DOCSLIB.ORG

Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Midpoint Progress Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Midpoint Progress Report Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Midpoint Progress Report Bringing Projects and Programs to Life for the Yuma Community Contents 4 Introduction District-by-District Reviews 6 • Yuma West Wetlands 10 • Yuma East Wetlands 16 • Historic Downtown Riverfront District 28 • Main Street Historic District 30 • Brinley Avenue Historic District 32 • Southern Pacific Rail Yards 34 • Century Heights 36 Proposed Priorities for the Coming Years 41 Appendix: Chart of Expenditures and Funding 42 Acknowledgements 4 Introduction 5 In October 2000, Congress authorized the Yuma Interior in December 2002. At the request of the GENERAL OBSERVATIONS vation/restoration and interpretation projects Crossing National Heritage Area through Public community, Congress adjusted the boundaries of • Despite low levels of funding from the Na- have had to be largely deferred. As you will note, Law 106-319. The legislation required the develop- the Heritage Area in 2005 to conform to the seven tional Park Service (NPS), the Heritage Area has almost no NPS Heritage Area funding has been ment and approval of a management plan and the districts created in the original plan. achieved considerable progress, primarily in the devoted to these districts. creation of a management entity. The legislation The year 2008 represents the midpoint of the riverfront districts. • Major capital projects have taken precedence authorized up to $10 million in federal matching initial 15-year authorization period and is an appro- • The limited NPS funding ($2.25 million over eight over those of historic interpretation, education funds, initially for a 15-year period through 2015. priate time to assess progress achieved thus far, the fiscal years) has been focused almost entirely on and programming. This imbalance is an issue. In February 2002, the citizen task force that had challenges ahead, as well as what new issues may the Downtown Riverfront District and the Yuma • Without the long-term commitment of the City worked with the city for many years organized itself have arisen since the management plan was issued East Wetlands. This narrow focus was necessary of Yuma to provide staff and operational support into the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area in 2002. not only because of the riverfront’s importance, —as well as local match for other federal and Corporation. This 501 (c)(3) nonprofit corporation is but because these were the districts which state grants — the Heritage Area never would managed by an 11-member board of directors. The FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSMENT had the most potential to attract partners and have been able to undertake the work we have A lone egret board of directors reflected a broad cross section of This report will review progress within each of additional public and private investment. The accomplished. Gateway Park, enjoys the East public and private community interests -- business, the seven districts in the areas of projects and in- Quechan Indian Tribe has been a critical partner framed by the Wetlands. historical, and environmental. terpretive programming. There also is an appendix and leader in that regard. Ocean-to -Ocean The management plan was developed through- with a financial section, which reviews both base • While some projects in the four in-town historic Bridge. out 2002, and approved by the Secretary of the funding and all the match components. districts have been completed, historic preser- Photo, Opposite Page: Photo caption for big photo goes here. The picture should be the the District Maps for the Seven Districts that will be covered in the report. The Heritage Area plan includes seven riverfront and in-town districts. 6 West Wetlands | District-by-District Review 7 From early in the 20th century until 1970, a for reuse. Entrance to the 110-acre riverfront site between 12th and 23rd West Wetlands, The Heritage Area task force, even before circa 2008 Avenues served as Yuma’s landfill—the “city national designation, began working with vol- dump”. This land use followed a pattern across unteer groups and possible funding agencies to the country of ignoring the importance of a explore the awesome challenge of raising the river in the life of a community. estimated $10 million to build the entire park. Beginning in the 1980’s, there was interest The first success was a relatively small $23,000 in Yuma in converting this land for use as a riv- grant from Arizona State Game and Fish. erfront park. During that period, Arizona State The challenge was to develop a phased Parks worked with the City of Yuma to develop master plan, secure design and construction such a plan. Environmental concerns about the funding, and begin “early-action” cleanups landfill and lack of funding stalled the project. and tree-planting involving the community. In In the 1990’s, the Yuma community made a addition, there was a need for an implementa- sustained commitment to this project. First, tion team including a grant writer, planner, and the Environmental Protection Agency was construction manager. The City’s long-term asked to determine what mitigation was re- commitment to fund Heritage Area staffing quired to make the area safe and available for made this a reality. public use. After testing and monitoring, it was Site of the West Securing construction funding continued to Wetlands, circa determined that covering the whole site with be the most daunting task. Funding agencies 1950 6-8 feet of clean fill was the main requirement understandably were skeptical about commit- ting to a project of such a monumental scale. build roads and utility infrastructure within the acres — was designed and constructed. This The crucial breakthrough occurred in 1999, park, and directed all public works projects to portion of the park opened in December 2002. when Congressman Ed Pastor secured a $1.45 ship clean fill to the site. This in-kind match A part of the West Wetlands that had yet to million appropriation through the Bureau of was valued in the millions of dollars, and was be addressed was the “lower bench”, the lands Reclamation, funding that would be used to an important first step in covering the entire closest to the river that were overgrown with improve areas adjacent to Reclamation land site. arundo donax and salt cedar. This area was and facilities, as well as the building of a boat In September 1999, the Heritage Area task impassable and cut the community off from ramp. force sponsored a community planning effort the river. The challenge was to clear the non- With this appropriation in hand, the Heritage to finalize design of West Wetlands Park. With native vegetation and replant the species of Area was able to garner many other grants — the master plan complete, work began immedi- cottonwood and willows that lined the Colo- all of which required a 50-50% match. In order ately. While design began for “Phase 1” in the rado River in the 19th century. Some experts to advance planning and grant writing, the Her- eastern part of the Park, tree planting by volun- questioned whether restoration was possible, itage Area committed $150,000 of its funds over teers got underway. In October 1999, the Heri- given the degradation of land and lack of water. a three-year period. The Heritage Area secured tage Area hosted a volunteer day during which Congressman Pastor was able to secure an ad- three grants from the State of Arizona Heritage 700 volunteers planted more than 450 trees at ditional $500,000 in 2001 through the Bureau of Fund: a $95,000 trails grant; a $372,500 SLIF the Millennium Tree Grove. Those trees today Reclamation for this pilot revegetation project grant; and a $547,500 LRSP grant. The City of are 15-20 feet tall. Within three years, Phase — a project that would ultimately inspire and Yuma provided $1 million in funding to help One — covering about 33% of the entire 110 inform the entire East Wetlands project. Today 8 West Wetlands | Continued 9 50-foot tall cottonwood and willow trees are private funding for both construction and ongo- has brought the entire community to the West testament to the faith that the lower Colorado ing maintenance. Clearly, however, the most Wetlands and has reignited a commitment to River can and is being restored. significant recent addition has been the devel- complete the park. Since 2003, slow but steady progress has opment of the Stewart Vincent Wolfe Creative During the remainder of 2007, the Heritage been made in the West Wetlands — though not Playground — one of the largest and most Area worked with the City of Yuma to update on the scale of Phase One. While the Heritage dynamic of its kind in the nation. and refine the 1999 master plan. The new Area has devoted staff time to the continuing To memorialize one of their best friends master plan will serve as a focal point for com- development of the park, it has not been in a who also enjoyed West Wetlands Park, Ron pleting the park. Despite the current difficult position to help fund improvements with NPS and Stephanie Martin made a contribution of budget environment, city and state grant funds Heritage Area funds. $100,000 to help kick off the fund-raising effort. will be needed to complete the park. The City of Yuma paved the loop road The community responded and contributed throughout the park, though more improve- more than $450,000 in cash along with untold COMMENT: At current NPS federal funding ments are needed. The lake, which was dug amounts of donated goods and services. The levels, it is doubtful that the Heritage Area can out in the Phase One project, was completed, City of Yuma Parks and Recreation Department contribute significant funds for capital con- filled, and opened in late 2003 with the ad- worked with Leathers and Associates to host struction.
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Nomination Form
    Form No. 10-300 ^ DATA SHEET UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS ___________TYPE ALL ENTRIES - COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS______ | NAME HISTORIC "Ocean to Ocean" Highway Bridge______________________________ AND/OR COMMON Old Colorado River Highway Bridge________________________ LOCATION STREET & NUMBER . at -ttre~-Colorado Riveir Penitentiary Avenue -ffomTer~lt7S"r'"Bustness Route 30]1 —NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY. TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Yuma __ VICINITY OF 3 STATE CODE COUNTY CODE Arizona 004 Yuma 027 CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE —DISTRICT ^.PUBLIC —OCCUPIED _AGRICULTURE —MUSEUM _ BUILDING(S) —PRIVATE —XUNOCCUPIED —COMMERCIAL —PARK JCSTRUCTURE —BOTH —WORK IN PROGRESS —EDUCATIONAL —PRIVATE RESIDENCE —SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE —ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS —OBJECT _IN PROCESS —YES: RESTRICTED —GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —BEING CONSIDERED JlYES: UNRESTRICTED —INDUSTRIAL ^TRANSPORTATION —NO —MILITARY —OTHER: OWNER OF PROPERTY Portion within City of Yuma, owned by City of Yuma; NAME portion outside City of Yuma, owned by County of Yuma. City of Yuma, Arizona County of Yuma, Arizona STREET & NUMBER City Hall V CITY. TOWN STATE Yuma, Arizona _VICINITYOF Yuma, Arizona LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE. REGISTRY OF DEEDS, ETC. Yuma County Courthouse STREET & NUMBER 168 South 2nd Avenue CITY. TOWN STATE Yuma Arizona REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE Yuma Crossing DATE National Register of Historic Places —FEDERAL _STATE _COUNTY LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service CITY. TOWN STATE Washington D.C. DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE _XEXCELLENT —DETERIORATED —UNALTERED _XORIGINALSITE —GOOD —RUINS -^ALTERED —MOVED DATE- _FAIR _UNEXPOSED DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE Constructed by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Historic Bridge Inventory
    McPhaul Suspension Bridge - Yuma County B R I D G E S A R I Z O N A H I S T O R I C B R I D G E I N V E N T O R Y submitted to: Arizona Department of Transportation th 205 South 17 Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 produced by: in association with: FRASERdesign EcoPlan Associates, Inc. 420 South County Road 23E 701 West Southern Avenue Suite 203 Loveland, Colorado 80537 Mesa, Arizona 85210 January 2008 NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 10024-0018 (Revised March 1992) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is for use in documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (National Register Bulletin 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. For additional space, use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer to complete all items. ____ New Submission ____ x Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing Vehicular Bridges in Arizona 1880 - 1964 B. Associated Historic Contexts Vehicular Bridges in Arizona 1860 - 1964 C. Form Prepared By Clayton B. Fraser, Principal name/title FRASER design 15 January 2008 organization date 5700 Jackdaw Drive 970.669.7969 street & number telephone Loveland Colorado 80537 city or town state zip code D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria.
    [Show full text]