contend that NHAs may be burdensome or costly and may lead to federal control over nonfederal lands. There is no comprehensive statute that establishes criteria for designating NHAs or provides standards for their funding and management. Rather, particulars for each area are provided in the area’s enabling legislation. Congress designates a management entity, usually nonfederal, to coordinate the work of the partners. This entity typically develops and implements a plan for managing the NHA, in collaboration with other parties. Once approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the management plan becomes the blueprint for managing the area. NHAs might receive funding from a wide variety of sources. Congress typically determines federal funding for NHAs in annual appropriations laws for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. NHAs can use federal funds for many purposes, including staffing, planning, and executing projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Yuma East Wetlands Draft Resolution 13-002
    Draft Resolution 13-002 Work Task E28 April 24, 2013 WHEREAS, the Yuma East Wetlands (“Wetlands”) is located along the Colorado River between the confluence of the Gila River and the Ocean to Ocean Bridge in Yuma, Arizona; WHEREAS, restoration and development of the Yuma East Wetlands began in 2000 and is managed through a collaborative partnership between the Quechan Tribe, City of Yuma, Arizona Game & Fish Commission, and Yuma Crossing National Heritage; WHEREAS, the LCR MSCP (or “Program”) has been funding Work Task E28 Yuma East Wetlands since 2010, providing assistance in operations and maintenance of 350 acres of established land cover types (cottonwood-willow, mesquite, marsh and open water) that support LCR MSCP covered species; WHEREAS, numerous covered species have been detected on the Wetlands since 2004 and the potential exists for even more covered species to utilize the area with additional adaptive management practices; WHEREAS, water needs to support the Wetlands have been and will continue to be met through the Quechan Tribe and City of Yuma’s existing Colorado River water allocations; WHEREAS, the LCR MSCP’s participation in the Yuma East Wetlands is supported by the Fish and Wildlife Service and provides the LCR MSCP with the opportunity to receive credit of 350 acres of habitat under the Program; WHEREAS, LCR MSCP’s participation in the Yuma East Wetlands is cost effective since the LCR MSCP does not have to provide compensation to any party for the use of land, water or other resources on the site, nor reimburse any
    [Show full text]