SUPPORTING REFERENCE MATERIALS for the YUMA CROSSING

Transcription

SUPPORTING REFERENCE MATERIALS
for the
YUMA CROSSING NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prepared by:
The Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Corporation
200 West First Street
Yuma, Arizona 85364
SUPPORTING REFERENCE MATERIALS
APPENDIX A: Legislation..................................................................................... 1A
APPENDIX B: Partners ......................................................................................... 6A
APPENDIX C: A Thematic History of Yuma Crossing........................................ 13A
APPENDIX D: Management Plan and EA—Summary of Review Process........ 108A
APPENDIX E: Heritage Resources ...................................................................... 116A
APPENDIX F: Environmental Assessment ........................................................ 125A
Appendix A
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Legislation
114 STAT. 1280 PUBLIC LAW 106-319-0CT. 19,2000
Public Law 106-319
106thCongress
An Act
Oct. 19, 2000
--------------
[H.R. 2833]
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
To establish the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area[H.R
Yuma Crossing
National Heritage
Area Act of 2000
16 USC 461 note.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; DEFINITIONS.
(b) DEFINITIONS.-In this Act:
(1) HERITAGE AREA.-The term "Heritage Area" means the Yuma
Crossing National Heritage Area established in section
3.
(2) MANAGEMENT ENTITY.-The term "management entity" shall
mean the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Board of Directors
referred to section 3(c).
(3) MANAGEMENT PLAN.-The term "management plan"
shall mean the management plan for the Yuma Crossing National
Heritage Area.
(4) SECRETARY.-The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the
Interior.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) FINDINGS.-The Congress finds the following:
(1) Certain events that led to the establishment of the Yuma Crossing
as a natural crossing place on the Colorado River and to its development
as an important landmark in America's westward expansion during the
mid-19th century are of national historic and cultural significance in terms
of their contribution to the development of the new United States of
America.
(2) It is in the national interest to promote, preserve, and protect
physical remnants of a community with almost 500 years of recorded
history which has outstanding cultural, historic, and architectural value
for the education and benefit of present and future generations.
(3) The designation of the Yuma Crossing as a national heritage area
would preserve Yuma's history and provide related educational
opportunities, provide recreational opportunities, preserve natural
resources, and improve the city and county of Yuma's ability to serve
visitors and enhance the local economy through the completion of the
major projects identified within the Yuma Crossing National Heritage
Area.
Deardorff Design Resources / inc. 1A
Appendix A
(4) The Department of the Interior is responsible for protecting the
Nation's cultural and historic resources. There are significant examples
of these resources within the Yuma region to merit the involvement of the
Federal Government in developing programs and projects, in
cooperation with the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area and other
local and governmental bodies, to adequately conserve, protect, and
interpret this heritage for future generations while providing opportunities
for education, revitalization, and economic development.
(5) The city of Yuma, the Arizona State Parks Board, agencies of the
Federal Government, corporate entities, and citizens have completed a
study and master plan for the Yuma Crossing to determine the extent of
its historic resources, preserve and interpret these historic resources,
and assess the opportunities available to enhance the cultural
experience for region's visitors and residents. ~
(6) The Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Board of Directors
would be an appropriate management entity for a heritage area
established in the region.
(b) PURPOSE.-The objectives of the Yuma Crossing National
.Heritage Area are as follows: .."
(1) To recognize the role of the Yuma Crossing in the development of
the United States, with particular emphasis on the roll of the crossing as
an important landmark in the westward expansion during the mid-19th
century.
(2) To promote, interpret, and develop the physical and recreational
resources of the communities surrounding the Yuma Crossing, which has
almost 500 years of recorded history r and outstanding cultural, historic,
and architectural assets, for the education and benefit of present and
future generations.
(3) To foster a close working relationship with all levels of government,
the private sector, and the local communities in the Yuma community
and empower the community to conserve its heritage while continuing to
pursue economic opportunities.
(4) To provide recreational opportunities for visitors to the Yuma
Crossing and preserve natural resources within the Heritage Area.
(5) To improve the Yuma region's ability to serve visitors and enhance
the local economy through the completion of the major projects identified
within the Heritage Area.
SEC. 3. YUMA CROSSING NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.-There is hereby established the Yuma
Crossing National Heritage Area.
(b) BOUNDARIES.-The Heritage Area shall be comprised of those
portions of the Yuma region totaling approximately 21 square miles,
encompassing over 150 identified historic, geologic, and cultural
resources, and bounded(1) on the west, by the Colorado River (including the. crossing point of
the Army of the West);
(2) on the east, by Avenue 7E;
(3) on the north, by the Colorado River; and
(4) on the south, by the 12th Street alignment.
(c) MANAGEMENT ENTITY.-The management entity for the Heritage
Area shall be the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Board of
Directors which shall include representatives from a broad cross-section
of the individuals, agencies, organizations, and governments that were
involved in the planning and development of the Heritage Area before
the date of the enactment of this Act.
Appendix A
SEC. 4. COMPACT.
(a) IN GENERAL.-To carry out the purposes of this Act, the Secretary
of the Interior shall enter into a compact with the management entity,
(b) COMPONENTS OF COMPACT.-The compact shall include
information relating to the objectives and management of the Heritage
Area, including each of the following:
(1) A discussion of the goals and objects of the Heritage Area.
(2) An explanation of the proposed approach to conservation and
interpretation of the Heritage Area.
(3) A general outline of the protection measures to which the
management entity commits.
SEC. 5. AUTHORITIES AND DUTIES OF MANAGEMENT ENTITY.
(a) AUTHORITIES OF THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY.-The
management entity may, for purposes of preparing and implementing the
management plan, use funds made available through this Act for the
following:
(1) To make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements with,
States and their political subdivisions, private organizations, or any
person.
(2) To hire and compensate staff.
(3) To enter into contracts for goods and services.
(b) MANAGEMENT PLAN." (1) IN GENERAL.-Taking into consideration existing State, county,
and local plans, the management entity shall develop a management
plan for the Heritage Area.
(2) CONTENTS.-The management plan required by this
subsection shall include(A) comprehensive recommendations for conservation, funding,
management, and development of the Heritage Area.
(B) actions to be undertaken by units of government and private
organizations to protect the resources of the Heritage Area;
(C) a list of specific existing and potential sources of funding to protect,
manage, and develop the Heritage Area
(D) an inventory of the resources contained in the
Heritage Area, including a list of any property in the Heritage Area that
is related to the themes of the Heritage Area and that should be
preserved, restored, managed, developed, or maintained because of its
natural, cultural, historic, recreational, or scenic significance;
(E) a recommendation of policies for resource management which
considers and details application of appropriate land and water
management techniques, including the development of
intergovernmental cooperative agreements to protect the historical,
cultural, recreational, and natural resources of the Heritage Area in a
manner consistent with supporting appropriate and compatible economic
viability;
(F) a program for implementation of the management
plan by the management entity, including plans for restoration and
construction, and specific commitments of the identified partners for the
first 5 years of operation;
(G) an analysis of ways in which local, State, and Federal programs
may best be coordinated to promote the purposes of this Act; and
(H) an interpretation plan for the Heritage Area.
(3) SUBMISSION TO SECRETARY.-The management entity
shall submit the management plan to the Secretary for approval not
later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. If a
Appendix A
management plan is not submitted to the Secretary as required within
the specified time, the Heritage Area shall no longer qualify for Federal
funding.
(c) DUTIES OF MANAGEMENT ENTITY.-In addition to its duties under
subsection (b), the management entity shall(1) give priority to implementing actions set forth in the compact and
management plan, including steps to assist units of government, regional
planning organizations, and nonprofit organizations in preserving the
Heritage Area;
(2) assist units of government, regional planning organizations, and
nonprofit organizations with(A) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits in the Heritage
Area;
(B) developing recreational resources in the Heritage Area;
(C) increasing public awareness of and appreciation for the natural,
historical, and architectural resources and sites in the Heritage Area;
(D) restoring any historic building relating to the themes of the Heritage
Area; and
(E) ensuring that clear, consistent, and environmentally appropriate
signs identifying access points and sites of interest are put in place
throughout the Heritage Area.
(3) encourage, by appropriate means, economic viability in the
Heritage Area consistent with the goals of the management plan;
(4) encourage local governments to adopt land use policies consistent
with the management of the Heritage Area and the goals of the
management plan;
(5) consider the interests of diverse governmental, business, and
nonprofit groups within the Heritage Area;
(6) conduct public meetings at least quarterly regarding the
implementation of the management plan; and
(7) for any year in which Federal funds have been received under this
Act, make available for audit all records pertaining to the expenditure of
such funds and any matching funds, and require, for all agreements
authorizing expenditure of Federal funds by other organizations, that the
receiving organizations make available- for audit all records pertaining to
the expenditure of such funds.
(d) PROHIBITION ON THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY.The management entity may not use Federal funds received under this
Act to acquire real property or an interest in real property.
Nothing in this Act shall preclude any management entity from using
Federal funds from other sources for their permitted purposes.
(e) SPENDING FOR NON-FEDERALLY OWNED PROPERTY.-The
management entity may spend Federal funds directly on non-federally
owned property to further the purposes of this Act, especially 114 STAT.
1284 in assisting units of government in appropriate treatment of
districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects listed or eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
SEC. 6. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.
(a) TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.-The Secretary may,
upon request of the management entity, provide technical and financial
assistance to the management entity to develop and implement the
management plan. In assisting the management entity, the Secretary
shall give priority to actions that in general assist in
(1) conserving the significant natural, historic, and cultural resources
which support the themes of the Heritage Area; and
Appendix A
(2) providing educational, interpretive, and recreational opportunities
consistent with resources and associated values of the Heritage Area. .
(b) APPROVAL AND DISAPPROVAL OF MANAGEMENT PLAN.-The
Secretary, in consultation with the Yuma Crossing National Heritage
Area Board of Directors, shall approve or disapprove the management
plan submitted under this Act not later than 90 days after receiving such
management plan.
(c) ACTION FOLLOWING DISAPPROVAL.-If the Secretary
disapproves a submitted compact or management plan, the Secretary
shall advise the management entity in writing of the reasons therefor and
shall make recommendations for revisions in the management plan. The
Secretary shall approve or disapprove a proposed revision within 90
days after the date it is submitted.
(d) APPROVING AMENDMENTS.-The Secretary shall review
substantial amendments to the management plan for the Heritage Area.
Funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may not be expended to
implement the changes made by such amendments until the Secretary
approves the amendments.
(e) DOCUMENTATI?N:-Subject to the availability of funds, the Historic
American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record shall
conduct those studies necessary to document the cultural, historic,
architectural, and natural resources of the Heritage Area.
SEC. 7. SUNSET.
The Secretary may not make any grant or provide any assistance
under this Act after September 30,2015.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.-There is authorized to be appropriated under this
Act not more than $1,000,000 for any fiscal year. Not more than a total of
$10,000,000 may be appropriated for the Heritage Area under this Act.
(b) 50 PERCENT MATCH.-Federal funding provided under this Act,
after the designation of the Heritage Area, may not exceed 50 percent of
the total cost of any assistance or grant provided or authorized under this
Act.
Approved October 19, 2000.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY-H.R. 2833 (S. 1998):
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106-740 (Comm. on Resources).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 106-340 accompanying S. 1998 (Comm. on
Energy and Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
July 25, considered and passed House.
Oct. 5, considered and passed Senate.
Appendix B
Appendix B. Partners
There are many federal, state, and
local agencies and organizations found
within the Yuma area that have an interest in
the preservation of the community’s
historical and environmental heritage, in the
revitalization of historic commercial and
residential neighborhoods, and in the
promotion of investment and economic
opportunity. These partners – some
involved across the Area and some focused
on specific projects – will play a critical role
in the development of the Yuma Crossing
Heritage Area, as almost all of the actual
opportunity to add historical, cultural, and
environmental interpretative programs and
educational opportunities. The City has also
entered into a long-term partnership with a
private developer to bring significant
investment to Yuma’s riverfront. This
development will involve an investment of
approximately $50 million and will ultimately
include a major hotel and conference center,
and a significant retail center. The Heritage
Area will provide technical assistance,
expertise, and advocacy to encourage
culturally, environmentally, and historically
sensitive redevelopment within this
important area.
construction, rehabilitation, or development
of settings and venues will occur under the
The Quechan Nation
management and direction of these
The Quechan Nation have lived at
the Yuma Crossing for possible 1500 years
and are among the few Native American
tribes to remain on their ancestral homes.
Tribal lands make up a significant portion of
the East Wetlands Development Area, a
major environmental rehabilitation project of
the Heritage Area. Other key cultural sites
are also controlled by the Quechan such as
Fort Yuma, which today serves as the
administrative headquarters for the Tribal
government.
agencies.
Multi-Venue Partners
Certain agencies, due to the depth
of their interest and responsibility, will be
critical partners in many areas of the
Heritage Area.
The City of Yuma
The City of Yuma has been the
primary partner of the Yuma Crossing
Heritage Area, providing staff and other
resources throughout the early planning
stages and animating the process that
ultimately resulted in the successful
designation by Congress in 2000. The City
of Yuma is undertaking a series of
construction projects, including Gateway
Park and the West Wetlands, which will
provide the Heritage Area with the
United States Bureau of Reclamation
The Bureau of Reclamation, as the
agency with the responsibility of operating
the system of dams and reservoirs on the
Colorado River, is involved with the Heritage
Area in the East and West Wetlands
projects, and Gateway Park. The Bureau
will review all proposed land uses within the
floodplain and are a major partner in telling
the story of the Colorado River, the uses of
Appendix B
the water and the major reclamation projects
of the last century.
Arizona State Historical Society
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
The statewide and local
organizations who oversee valuable
historical venues and resources within the
Heritage Area and who provide funding and
expertise on a variety of historical issues
and programs.
The EPA has been a critical review
agency in the environmental rehabilitation
efforts to date, and will be involved in future
efforts – as a reviewed and a funding
partner – in the East and West Wetlands,
the Hotel Del Sol adaptive reuse, and the
reuse of the historic railroad property in
Yuma.
Army Corps of Engineers
The Corps of Engineers is a
regulatory and permitting partner of the City
of Yuma and the Heritage Area in both the
West and East Wetlands Development
Areas.
Arizona State Parks
Arizona State Parks operates two
critical venues with the Heritage Area and
the National Historic Landmark: The Yuma
Crossing Park and the Yuma Territorial
Prison State Park. They have been a
funding partner with the City of Yuma within
the West Wetlands development area,
Gateway Park, and the Molina Block
rehabilitation.
Arizona State Historic Preservation
Office
The SHPO will provide valuable
technical assistance and expertise to the
Yuma Crossing Heritage Area and to other
Heritage Partners to facilitate the Heritage
Planning Process.
Yuma County Historical Society
Yuma County Educational
Consortium
As representatives of local school
districts and educational institutions, the
Consortium will provide assistance in
developing programming and materials and
will facilitate the incorporation of Heritage
Area historical interpretative programming
into local educational programs.
City of Yuma Historic District Review
Commission
The HDRC, a body appointed by the
Yuma City Council, serves as the historic
review arm of the Certified Local
Government. In partnership with the
Heritage Area, they will provide technical
assistance to property owners and
administer preservation grants. They will
also work toward expanding the historic
resources of the Yuma Area with the
identification of additional historic sites and
districts.
Specific-Venue Partners
Other agencies will be involved in
the development of certain specific venues
within the Heritage Area:
Appendix B
United States Bureau of Land
Management
As stewards of federally owned
land, the BLM is involved with the Heritage
Area is several locations including the East
Wetlands and the Gila Trail. They will
provide technical assistance as the Heritage
Area considers future expansion.
United States Department of
Transportation
The Department of Transportation is
both a planning and a funding partner of the
Heritage Area and its partners as efforts
proceed to create venues and exhibits to tell
the story of transportation at the Yuma
Crossing and to develop connecting trails
with the region.
United States Fish and Wildlife
Service
The Fish and Wildlife Service is a
planning and regulatory partner all along the
Colorado as the Heritage Area seeks to
further the environmental rehabilitation of
the area.
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality
ADEQ, with the EPA, is a planning
and funding partner on the environmental
and wetlands renewal within the Heritage
Area.
Arizona Fish and Game
Fish and game will provide expertise
and funding for wildlife management
programming and educational programs.
Arizona Department of
Transportation
ADOT has been a major funding
partner with the City of Yuma on the
rehabilitation of the Ocean-to-Ocean Bridge,
and will work with the City and the Heritage
Area on the development of a multi-modal
transportation center and Transportation
Heritage Museum.
Arizona Office of Tourism
The Office of Tourism will partner
with ADOT, the City of Yuma, and other
Heritage Partners in the development of the
Arizona Visitors’ Center.
Yuma County
Yuma County will play a critical role
in the East Wetlands project, particularly as
most of the non-tribal lands included in the
development district lie outside of any
municipal jurisdiction.
Yuma Visitors and Convention
Bureau
The YVCV will participate in the
development and operation of the Visitors
Center and will assist in the general
promotion of the Yuma Crossing National
Heritage Area.
Yuma Chamber of Commerce
The Chamber of Commerce,
through their Military Affairs Committee, will
be a future partner of the Heritage Area in
the development of a Military Heritage
Center.
Yuma County Water Users
Association
As the oldest local water
management organization on the Lower
Colorado River, the Yuma County Water
Users Association will partner with the
Heritage Area in telling the story of the
Colorado and its impact on Agriculture.
Appendix B
Arizona Public Service Corporation
APS is the electric utility serving the
Yuma area and is a funding partner at the
Gateway Park and West Wetlands locations.
Stewards of the Colorado
Yuma Metropolitan Planning
Organization
The YMPO is the local
transportation-planning agency and will
partner with the City of Yuma and the
Heritage Area on the development of a
multi-modal transportation facility and
Transportation Heritage Center.
This local environmental interest
group has partnered with the City of Yuma in
supplying funding and volunteer labor in
support of the West Wetlands project.
Marine Corp Air Station Yuma
Yuma Main Street Inc.
Yuma Proving Grounds
Main Street has been a focus area
for redevelopment and revitalization efforts
for some time. This has resulted in the
development of some important resources
including organizational structure, funding,
staff, and expertise, for the purpose of
promoting the Main Street District and
marketing the businesses and activities
within the area. With the advent of the
Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area, the
Main Street organization – Main Street, Inc.
– has broadened and redefined its scope
and, through a partnership arrangement,
has expressed interest in becoming the
marketing and promotional arm of the
Heritage Area. Certain former
responsibilities of the organization have
been shifted to other agencies, including the
City of Yuma, so that its future focus can be
the promotion of major events and festivals
– not only within the Main Street venue but
also throughout the Heritage Area as other
venues are developed.
These local military bases will
partner with the Heritage Area in telling the
long history of the United States Military at
the Yuma Crossing.
Union Pacific Railroad
Successor to the Southern Pacific,
the Union Pacific Railroad is a major
property owner within the downtown area of
Yuma and will partner with the City of Yuma
on the redevelopment and reuse of the
historic railroad yard.
Caballeros de Yuma
The Caballeros de Yuma is a local
civic organization, which will partner with the
Heritage Area in the development of the
Gateway Park venue.
Appendix B
VENUES, ACTIVITIES, AND PARTNERS
Potential Projects &
Venues
Activities
Suggested Responsible Partners
Yuma West Wetlands
Maintenance
Security
Educational Programming
On-site Interpretation
On-site supervision
Concessions
COY, Parks & Recreation
COY, Police & Fire departments
Local schools, State Parks, COY
State Parks, AZ Fish & Game, local schools
COY, Arizona Western graduate students
Boat tours
• Phase 1-- COY feasibility/startup
• Phase 2 – Private enterprise
On-site Interpretation &
Management
On-site Promotion
Maintenance & custodial
Volunteers and private sector
Management
Maintenance
First Floor
Exhibit management
Parking Management
Private Sector
Private Sector
Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization(YMPO)
Heritage Area Corporation
TBD
Arizona Welcome Center
Museum & Exhibits
Maintenance
Customer Service
Gift Shop/Ticket Sales
Yuma Convention & Visitors Bureau, Jaycees
ADOT, Multi-agency Group
YCVB
YCVB
Gateway Park
Maintenance
Custodial
Recreational Programming
Historical Programming
• Tour Coordination
• Permanent Exhibits
Concessions
• Carousel
• Snack Bar
• Bike Rental
COY – Parks & Recreation
Phase 1 – 2E to Bridge
Phase 2 – to the confluence
Promotion
Security
Maintenance
Education
COY, Quechan Indian Nation
Wetlands Learning and
Artisan Center
Hotel del Sol & Multimodal Center
Yuma East Wetlands
Heritage Center – Old City
Heritage Area Corporation, COY, agencies
Caballeros de Yuma
Private Sector
Private Sector, CVB, Chamber of Commerce
Intergovernmental Agreement
Intergovernmental Agreement
Coordinated through Yuma West Wetlands
Museum
Appendix B
• Management
• Maintenance
• Grounds
Concessions
Interpretation
Promotion
Programming
Hall
Heritage Area Corporation, BOR, Arizona
Historical Society
Heritage Area Corporation, volunteers
Heritage Area Corporation, BOR, Military
Community, Agricultural Community
Arizona Historical Society
Archives and Research
Heritage Area Executive
Offices
Management and Staff
Interpretive Exhibits
Programming
Commercial
• Farmers Market
• Tours
Arizona Western College, Water Users, Yuma
Agricultural Council, Heritage Area Corporation
Military Heritage Center –
site of Union Pacific Bldgs
Armed Forces Recruiting
Centers, VA Service Center
Management
Maintenance/Custodial
Interpretation
Programming
Promotion
Department of Defense, USMC, YPG, Veterans
Groups, Chamber of Commerce, BOR
Hispanic History Center
Cultural Conservation
Club Latino community group
Cultural Council
Chavez Family
Century Heights
Orange Avenue:
• Streetscaping
• Signage
Agricultural Heritage
Center – Riverbend Bldg
Private Sector
COY, Heritage Area Corporation
Historic District Review Commission
Table 1 - Venues, Partners, Activities
Appendix B
PROJECTED PROGRAMMING BUDGETS
Venue
West Wetlands
Budget
$400,000
Partner/Local Match
City of Yuma
East Wetlands
$400,000
28 Stakeholders
Century Heights
Conservancy Dist.
Yuma Crossing
State Historical
Park
Yuma Heritage
Center
$400,000
City of Yuma
$400,000
Arizona State Parks
$400,000
Private foundations,
Heritage Operations
Heritage Partners
Private foundations,
fundraising
Agricultural community,
USDA
City of Yuma HDRC,
private property owners
Hispanic Heritage
$400,000
Agricultural
Heritage
Historic District
Review
Commission
$400,000
$400,000
Military Heritage
$400,000
Administration
$400,000
MCAS Yuma, YPG,
Veterans groups,
Chamber of Commerce
City of Yuma
Comments
Environmental
Education
Operations
Environmental
Education
Orange Ave Signage,
Walking Tour
Reposition
Interpretative Focus
Interpretative
Programming
Interpretative
Programming
Interpretative
Programming
Inventory, Register
nominations,
Restoration grants,
technical assistance
20th Century Historical
Interpretation
Grant Management
Administrative Support
Table 2 - Projected Programming Budgets
Appendix C
Appendix C. A Thematic History of the Yuma Crossing
The following material is adapted from the Yuma Crossing Park Master Plan, prepared in the
1980’s under the auspices of the Yuma Crossing Foundation, in support of the development of
the Yuma Crossing Park.
FOREWORD
Recognizing the national significance of the little-known historic resources of their
community, a group of Yuma, Arizona, citizens formed the Yuma Crossing Park Council in 1980
to foster public knowledge, appreciation, and visitation of the Yuma Crossing National Historic
Landmark. The Council, a non-profit association, represents a broad spectrum of professions,
businesses, and government agencies and reflects the interests of the entire community.
The City of Yuma, with a population of 48,000 [1980 census], is located on the Colorado
River in the southwest corner of Arizona, about midway between Phoenix and San Diego on
Interstate Highway 8. The site of the city was first visited by Europeans in 1540 when Hernando
de Alarcón, in support of Francisco Vásquez de Coronado’s expedition into the Southwest,
arrived by way of the mouth of the Colorado. During the next four centuries, a sequence of
events occurred at the locale that are of extraordinary significance in the development of the
Southwest. This significance was recognized in 1964 when the National Park Service designated
a portion of the city and a part of the nearby Fort Yuma Indian Reservation as The Yuma
Crossing National Historic Landmark.
One of the first Anglo-Americans to visit the location in 1826 prophesied, “Perhaps the
day may come, when [there] shall be another Gibraltar or Quebeck (sic) there. . .”
Yuma has never achieved the prominence of Mountain Man George Yount’s prophecy.
Until World War II, it had been a hot and dusty place to pass through on the way to somewhere
else. Today, Yuma is the seat of county government, the center of an important agricultural
region, and a mecca for winter visitors. However, it still remains a city in search of the identity
envisioned by Yount.
The Yuma Crossing Park Council, perceiving the potential of the city’s historic and
natural resources to create a community identity, enhance the quality of life of its citizens, and
better the urban environment, formulated a course of action to transform Yuma into a cultural and
recreational center of national importance.
To foster its goal, the Yuma Crossing Park Council, in alliance with the City of Yuma, the
Arizona State Parks Board, agencies of the federal government, corporate entities, and special
interest citizens’ groups, and with the assistance of a grant from the National Endowment for the
Arts, sponsored the preparation of this Master Plan for the Yuma Crossing National Historic
Landmark. The plan is designed to:
inform the public about the history of the Yuma Crossing;
determine the extent of historic resources in the National
Historic Landmark and adjacent areas;
Appendix C
preserve and interpret the locale’s historic resources;
promote the preservation of the heritage of the Quechan
Indian Tribe;
assure the unification of planning measures by the various
government agencies and private sector entities that own
or administer the several areas of the site;
revitalize the Yuma downtown sector;
foster a pride in the nation’s past achievements;
attract visitors to the region;
provide cultural and recreational experiences for the residents
of Yuma, the region, and the nation; and
present concepts and actions necessary to implement the plan.
The Master Plan for the Yuma Crossing National Historic Landmark is presented in two
segments. The first, a Thematic History of the Yuma Crossing, narrates historic events that
occurred at the Yuma Crossing and provides a basis for the second, A Design and Development
Guide for the Yuma Crossing.
INTRODUCTION
A Thematic History of the Yuma Crossing National Historic Landmark is not intended to
be a definitive history of the Yuma Crossing, but rather a program for the design of living history
exhibits which identify and interpret for the public’s understanding the significant historical events
that occurred there.
The history of the Yuma Crossing has received the attention of a number of scholars and
popular writers and is well documented by the journals, diaries, official reports and reminiscences
of those who made the history. The authors of A Thematic History of the Yuma Crossing
recognize the accomplishments of the researchers and historians who have, over the years,
devoted their energies to seeking out the important events that transpired near the confluence of
the Gila and Colorado Rivers and have no desire to replicate this work.
In order to visualize those events and to recreate them for the enjoyment of visitors to the
National Historic Landmark, the authors have sought out primary sources of information that
contain physical descriptions of the historic settings, buildings, and activities that occurred at the
crossing, with the intent to utilize this data in authentically recreating history.
Some of the Yuma Crossing’s history relates to scenarios that were enacted over periods
of years and over large areas of the United States and Mexico. A Thematic History attempts to
provide only a summary of each of these broad scenarios and to extract from each context the
narrow Yuma Crossing saga. Insofar as possible, the authors have pieced together into
chronological order the events that occurred at the Yuma Crossing. However, because of the
authors’ desire to present the saga by themes that can be interpreted by subject matter, rather
than by time alone, there is some overlapping in the progression of the narrative.
In this publication, the Yuma Crossing’s historical context is organized into ten themes
that form the basis for the design program. The story progresses from prehistoric times through
exciting eras of American history to 1912, by which time the historic characteristics of the
Appendix C
Colorado River were altered by the construction of upstream dams and channel modifications,
and modern-day Yuma had its beginning. In the same year, the Territory of Arizona became the
forty-eighth state.
One of the most interesting aspects of the Yuma Crossing is noting the number of
significant events that transpired there over a period of nearly four centuries. Strangely, many of
these events have largely been forgotten, or never learned, by many of the region’s residents and
the vast majority of travelers passing over the Crossing today on the interstate highway. Few
persons looking down from the bridge over the now-tamed Colorado River realize that American
history commenced at this very locale many years before the founding of Jamestown and the
landing on Plymouth Rock.
This, then, A Thematic History of the Yuma Crossing National Historic Landmark,
describes the events that occurred at the narrows below the confluence of the Colorado and Gila
Rivers from 1540 to 1912 – events that merit far greater recognition than they generally receive in
the casual, contemporary histories of the United States.
PROLOGUE: SETTING THE SCENE
The peculiarities of time and geography have caused certain locations to enter
prominently into the events of history. Some of these locations achieved lasting fame, while
others became largely forgotten. The narrows below the confluence of the Colorado and Gila
Rivers is one of the latter locations. As the Cumberland Gap provided a portal through the
Appalachian Mountains from the Atlantic Coast to the fertile lands of the Midwest, the narrows
below the confluence of the Colorado and the Gila Rivers became the gateway for exploration,
conquest, and settlement of the Southwest, first by Spaniards and later by Americans.
From the dawn of human habitation in the Southwest until the coming of the AngloAmericans, the great Southwestern deserts and surrounding mountains were little affected by
human occupation. The Native Americans were relatively few in number, and their cultural needs
were satisfied by renewable natural resources. During the millennia before the second half of the
19th century, the natural environment in Arizona, New Mexico, and California was significantly
differently from what it is today. When the first Anglo-Americans arrived in Arizona to trap beaver,
the Gila, Colorado, Little Colorado, Virgin, Salt and San Pedro were still permanent streams lined
with cottonwoods and willows; forests of pines and hardwoods covered the mountains; grama
grass carpeted the plains. Grizzly bear, black bear, mountain sheep, mountain lion, coyote,
javelina, deer, antelope, turkey, and wolf were plentiful. With the coming of the fur trappers in the
early 1800s, the beaver were soon depleted; in the 1870s and 1880s, ranchers overgrazed the
plains with their cattle herds numbering in the thousands of heads; and loggers, in the 1860s,
began clearing the mountain forests for lumber and telegraph poles. However, the drastic
changes came in the first decades of the 20th century. It was then that the great water courses—
the Gila, the Salt, and the Colorado rivers—were harnessed for flood control, irrigation water, and
hydroelectric power by Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt, and numerous other dams. The mighty
Colorado in its lower reaches is now a sluggish, narrow stream and near the Gulf of California
little more than a trickle of water. The Gila from Coolidge Dam to the Colorado is now generally a
Appendix C
dry river bed, as is the Salt from Granite Reef Dam to its junction with the Gila. As one
contemplates the history of Arizona, it is necessary to picture an inhospitable desert crossed by
rivers that became the highways for exploration, conquest, and settlement, and, later, the
lifeblood for agriculture, industry, and urban development.
The confluence of the Gila and Colorado Rivers is one of those unusual locales that
became the stage for historic scenarios of uncommon significance to the nation. In prehistoric
times, Indian civilizations existed, and widespread commerce, warfare, and exchange of cultural
ideas occurred along both rivers. In the historic area, paths of the Spanish soldiers and
missionaries, trails of the American mountain men, wagon roads of the U.S. Army and the “FortyNiners”, and modern railroads and highways have all converged on the Colorado River at the
same location—the narrows below the mouth of the Gila River. Taking its name from the Indians
who were inhabiting the area when the Spaniards first arrived in 1540, and for whom the
Spaniards used the term Yuma, the narrows became known as the Yuma Crossing.
THE QUECHAN PEOPLE: TENDING THE CROSSING
The Yuma Crossing takes its name from the aboriginal people who were living in the
vicinity of the confluence of the Colorado and the Gila Rivers when the Spaniards arrived in the
16th century. The Yuma name was not consistently used until the mid-18th century, and the
Indians themselves prefer to be known as the Quechan.1 According to their legends, the
Quechan people’s birthplace was high on the sacred mountain Avikwamé2, where the diety
Kwikumat created them along with the Cocopas, Maricopas, Kamias, and Mohaves. Invaders
from the east drove them from their home southward to where the two rivers join, and there they
learned to farm the fertile soil.
During the planting and growing seasons, the Quechans lived in family groups scattered
along farmlands on the river bottoms. Their shelter consisted of a simple, open-air sunshade,
made of brush. But during the winter and spring months, when the river swelled with floodwaters,
they moved to higher ground, congregating in settlements of several hundred people who were
generally related. There they lived in large, earth-covered houses. When the Spaniards arrived
in 1540, they found these houses remarkable. Melchior Díaz, a member of Coronado’s
expedition, described them as
1
Since Quechan is not a written language, spellings have been phonetically created by Spaniards and
anthropologists. Quechan (Kwatca’n) is a tribal name and is distinct from the Quechan word for either man
(ipa) or people (pipa). It comes from an incident in the Quechan creation story in which the Quechans took
a special trail down from their mountain peak. The trail was called xam kwatca’n, so they took the name
Kwatca’n. The origin in “Yuma” is not certain, but the Spaniards were using it for the Quechans by the
18th century and may have borrowed it from the neighboring Ootams (Pima and Papago). C. Daryll Forde,
Ethnography of the Yuma Indians (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1931), pp. 88-89 (hereafter
cited as Forde, Ethnography); Jack D. Forbes, Warriors of the Colorado (Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press, 1965), p. 4; Robert L. Bee, Crosscurrents Along the Colorado: The Impact of Government Policy on
the Quechan Indians (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1981), p. xviii (hereafter cited as Bee,
Crosscurrents).
2
Newberry Mountain, north of Needles, California.
Appendix C
. . . huts of long straw built underground like caves, with only the straw [roof]
rising above the ground. They entered these at one end, without stooping, and came out
the opposite end. More than one hundred persons, large and small, slept in one hut.3
Over 150 years later, Captain Juan Mateo Manje, traveling with Father Eusebio Kino,
was astounded by the Quechan settlements:
Their settlements, although they may have many people, consist of one or two
houses with flat roofs built over several thick pieces of wood used as pillars, with beams
from one to the other. They are so low that the people can only sit or lie down inside.
There is no division for single or married persons, but the houses are llarge enough to
hold 100. In front of the door there is a ramada [sunshade] the same size as the house
where they sleep during the summer.4
The banks of the Colorado River provided choice living sites for the Quechans, who grew
numerous foodstuffs, including maize, several kinds of beans, cantaloupes, pumpkins,
watermelons, calabashes, and grass seeds along the river’s flood plain.5 Juan Bautista de Anza,
exploring the area in 1774, admired the productivity of the Quechan farm lands:
At intervals there are fields sown with wheat without irrigation, but so good and
well sprouted that the best irrigated wheat in our country does not equal it. One sees
also the places where they plant maize, beans, calabashes, melons, and muskmelons, all
in such abundance that we have marveled . . . This fertility of the land . . . is greatly aided
by the annual overflow which the meadows receive after the coming of spring.6
Almost a century later, in 1851, U.S. Army Lieutenant Thomas W. Sweeny observed:
The Colorado . . . is a remarkable river. It overflows
periodically, like the
Nile, rising twelve or sixteen feet above its ordinary level, submerging the neighboring
flats or bottoms, and forming them into lagoons. The River commences to rise about the
middle of June, and subsides about the first of July, when the Indian women plant their
pumpkin and melon seeds, and sometimes a little maize. From the middle of May till the
end of September The natives here subsist on mesquet [sic] beans . . . which they make
into a kind of bread.7
3
George P. Hammond and Agapito Rey, eds. Narratives of the Colorado Expedition, 1540-1542
(Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1940), p. 210. Díaz’ account is related by Pedro de
Castañeda of Náxera in this narrative of Coronado’s expedition to Cíbola.
4
Juan Mateo Manje, Unknown Arizona and Sonora, 1693-1721, from the Francisco Fernández del Castillo
version of Luz de Tierra Incógnita, trans. Henry J. Karns (Tucson: Arizona Silhouettes, 1954), p. 113.
5
Bee, Crosscurrents, p. 4; Forbes, Warriors of the Colorado, p. 60; Forde, Ethnography, pp. 94-95.
6
Herbert Eugene Bolton, Anza’s California Expeditions, 5 vols. (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1930), Vol. 2, pp. 51-52 (hereafter cited as Bolton, Anza.).
7
Thomas W. Sweeny, Journal of Lt. Thomas W. Sweeny, 1849-1853, ed. Arthur Woodward (Los Angles:
Westernlore Press, 1956), pp. 67-68 (hereafter cited as Sweeny, Journal).
Appendix C
The proximity of the Quechans to the mighty Colorado River made them not only good
farmers but also outstanding swimmers. Almost all who encountered the Quechans described
their remarkable aquatic ability.8 U.S. Army Lieutenant Amiel Weeks Whipple observed in 1849
that the Quechans were “the best swimmers in the world,” and Lieutenant Cave Johnson Counts
exclaimed, “They can almost outswim a fish!”9 William H. Chamberlain, a gold seeker passing
through in 1849, also marveled at the prowess of the Quechans:
They are the most expert swimmers I have ever seen and remarkably strong in
the water. They frequently carry a bundle of clothes upon their heads . . . with the lariats
of three mules in their hands, which they manage with most surprising dexterity in the
swift stream.10
The swimming ability of the Quechan women was particularly astonishing to the men
who observed them. In the late 1770s, Father Thomas Eixarch remarked:
These Yuma Indians are dextrous swimmers, and the women are even better
than the men, for they are the ones who cross the river loaded with children, provisions,
and other things. In order not to wet what they take over they put it in a large basket and
go pushing it along in front of them.11
The Quechans were considered unique for their physical appearance as well, particularly
because they were tall (often over six feet) and muscular, compared with their Spanish and
Anglo-American observers and their neighbors, the Ootams (Pimas). The amazed Spaniards
often described the Quechans as “giants.” Father Kino noted that “the principal one of [the
Quechans] was of gigantic size and the largest Indian that we had ever seen.”12 Father Pedro
Font described them as
well formed, tall, [and] robust . . . Generally they are nearly eight spans high [six
feet tall] and even more, and many are nine [almost seven feet tall], according to our
8
One characteristic that the Anglo-Americans thought remarkable about the Quechan swimmers was that
they swam overhanded. This method of swimming (with overhand strokes) was not introduced to
Americans until the 1890s.
9
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Report of Lieutenant Whipple’s Expedition from San Diego to California,
31st Congress, 2d Session, U.S. Senate, Ex. Doc. 19 (n.p., 1851), p. 15 (hereafter cited as Whipple, Report);
Cave Johnson Couts, Hepah, California! The Journal of Cave Johnson Couts: From Monterey, Neuvo
Leon, Mexico to Los Angeles, California during the Years 1848-1849, ed. Henry F. Dobyns (Tucson:
Arizona Pioneers’ Historical Society, 1961), p. 82.
10
William H. Chamberlin, “From Lewisburg (Pa.) to California in 1849, “ ed. Lansing B. Bloom, New
Mexico Historical Review 20 (1945), p. 242.
11
Bolton, Anza, Vol. 3, p. 353.
12
Father Eusebio Francisco Kino, Kino’s Historical Memoir of Primería Alta, ed. Herbert Eugene Bolton
(Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark Company, 1919), p. 252.
Appendix C
measurements. The women are not so tall, but they also are quite corpulent and of very
good stature.13
Chamberlain, like most who encountered the Quechans, noted that “the Yumas are a fine
looking tribe, with well formed bodies and regular and rather handsome features.”14
This physical distinctiveness was enhanced by their way of dressing and
decorating their bodies. The men went entirely naked except for an occasional rabbit skin
blanket, or woven blanket obtained from the Hopi, draped over the upper part of their bodies
during the cold winter months. One of the first Anglo-Americans to encounter the Quechans
seems to have been fur trapper James Ohio Pattie in 1826. He noted that the Indians
. . .brought us dried beans, for which we paid them with red cloth, for which they
were delighted beyond measure, tearing it into ribbands, and tieing it round their arms
and legs; for if the trust must be told, they were as naked as Adam and Even in their
birthday suit.15
However, when Pattie returned to the Crossing just a year later, the life style of the
Quechans was already changing:
We thus traveled on prosperously, until we reached the junction of the Helay
[Gila] River with Red [Colorado] River. Here we found the tribe of Umeas [Yumas], who
had shown themselves very friendly to the company in which I formerly passed them,
which strongly inspired confidence in them at present. Some of them could speak the
Spanish language . . . We asked them where they obtained the cloth they wore around
their loins? They answered, from the Christians on the coast of the California.16
The Quechan men had adopted the breechcloth, a long band of buckskin, cloth, or woven
bark drawn up between the legs and over a belt of bark twine. The women wore skirts of woven
bark. In 1854, U.S. Army Lieutenant Nathaniel Michler described this costume:
The women wear a very becoming and a very pretty dress. They take the inner
bark of willow, cut into strips about an inch wide and sufficiently long to extend from the
waist to the knee. A number of these pieces are woven together at one end [to form two
large pieces, which] are secured in front and behind by means of a [belt] composed of the
same material . . . The front portion is woven plain, but the back into an angular shape,
13
14
Chamberlin, “From Lewisburg (Pa.) to California in 1849,” p. 242.
15
James O. Pattie, The Personal Narrative of James O. Pattie, of Kentucky, During an Expedition From St.
Louis, Through the Vast Regions Between That Place and the Pacific Ocean, and Thence Back Through the
City of Mexico to Vera Cruz, During Journeyings of Six Years; In Which He and His Father, Who
Accompanied Him, Suffered Unheard of Hardships and Danger, Had Various Conflicts With the Indians,
and Were Made Captives, In Which Captivity His Father Died; Together With a Description of the
Country, and the Various Nations Through Which They Passed, ed. Timothy Flint (Cincinnati: E.H. Flint,
1833), p. 91 (hereafter cited as Pattie, Personal Narrative).
16
Pattie, Personal Narrative, p. 137.
Appendix C
with a lump at each side, answering the same purpose and appearing like a bustle. On
this protuberance the women carry their children of two or three years of age . . .; as she
approaches you nothing is seen but a little foot dangling down on each side.17
In addition to blankets for warmth in cold weather, the Quechans carried firebrands, or
pieces of burning wood. In 1775, Father Pedro Font noted that “they are accustomed to go
around with a burning brand . . . in the hand, bringing it close to the part of the body where they
feel the coldest . . . and when the fire goes out they throw the brand away, and seek another one
that is burning.”18
The Quechans took great pride in their physical appearance, adorning themselves with
shell necklaces and earrings. Some of the men also pierced their noses, which they decorated
with feathers, palm sprigs, or shell nose-rings. They styled their hair and painted their bodies in a
manner that invariably evoked a comment from European and Anglo-American explorers. The
men did not cut their hair but let it grown past their waists.19 The uncut hair was divided into small
sections, each of which was plastered with mud and rolled into a long coil which then either was
allowed to hang down the back or, particularly during warfare, was coiled around the head.20
Father Font described the Quechans’ traditional style of hair dressing:
The coiffure of the men is unique . . . They are accustomed to . . . dress their hair
by daubing it with white mud and other paints, in order that it may be stiff. They usually
do this on the banks of the water and with great care. They raise the front hair up and fix
it like a crown, or like horns, and the rest they make very slick with the paints and mud,
and they are accustomed also to decorate it with figures in other colors. The women do
not make use of this, their ordinary coiffure being to press the hair together and fix it with
mud . . . 21
Captain Juan Bautista de Anza further noted that the Quechans sprinkled a powder on
the mud “of such bright luster that it looks like silver. In order not to disturb this coiffure they
sleep sitting up.”22 In 1857, U.S. Army Major Samuel Heitzelman wrote:
17
U.S. Department of the Interior. Report on the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey, made under
the Direction of the Secretary of the Interior, by William H. Emory, Report of Lieutenant Michler, 34th
Congress, 1st Session, U.S. House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. 135 (Washington: Cornelius Wendell,
1857), p. 109.
18
19
Although proud of their long hair, as an act of great sacrifice they would cut it to the neckline when
mourning the loss of a loved one. Bee, Crosscurrents, p. 8.
20
The men’s traditional style of hair dressing was still practiced by the majority in 1931. Forde,
Ethnography, p. 97.
21
Bolton, Anza, Vol. 4, pp. 107-108.
22
Appendix C
The hair of the men is usually cut square across the forehead, just above the
eyes, and the side and back long, usually in rolls as thick as a little finger, of two [strands]
twisted into one. This they make useful in crossing the river, to tie their clothes, or bows
and quivers, on their heads.
The young women wear their hair . . . long behind, but not so long as the men’s .
. . They have a fashion of filling their hair with mud, and wearing it for a day or two
tastefully gathered up into the form of a turban, to destroy the insects, I presume.23
Nearly all the Quechans painted their faces and bodies with charcoal or powdered
minerals, such as hematite. Vermilion, white, yellow, and blue were favorite colors. Lieutenant
Whipple reported in 1849 that:
warriors dye their faces jet black, with a stripe of red from the forehead down to
the nose and across the chin. Women and young men usually paint with red, and
ornament their chins with dots or stripes of blue or black. Around the eyes are circles of
black. Their bodies are generally of a dark red, and polished with an oily substance, so
as to resemble well-cleaned mahogany. The face and body are sometimes fancifully striped with black.24
Tattoos were also popular. Body decoration was used not only to achieve the ideal of
beauty but also to prepare for battle. In 1774, Anza observed that “they make themselves
ferocious by painting all the body and especially the face.”25 Similarly, Whipple noted that “their
coal-black faces and striped bodies and legs gave them a fierce aspect,”26 and Sweeny asserted
that the body paint combined with their hair, which “they color red for battle, weaving it into a sort
of helmet or turban, . . . renders them fearful to behold.”27 “If these men fight as well as their
appearance indicated,” observed a good seeker watching the Quechan warriors decorate
themselves for battle, “the Apaches had better keep off.”28
Indeed, warfare was a very important aspect of Quechan life. War was considered a vital
source of the spiritual power of the entire Quechan tribe, and success in warfare was the physical
23
S.P. Heintzelman, [Report on Fort Yuma] in Reports on the Numbers, Characteristics, Localities, Etc.,
Etc., of the Indians in the Department of the Pacific, 34th Congress, 3d Session, U.S. House of
Representatives, Ex. Doc. 76 (Washington: n.p., 1857), p. 48.
24
Whipple, Report, p. 14. The color scheme described by Whipple was by no means the rule. J. Ross
Browne, traveling through Fort Yuma in 1864, described one man whose “eyes were encircled with yellow
ochre; blue streaks adorned his cheeks; his nose was of a dazzling vermillion . . .” and another man whose
“eyes were gorgeously encircled by a cloud of blue paint fringed with vermillion.” J. Ross Browne,
Adventures in the Apache Country: A Tour through Arizona and Sonora, 1864, ed. Donald M. Powell
(Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 19754), pp. 61-63.
25
Bolton, Anza, Vol. II, p. 49.
26
Whipple, Report, p. 15.
27
Sweeny, Journal, p. 72.
28
George W. B. Evans, Mexican Gold Trail: The Journal of a Forty-Niner, ed. Glenn S. Dumke (San
Marino, California: The Huntington Library, 1945), p. 161.
Appendix C
expression of that spiritual power. The Cocopas to the south and Maricopas to the east (who
sometimes formed alliances with the Ootams, or Pimas) were the Qeuchans’ major enemies,
while the Mohaves to the north were generally allies. Frequently, fighting took on a stylized
character, with four combat units drawn up in formation. The first group was made up of men
fighting with spears and heavy clubs. Behind them came archers armed with bows made of
willow or mesquite, and arrows with a reed shaft and a short hardwood insert that had a worked
stone tip lashed to it. Next came horsemen armed with spears, after horses were introduced by
the Spaniards. Finally, there followed a number of women equipped with stout sticks to finish off
the wounded enemy.29
While warfare was a source of spiritual power for the Quechan nation, an individual’s
quest for spiritual power could be achieved only through an icama, a special dream while asleep.
Through the icama, direct contact was established with Kumastamxo, the son of the creator of the
earth, Kwikumat. Kumastamxo, who was almost as powerful as his father and was the more
important of the two to the Quechan, created the sun and the starts, caused vegetation to grow,
caused the Colorado River to flow, originated agriculture, was the teacher of mankind, and was
the enduring source of spiritual power. The Quechan believed that dreams were the source of all
special abilities and success in any important endeavor such as warfare, healing, singing, and
leadership. If a man wanted to become a leader, a group of elderly men first listened to the
accounts of his dreams and then decided if his dreams were powerful enough to make him a
great leader. However, a leader also had to display competence, generosity, kindness, and good
oratory skills. If the Quechan people felt their leader was no longer competent to lead them, they
could totally ignore his commands and choose another.30
Many who encountered the Quechans in the early contact years spoke highly of them.
These “keepers of the gate,” as historian Herbert E. Bolton called them,31 were variously
described as “very care-free and pleasure-loving, docile and friendly”;32 “festive, affectionate, and
generous”;33 and “sprightly, full of life, of gaiety, and good humor.”34 But continued foreign
contact brought cultural clashes.
James Ohio Pattie saw a marked difference in just the one-year period between his first
visit to the area in 1825, when he found the Quechans friendly and open, and his second visit in
1826, when his party’s horses were all stolen by the Indians.35 Clearly, the Quechan lifeways,
particularly after the Anglo-American period began, were in the process of change.
29
Forde, Ethnography, p. 167; Bee, Crosscurrents, p. 11.
30
Forde, Ethnography, p. 137; Forbes, Warriors of the Colorado, pp. 62-70; Bee, Crosscurrents, pp. 9-10.
31
32
33
34
Whipple, Report, p. 18.
35
Appendix C
THE SPANISH EXPLORERS: SEEKING RICHES AND SOULS
The first changes for the Quechans came in the 16th century with the beginning of
Spanish exploration in the Southwest. In 1536, authorities in the vice-regal capital of New Spain
were excited by visions of wealthy kingdoms to the north, as described by four ragged survivors
of an ill-fated Spanish expedition to Florida in 1528. These men, Alvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca,
Andrés Dorantes, Alonso del Castillo Maldonado, and a Moorish slave called Estévan, had made
their way from Florida to the Texas coast and, after years of Indian servitude and deprivation
there, had escaped and wandered across the continent to Culiacán in northwestern New Spain.
The men reported hearing, during their wanderings, of populous cities to the north with large
houses and quantities of turquoise and other gems.36
Acting on the news of rich cities, Viceroy Antonio Mendoza began planning for a largescale conquest of them. In the spring of 1539, a small party under Fray Marcos de Niza, with the
slave Estévan as guide, was sent to make a preliminary investigation of the cities. To head the
main expeditionary force, Mendoza chose his friend, the newly-appointed governor of the frontier
province of New Galicia, Francisco Vásquez de Coronado. Fray Marcos de Niza, returning in
June with word that Estévan had been killed, gave a glowing account of having seen one of the
Seven Cities of Cíbola.37 In May of 1540, the expedition, termed by its chronicler, Pedro de
Casteñada, “the most brilliant company ever assembled in the Indies to go in search of new
lands,”38 departed from Culiacán. With Coronado in command, this impressive army, consisting
of 292 soldiers, a number of friars, 1,000 Indian allies, and 1,600 horses and pack animals, set
out overland for the fabled Cíbola. At least three women accompanied the army.39
To aid Coronado’s force, a sea expedition was also organized, as it was thought that the
legendary cities to the north were near the ocean. Thus, a fleet could provide additional relations,
supplies, and munitions for the army. Hernando de Alarcón, chamberlain of the viceroy, was
selected as captain of the fleet. He was instructed to load a ship and a sleep with artillery,
munitions, and food and to proceed up the Gulf of California, then known as the Sea of California.
Alarcón was to rendezvous with Coronado at a designated place along the coast; if he missed the
36
The story of Caveza de Vaca is available in several editions, including that of Buckingham Smith (1851),
Fanny Bandelier (1905), and Cleve Hallenbeck (1940). The one used here is Cabeza de Vaca’s Adventures
in the Unknown Interior of America, trans. Cyclone Covey (New York: Crowell-Collier Publishing
Company, 1961).
37
Fray Marcos de Niza was a Franciscan who had come to the New World in 1531, had been in Peru with
Pizarro, and had served in Nicaragua before coming to New Spain. His missionary zeal, perhaps, caused
his exaggerated stories of seeing the golden Cities of Cíbola.
38
George P. Hammond and Agapito Rey, Narratives of the Coronado Expedition, 1540-1542
(Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1940), p. 202 (hereafter cited as Hammond and Rey,
Coronado Expedition).
39
The three known women were Francisca de Hozes, wife of Alonzo Sánchez; Maria Maldonado, wife of
Juan de Paradinas; and the unnamed wife of Lope Cabellero. Hammond and Rey, Coronado Expedition, p.
12.
Appendix C
rendezvous, he was to land whenever possible and contact Coronado or learn of his
whereabouts, leaving landmarks and letters wherever he put in to shore. Alarcón set out on May
9, 1540, with two vessels, the flagship San Pedro and the Santa Catalina. He later added the
San Gabriel to his fleet. As luck would have it, Alarcón met with adverse fortune and missed his
rendezvous with Coronado, so he and his crews continued northward. As Alarcón later reported
to the viceroy:
These shoals were so dangerous and forbidding that it was temerity to venture
over them even with small boats. . . . But as your Lordship has commanded me to report
on the secret of that gulf, I determined, even at the risk of losing the ships, not to fail
under any pretext to reach its end. . . . . . In a short while we found all three of our ships
stuck on the sand, so that one could not help the other . . . as the currents were so strong
that it was impossible to approach one another. We were in such danger that many
times the deck of the flagship was under water. Had it not been for a miraculous rise of
the tide40 that raised the ship . . . we should all have been drowned. . .
We continued ahead with great difficulty turning our prows now this way, now
that, in trying to find the channel. God willed that thus we should reach the end of the
gulf. Here we found a mighty river [the Colorado] with such a furious current that we
could scarcely sail against it.41
Leaving his ships at anchor near its mouth, Alarcón took small boats and ascended the
Colorado River, which he named El Rio de Buena Guia (River of Good Guidance). During
August and September 1540, he made two trips, each time questioning the natives he met. In
response to his queries, the Indians told him that they knew of Cíbola and that it was many days
journey to the east. Also, Alarcón heard of Fray Marcos de Niza and of Estévan’s death at the
hands of the Cíbolans, but he learned nothing of Coronado.
On his second trip upstream, Alarcón “. . . came to some very high mountains among
which the river flowed in a narrow canyon. The boats passed with difficulty as there was no one
to draw them.”42 The first Europeans had arrived at the Yuma Crossing at the very place where
more than 300 years later an American fort would be erected. Alarcón, deciding he could do no
more, reported later:
I had a very tall cross erected here, on which I carved some letters to indicate that I
had come to this place. I did this in order that if people from the general should reach this
place they would know of me.43
40
Alarcón was not exaggerating. Tides of forty and fifty feet have been recorded. Douglas D. Martin,
Yuma Crossing (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1954), p. 17.
41
Hammond and Rey, Coronado Expedition, pp. 125-126.
42
Hammond and Rey, Coronado Expedition, p. 153.
43
Hammond and Rey, Coronado Expedition, p. 154. When Melchior Díaz reached Alarcón’s marker, he
described it as a tree and said that Alarcón buried a letter at the base of the tree. Alarcón, in his report,
however, made no mention of such a letter.
Appendix C
He then returned to his ships and sailed back to New Spain, stopping at various points
along the coast to make inquiries about Coronado.
Meanwhile, Coronado had placed the main body of his expedition under the command of
Tristán de Arellano. It proceeded at a slower pace than Coronado to the Sonora Valley, where
Arellano established a settlement which he called San Gerónimo de los Corazones. Ahead of
Arellano, with 75 soldiers an Fray Marcos de Niza as guide, Coronado approached and subdued
his objective—Cíbola. However, the fabled city turned out to be a good deal less than Fray
Marcos had led them to believe. Indeed, there were no riches (unless a supply of much-needed
corn was counted as such), and Cíbola was no more than the Zuñi pueblo of Hawikuh. Niza, the
butt of much abuse from the soldiers, soon departed for Mexico City. As he made his way
southward, Niza carried Coronado’s instructions back to Corazones. Coronado ordered the main
body of the expeditionary force to move on to Hawikuh, leaving only a small garrison under the
command of Melchior Díaz at Corazones. Díaz was instructed to make an exploratory trip to the
west to look for Alarcón’s ships. With twenty-five men, he journeyed overland to the Gulf of
California, arriving about November 1540. He then moved northward up the Colorado River,
which he called Rio Tizón (Firebrand) because the people living along the banks carried
firebrands to warm themselves.
It is a mighty stream [Casteñada, the expedition chronicler wrote], more than two leagues
across at the mouth . . . The captain learned, through the interpreter, that the ships of Alarcón
had come up the river from the sea to a point within three days’ travel from there. When Díaz’s
party reached the place where the boats had come . . . they found written on a tree: “Alarcón
came this far; there are letters at the foot of this tree.” They dug up the letters and from them
they learned how long the ships had waited for news from the army and that Alarcón had returned
to New Spain . . . because he could not proceed any farther, for the sea was a gulf . . . They
reported that California was not an island, but a point on the mainland on the other side of the
gulf.44
With this news, Díaz and his men started back to Corazones. But due to a mishap en
route, Díaz was killed, accidently pierced by his own lance.45
Disappointed by not finding riches at Cíbola, Coronado and his men (now reinforced by
Arellano’s detachment) continued a fruitless search for wealth and glory. They explored from the
Rio Grande Valley across the “buffalo plains” to what is now Kansas. In the spring of 1542,
forced by lack of supplies and the ever-increasing discontent of his army, Coronado returned
empty-handed to New Spain.46
44
Hammond and Rey, Coronado Expedition, p. 211. At this time, it was commonly thought that California
was an enormous island separated from the mainland by the sea (the Gulf of California), which was thought
to extend northward, connecting with what was then called the North Sea.
45
Hammond and Rey, Coronado Expedition, p. 21.
46
For the entire story of Coronado, see Herbert Eugene Bolton, Coronado, Knight of Pueblos and Plains
(New York: Whittlesey House, 1949; reprint ed., Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1964), as
well as Hammond and Rey, Coronado Expedition.
Appendix C
Sixty-five years passed before the Indians at the Yuma Crossing again saw a Spaniard.
He was Juan de Oñate, captain general and governor of a colonizing expedition to the lands
explored by Coronado and now named New Mexico.47 In 1595, eight years after Sir Walter
Raleigh founded his second, ill-fated colony at Roanoke, Virginia, and 25 years before the
Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, Oñate was awarded a contract for the conquest and
settlement of New Mexico by King Philip II of Spain. In 1598, traveling from Mexico City north
over the central Mexican plateau (east of Coronado’s route), Oñate established a colony at San
Gabriel,48 near the junction of the Chama River and the Rio Grande (north of present-day Sante
Fe). From there he undertook several expeditions to explore the vast lands of this northernmost
territory of New Spain. On October 7, 1604, on the last of these expeditions, Oñate set out to
reach the South Sea, meaning the Pacifid Ocean. He sought to find a good harbor to which ships
from the ports of New Spain could bring supplies and reinforcements to New Mexico. Oñate’s
expeditionary force consisted of thirty soldiers accompanied by a lay brother, Fray Juan de San
Buenaventura, and the father commissary, Fray Francisco de Escobar, who kept a diary of the
journey. Traveling westward from Gabriel, they passed through Zuñi and the Hopi villages,
crossed the Little Colorado, and continued on to the Bill Williams Fork, which joins the Colorado
River south of Needles, California. In his account, Escobar recorded:
Following this river [the Bill Williams Fork], . . . we arrived . . . at another river [the
Colorado], as large as the Duero in Spain. We named it Buena Esperanza because of
reaching it on the day of Expectation or Hope of the most blessed delivery of the Virgin
Mary . . .
We [then] came to another large river, which, though must smaller than the
Buena Esperanza, reached to the pack saddles of the horses. It was called Nombre de
Jesús [the Gila River].49
Oñate then proceeded south of the Yuma Crossing to the head of the Gulf of California,
arriving on January 25, 1605. After exploring the headwaters of the gulf, he took possession of
the land in the name of the King of Spain. Having found a great harbor on the South Sea (in
keeping with common knowledge of geography at this time, he did not recognize that the “Sea”
was a “gulf”), Governor Oñate decided to report his discovery in person to the viceroy in Mexico
City. But political currents interrupted his plans. He heard rumors that the viceroy was
dissatisfied with his administration and returned posthaste to New Mexico to strengthen his
position there. Eventually, as a result of charges of cruelty to the Indians and other crimes and
47
George P. Hammond and Agapito Rey, Don Juan de Oñate Colonizer of New Mexico, 1595-1628
(Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1953), pp. 1016-1020 (hereinafter cited as Hammond and
Rey, Oñate, 1595-1628).
48
San Gabriel was the capital of New Mexico for a few years. Later the seat of government was moved to
Santa Fe. Herbert Eugene Bolton, Spanish Exploration in the Southwest, 1542-1706 (New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1916), p. 203; Hammond and Rey, Oñate, 1595-1628, p. 17; Hubert Howe Bancroft,
History of Arizona and New Mexico 1530-1888 (San Francisco: The History Company, Publishers, 1889;
reprint ed., Albuquerque; Horn & Wallace, Publishers, 1962), p. 131.
49
Hammond and Rey, Onate, 1595-1628, pp. 1016, 1020.
Appendix C
excesses, Oñate was forced to resign as governor of New Mexico.50 He was condemned to
perpetual exile from New Mexico, banishment from Mexico City for four years, loss of his titles,
and payment of a fine. Moreover, his proposal to develop a harbor on the Gulf of California was
never carried out because of the enormous cost involved. It would be almost another hundred
years before a white man would again visit the junction of the Colorado and Gila Rivers. That
man was to be Father Eusebio Francisco Kino.
Born Eusebio Chini51 in 1645 in the Italian province of Tyrol on the Austria-Italy border,
Kino excelled in mathematics during his studies at the universities of Freiberg and Ingolstadt.
Instead of a career as a professor of mathematics, Kino chose the self-sacrificing life of a Jesuit
missionary. But his mathematical training was not to be wasted. During his lifetime, Kino
became not only one of New Spain’s foremost missionaries but also a distinguished astronomer,
surveyor, and cartographer. Indeed, he was the first to map the Pimería Alta (which included
northern Sonora and much of today’s southern Arizona) on the basis of actual exploration and
astronomical observations.52 In 1687, six years after arriving in New Spain, Kino was assigned to
the Pimería Alta. There the pious Jesuit founded his home mission of Nuestra Señora de los
Dolores (Our Lady of Sorrows), on the San Miguel River in Sonora. From this frontier outpost,
Kino established a chain of missions including Remedios, San Ignacio, Imurís, Cocospera,
Guevavi, Tumacácori, and San Xavier del Bac.53 At these missions, Kino taught the native
people to grow crops and introduced domestic animals and stock raising in Arizona, supplying the
missions with horse, cattle, and sheep produced on his mission rancho at Dolores. Throughout
the Primería Alta he traveled, spreading Christianity to the native people.
Ten years after his arrival in the Primería Alta, Kino’s attention was arrested by a problem
as challenging as that of saving souls. In 1697, the first permanent settlement and mission was
established in Baja California at Loreto. Soon other missions were established as well. The
infertility of the soil there, however, made self-sufficiency impossible. It was, therefore, necessary
for Kino and others to ship supplies from the mainland missions to Loreto across the Gulf of
California. The voyage across the stormy gulf was dangerous. Many ships went down, making
the cost of transporting cattle and grain so expensive that the Baja California missions were
threatened with bankruptcy.
50
Hammond and Rey give the complete story in Oñate, 1595-1628.
51
Kino adopted the Spanish spelling of his surname while in New Spain. In gratitude to San Francisco
Xavier, to whom Kino felt he owed his life during his serious illness as a young man, Kino added
“Francisco” to his name. During this illness, Kino vowed to become a missionary if San Xavier would
spare his life. Ernest J. Burrus, Kino and the Cartography of Northwestern New Spain (Tucson: Arizona
Pioneers’ Historical Society, 19065), p. 3 (hereafter cited as Burrus, Kino).
52
Burrus, Kino, p. 8.
53
Herbert Eugene Bolton, Rim of Christendom: A Biography of Eusebio Francisco Kino, Pacific Coast
Pioneer (New York: Macmillan, 1936). See also Kino’s Historical Memoir of Pimería: A Contemporary
account of the Beginnings of California, Sonora, and Arizona, by Father Eusebio Frandisco Kino, S.J.,
Pioneer Missionary Explorer, Cartographer, and Ranchman, 1683-1711, ed., Herbert Eugene Bolton, 2
vols. (Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark Company, 1919) hereafter cited as Bolton, Kino’s Historical Memoir.
Appendix C
In Kino’s day, the peninsula of California was commonly thought to be an island, indeed
the largest island in the world, extending north to present day Salem, Oregon. J The Gulf of
California was thought to be a part of the Sea of California that extended far northward to the
fabled northwest passage, called the Straight of Anián, and the North Sea.54 This idea was so
ingrained that Kino did not even recognize the truth when he saw it in 1697 and 1698. In
retrospect, Kino observed:
In the year 1698 . . . on the very high hill, or ancient volcano, of Santa Clara [at
the head of the Gulf], I descried most plainly both with . . . and without a telescope the
junction of these lands of New Spain with those of California, the head of this Sea of
California . . . At that time, however, I did not recognize it as such, and I persuaded
myself that further on and more to the west of the Sea of California most extend to a
higher latitude and communicate with the North Sea or Strait of Anián, and must . . .
make California an island.55
In 1699, Kino journeyed along the Río Grande de Los Apóstoles (the Gila, which Kino
also called the Río Grande de Hila), seeking to find where it emptied into the Gulf of California.
He was accompanied by Father Adamo Gilg and Captain Juan Mateo Manje. Arriving at an
Indian settlement that Kino named San Pedro, the explorers climbed a nearby hill from which they
could discern the confluence of the Río Grande de Hila and a river he named the Colorado de los
Mártires (Mártyres). This was Kino’s first view of the Yuma Crossing.
The Indians who lived at San Pedro were gracious hosts, sharing gourds of pinole and
56
atole, beans, and bread made from mesquite flour. They also presented Kino with a gift of
large blue abalone shells. This present became the catalyst in Kino’s quest for a land route to
California. He had first seen shells like these in 1685 on the west coast of Baja California. In his
memoirs, Kino recalled:
Not until we were on the road returning to Nuestra Señor de los Dolores did it
occur to me that those blue shells must be from the opposite coast of California and the
South Sea [Pacific Ocean], and that by the route by which they had come thence
[overland, since the native had no boats with which to cross the gulf] . . . we could pass
from here . . . to California.57
54
As early as 1539, the peninsularity of Baja California was known. Hernando Cortés had sent Ulloa to
what was then called the island of Santa Cruz. Ulloa explored the cape and reported Santa Cruz to be a
peninsula. In 1540, Alarcón had also reported California to be a peninsula. However, when Sir Francis
Drake explored the Pacific Coast in 1579, he concluded that the Gulf of California was a sea connecting
with the North Sea, thus making California the largest island in the world. Then, between 1602 and 1603,
Fray Antonio de la Ascensión, cosmographer, accompanied Sebastian Vizcaíno on his second expedition to
the Pacific Coast. In his report, published along with a map in 1625, Ascensión, too, claimed that
California was an island.
55
Bolton, Kino’s Historical Memoir, Vol. 1, p. 229.
56
Piñole is a drink made of a ground, parched corn mixed with sugar and water; atole is a gruel or mush
made by boiling cornmeal in water.
57
Bolton, Kino’s Historical Memoir, Vol. 1, p. 230. In March 1700, while visiting the Pueblo of Nuestra
Señora de los Remedios, Kino was again given a gift of the blue shells, this time in the form of a necklace
Appendix C
The following year, in September 1700, Kino set out with ten Indian servants and sixty
pack animals in search of this land route to Baja California. Arriving again at San Pedro on
October 3, Kino
ascended a hill . . . where we thought we should be able to see the Sea of
California; but looking and sighting toward the south, the west, and the southwest, both
with a long range telescope and without, we saw more than 30 leagues [almost 80 miles]
of level country, without any sea, and the junction of the Rio Colorado with this Rio
Grande (or Rio Hila, or Rio de los Apostoles), and their many groves and plains.58
Kino then proceeded down the Gila River, reaching the Yuma Crossing for the first time.
On arriving at the great ranchería of the Rio Colorado, more than a thousand
persons, assembled together, welcomed us; soon more than two hundred others came,
and the following day more than three hundred, who came from the other side of this very
large volumed Rio Colorado . . . swimming across it. We made them many talks about
our holy faith, which were very well received . . . 59
Continuing southward to a point between the Yuma Crossing and the head of the Gulf of
California, Kino, from a peak, observed the Colorado River running from its confluence with the
Gila to the Gulf. When, in the spring of 1701, he went to verify this observation in the company of
Father Juan Maria Salvatierra and Captain Juan Mateo Manje, Kino noted that the Gulf kept
narrowing as it curved northward to join the mighty Colorado. The “Sea of California” did not
extend even as far as the Yuma Crossing, much less to the Straits of Anián; indeed, California
had to be a peninsula, not an island. Kino wrote, “Not the least doubt remained.”60
But Kino had still not found a practical land route to Baja California by which he could
send cattle and supplies to the missions. In late 1701, Kino again set out on another journey of
discovery. From the Indian village of San Dionisio at the junction of the Gila and the Colorado,
Kino traveled to a crossing ten leagues above the head of the Gulf. The Indians fashioned a raft
for him out of logs lashed together with rope. Onto this raft, they fastened a basket in which Kino
with a holy cross. The gift, from the “principal governor” of a settlement of Cocomaricopas, further
strengthened Kino’s desire to find an overland passage to Baja California, p. 231.
58
Bolton, Kino’s Historical Memoir, Vol. 1., p. 249.
59
60
Bolton, Kino’s Historical Memoir, Vol. 1, p. 287. Despite Kino’s certainty, his discovery was not
universally accepted, not even by Manje, who felt further proof was needed. Consequently, in 1721, Juan
de Ugarte sailed up the Gulf to determine the validity of Kino’s claim. At the end of the Gulf, according to
his minute report, he plainly saw the estuary of the Colorado. But even Ugarte’s confirmation of the truth
was not accepted. So, in 1746, Fernando Consay, a Baja California missionary, repeated Ugarte’s voyage
with the same result. Finally, although there remained some doubters, 36 years after Kino’s death in 1771,
his discovery that the Sea of California was indeed a gulf, and that California was no island, was accepted
as the truth.
Appendix C
sat as he was ferried across the river. When he again crossed into Baja California in 1702, he
noted that:
the sun rose over the head of the Sea of California, proof most evident that we
are now in California; and, besides, we saw most plainly more than thirty leagues of
continuous land to the south, and as many more to the west, and as many more to the
north, without the least sign of any sea except that which lay to the eastward of us.61
Kino had found a land route to the California peninsula.62 In doing so, Kino unlatched the
gateway to the Pacific Coast.
It was another three-quarters of a century, however, before the gateway was opened. By
1750, California, with the exception of Baja California, had not been settled by the Spaniards.
Spain had long been overextended in the New World. Remote from the center of colonial New
Spain and lacking apparent mineral wealth, California was not a colonizing priority. But rumors
that Russia intended to extend its settlements from Alaska down the Pacific Coast, causing
Carlos III, King of Spain, to begin colonizing Alta California in order to thwart the Russian
initiative. The plan was to establish a chain of missions and presidios at strategic points along
the California coast. The work began with two widely separated mission settlements at major
bays – San Diego de Alcalá (1769) and San Carlos Borromeo (1770) at Monterey.63 By 1776,
five more missions were established: San Antonio de Padua (1771), San Gabriel Arcángel
(1771), San Luis Obispo de Tolosa (1772), San Juan Capistrano (1776) and, with the discovery
of a magnificent bay north of Monterey, San Francisco de Asís.64 Other missions were
anticipated, but by the time the last of the twenty-one was founded in 1823, control of California
was no longer in the hands of Spain.
The establishment of these missions made a land route to California increasingly
important. The voyage from Mexico to San Diego was long (taking from 50 to 100 days), costly,
and hazardous. Without a land route, these new symbols of possession were isolated and illsupported.
Into this picture stepped Juan Bautista de Anza, captain of the presidio of Tubac (then an
important frontier garrison in Sonora), and Father Francisco Garcés, missionary at San Xavier del
Bac. In 1771, Garcés, inspired by Anza’s idea to find a land route to California, followed Kino’s
trail to the Yuma Crossing. He then proceeded southward along the Colorado, crossing it near its
61
62
Kino considered this passage by raft a “land route,” since horses could swim across, and one could
continue to California without the use of boats.
63
The second mission, San Carlos Borromeo, was founded by Father Junípero Serra at the Presidio of
Monterey on June 3, 1770, but was moved to Carmel the following year.
64
Originally, the name San Francisco Bay was given to a small harbor, now known as Drake’s Bay. The
name was transferred when the large bay was accidentally discovered by Gaspár de Portolá’s party in 1776.
The mission of San Francisco de Asís is known by the Dolores from the stream, Arroyo de los Dolores
(Stream of the Sorrows), on which it was originally located.
Appendix C
mouth, and continued across California almost to present-day Calexico.65 He found the desert
beyond the Colorado much narrower than had been thought; moreover, looking northwest, he
saw gaps in the sierras through which he felt a route to the California settlements could be
found.66
Anza listened to Garcés’ story with great excitement. He now felt certain that an overland
route to Monterey was possible. After a lengthy struggle to obtain permission from Viceroy
Antonio Bucvareli to open a road from Tubac to the Pacific Ocean, Anza set forth on January 8,
1774. With him were Father Garcés, Father Juan Díaz, 31 soldiers, guides, interpreters,
muleteers, and servants. After a month’s journey, Anza and his party arrived at La Junta de los
Rios (The Joining of the Rivers), the Yuma Crossing. There he met the Quechan chief,
Olleyquotequiebe,67 or Salvador Palma as the Spanish named him, who welcomed the Spaniards
and exhorted his people to do so also. Anza recognized that the goodwill of the Quechans was
crucial to the opening of a route to California, since they controlled the Yuma Crossing. He,
therefore, moved to solidify a harmonious relationship with Palma.
In view of the fidelity which this Indian professed for us [Anza wrote], and
realizing how important it was at all times and for all events to keep this friendship, I
thought it well to confer upon him some honor to distinguish him from the rest, and to give
him a present to correspond with his good conduct. I therefore told him to assemble all
his people near my tent . . . I then told him that in the name of the king, who was lord of
everybody, I was confirming him in his office, in order that he might rule legally and with
greater authority, and be recognized even by the Spaniards . . . that I was decorating him
. . . with a red Ribbon bearing a coin [with an image] of his Majesty . . . an honor which I
was conferring upon him as a sign of the obedience which he must render to the king.
He promised to comply, and after I had hung the coin around his neck I embraced him.
With both the medal and the embrace he was pleased, and the hundreds of his people
marvelled at the gift . . .68
After crossing the river into California with the help of the Quechans, who carried the
Spaniards’ cargo across on their heads, Anza had a musket salute fired in celebration. At last the
gateway was opened. Anza and his party then ascended “a small hill . . . which the river cuts in
65
Garcés thought he was traveling along the Gila and crossing at its junction with the Colorado.
66
Until this time, it had been assumed that the country beyond the Colorado was entirely desert, devoid of
water and, therefore, impassable.
67
Herbert Eugene Bolton, Anza’s California Expeditions, 5 vols. (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1930), Vol. 1, p. 66 (hereafter cited as Bolton, Anza). Palma, or Olleyquotequiebe, which meant
“Wheezer” (he probably had asthma), appears to have been a Yuma chief only as a temporary result of the
Spanish recognition. Indeed, another Quechan, whom the Spaniards called Pablo, appears to have been the
principal leader. However, Palma’s friendly disposition toward the Spaniards contrasted with Pablo’s antiSpanish sentiment, so the Spaniards recognized Palma, a warrior, as the chief. See also Jack D. Forbes,
Warriors on the Colorado (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1965), pp. 71-74.
68
Appendix C
two, making . . . a most beautiful and delightful pass, which we call the Puerta de la Purísma
Concepción . . .”69 It was here that an ill-fated mission, and later Fort Yuma, would be built.
After Anza successfully opened a road to Monterey, California, he returned to Tubac,
where the viceroy next ordered him to organize a party of colonists, return to Monterey, and then
proceed to San Francisco Bay and establish a new mission and a presidio. In September 1775,
Anza assembled a second expedition, with Garcés, Father Pedro Font, and Father Thomas
Eixarch as missionaries. The colonizing party consisted of 40 soldiers, 29 women who were the
wives of soldiers, 136 other family members, 15 muleteers, 3 cowboys, 7 servants, 5 interpreters,
and a commissary, for a total of 240 persons. In addition, 165 pack mules, 340 saddle animals,
and 302 head of cattle were taken.70 According to Father Font, “The number of people was so
large that when we halted the camp looked like a town.”71 After a two-month journey, the long
train arrived at the Yuma Crossing. They again forded the river without mishap, although Fathers
Garcés and Font were terrified to cross the water. As Father Font confided in his journal:
Father Garcés was carried over on the shoulders of three Yumas, two at his
head and one at his feet, he lying stretched out face up as though he were dead. I
crossed over on horseback, and since I was ill and dizzy headed, three naked servants
accompanied me, one in front guiding the horse, and one on each side holding me on in
order that I might not fall. Since the train was long, we spent about three hours in fording
the river . . .72
Before proceeding onward, Anza ordered the Quechans to build a shelter for Fathers
Garcés Eixarch, who were left behind at the river to catechize the Indians.
Then, in one of the incredible feats of Western history, Anza led his party across the
scorching desert, over mountains, and down the valleys of California into Monterey.
Miraculously, only one person died, a mother in childbirth; five babies were born en route. From
Monterey, Anza continued with a smaller party to San Francisco Bay, where he established a
presidio and mission, which grew into the great Golden Gate city. On the other side of the
continent, Americans in Philadelphia were preparing the Declaration of Independence.
On his return trip through the Yuma Crossing, Anza found the Colorado River a raging
flood. Fording the swollen stream was an impossibility. With the help of the Quechans, a raft
was formed of logs, and men and cargo were transported without mishap.
69
Bolton, Anza, Vol. 2, pp. 267-268. Anza was under the false impression that he was the first to cross the
Colorado River into California. Actually, Melchior Díaz had crossed the river on a raft as early as 1540,
traveling down the western shore until a bed of volcanic lava forded him to turn back. Kino, too, had
crossed the river twice by raft in 1701 and 1702.
70
Father Pedro Font reported that 530 horses, colts, saddle mules, burros, and 355 cattle were taken.
71
72
Appendix C
As Anza prepared to leave, his loyal Quechan ally, Palma, pled to be taken to Mexico
City to meet Viceroy Bucareli. Palma wanted to ask for two things—baptism for himself and
missionaries for his people.
Six months later, one of his wishes came true. Palma was granted an audience with the
viceroy, who was delighted by Palma standing before him in a braided cape and a cap adorned
by imitation jewels given him by Anza. After several months of religious instruction, Palma was
baptized in the grand Cathedral of Mexico, the largest in New Spain.73
Years passed, however, before Palma’s second request—to have a mission at the Yuma
Crossing—was granted. Then, in 1779, the new viceroy, Teodore de Croix, ordered the
establishment of two combination mission-presidio settlements at the confluence of the Colorado
and Gila Rivers. This concept of having a garrison stationed at a mission was in sharp contrast to
the past policy of having a presidio in the general vicinity of, but separate from, the mission.
Father Garcés, who had urged the establishment of the missions, felt sure the decision to have
soldiers so close by was a mistake, but he was powerless to change matters. Thus, in 1780,
Garcés founded Mission La Purísma Concepción, where historic Fort Yuma is now located, and
Mission San Pedro y San Pablo de Bicuñer, located upriver in the vicinity of Laguna Dam on the
California side of the river.74 Fathers Garcés and Juan Barreneche were to serve Purísma
Concepción, and Fathers Díaz and Matías Moreno were in charge at Bicuñer.
After the mission-presidios were established, the relationship between the Spaniards and
the Quechans deteriorated rapidly, as Garcés expected it would. The Quechans quickly found
that traditional practices such as polygamy and native curing rites were prohibited by the
Franciscans. Moreover, the Spanish soldiers were arrogant in their behavior toward the native
inhabitants and punished them for infractions by whipping them. They showed little respect for
property rights of the Indians by allocating lands to settlers, and their cattle ruined the natives’
crops. Even Palma became disgruntled and began to incite his people against the settlers. The
last straw came when, in July 1781, two contingents of soldiers and settlers and more than a
thousand horses, mules, and cattle, led by Captain Don Fernando Javier de Rivera y Moncada,
came to the Crossing en route to California. The animals were permitted to forage the Quechans’
land, stripping the croplands of all vegetation and destroying the mesquite trees, an important
food source for the Indians. As a consequence, the Quechans revolted on July 17, 1781. For
two days they raged, killing Fathers Garcés, Díaz, Moreno, and Barreneche and all the soldiers
and male settlers, and burning Bicuñer to the ground. When the smoke cleared, only the women
and children, who were captured but not mistreated, remained. The Spaniards had been
defeated.75
73
74
The location of Bicuñer has long been erroneously given as in the vicinity of Pilot Knob, downriver from
Yuma. A close reading of Spanish documents and descriptions by Anglo explorers, however, makes it
clear that Bicuñer was located upriver from Concepción. Richard Yates, “Locating the Colorado River
Mission San Pedro y San Pablo de Bicuñer,” Journal of Arizona History 13 (Summer 1972), pp. 123-130;
Ronald L. Ives, “Retracing the Route of the Fages Expedition of 1781,” Arizona and the West, 8 (Spring
1966), Part 1, p. 50-51.
75
Ives, “Retracing the Route of the Fages Expedition of 1781, “ Part 1, pp. 50, 53.
Appendix C
When news of the uprising reached Viceroy Croix, he dispatched Lieutenant Colonel
Pedro Fages on a punitive expedition to rescue the captives, execute the rebel leaders, and
make peace with the remainder of the Indians. During October and November 1781, Fages
ransomed the captives, and, with the help of several Indian tribes that were enemies of the
Quechans, devastated the Quechan settlements, killing considerably more Indians than the
number of Spaniards killed in the massacre. He was unsuccessful, however, in capturing or
killing any Quechan chiefs, or in making a peace with the tribe. Unable to completely defeat the
rebels, Fages collected the bones of the martyred priests and other Spaniards, gathered those
religious objects he could find, and returned home.76
The Spaniards made no further effort to establish a settlement at the Crossing or to utilize
the trail to California opened by Anza. Travel between California and other Spanish provinces
would be accomplished only by sea. As a result of the remoteness of upper California from the
rest of New Spain, the Californians developed a culture and society different from that of the other
Spanish provinces. Within a generation, the interlude of Spanish influence at the Crossing had
been forgotten by the Quechans, and they returned to their old ways. A half a century would
pass before they would be disturbed by foreigners again. The gateway to the Pacific Coast was
again closed.
THE MOUNTAIN MEN: BLAZING THE TRAIL
In 1803, under the Louisiana Purchase Treaty, the United States acquired a vast region
of the North American continent between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains,
extending north to the British possessions in western Canada and southwest to the lands claimed
by Spain, which included much or all of the present states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona,
Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and California, and portions of Wyoming and Louisiana. No one knew
how large the region was, much less what resources it contained. On May 4, 1804, the “Corps of
Discovery,” lead by Captain Meriwether Lewis and Second Lieutenant William Clark, set out from
St. Louis to explore the unknown Missouri River Valley and the Pacific Northwest. Even before
the Corps had returned to St. Louis in 1806, an assortment of tough adventurers—the fur
trappers—had begun to enter the trans-Mississippi area, and within a few years they had
penetrated most of the streams flowing eastwardly out of the Rockies in a search for beaver. At
the same time, American explorers and traders were opening the first trails from St. Louis, the
“Gateway to the West,” to the Spanish settlements of Taos and Santa Fe. Among the first was
Army Lieutenant Zebulon M. Pike, who set out from St. Louis in 1806 to explore the vaguelydefined boundary between the Louisiana Purchase and the Spanish territory. His accounts of
rich settlements in which is now New Mexico sent traders scurrying to the Rio Grande. Although
76
Ives, “Retracing the route of the Fages Expedition of 1781,” Part 1, p. 54; Part 2, pp. 165-167.
Appendix C
the Spaniards did not welcome the Americans and sent most of them to prison, knowledge of the
Southwest began to filter back to the American outposts on the Mississippi River.
After Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821, traders were welcomed into
the territory. The trappers—or, as they were called, the mountain men—soon followed. By 1824,
a wagon road had been blazed across the plains from Missouri to New Mexico, and the
Southwest was opened to the rough-and-ready sons of the frontiersmen who had followed the
trails of Daniel Boone through Kentucky to the trans-Mississippi winderness. (Boone, himself,
had settled in Missouri in 1799 and died there in 1820.) From 1821 to 1823, most of the Rio del
Norte (the Rio Grande) and its tributaries were visited by American trappers,77 and thousands of
beaver pelts were loaded on the wagon trains for transport to St. Louis. This wealth of furs in the
Southwest caused a flood of trappers to set out from the Missouri settlements for Santa Fe and
the rich “fur streams” of New Mexico. However, by 1824 most of these streams had been
trapped-out, and the trappers began to advance onto the headwaters of the Colorado and Gila
Rivers. By 1830, practically every stream in the Colorado and Gila basins had been trapped and
retrapped so many times that beaver were becoming scarce. A decade later, the fur trade had all
but ended, due in a large part to the decline in popularity of beaver hats.
Perhaps the most important of the southwestern mountain men was Ewing Young, who
first arrived in Santa Fe in 1822.78 From then until 1834, when he settled in Oregon, Young led
trapping parties through Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and California. Among his
contemporaries, some of whom also captained their own parties, were Sylvester and James Ohio
Pattie, William Wolfskill, George C. Yount, Thomas L. “Peg-Leg” Smith, Michel Robidoux, William
“Old Bill” Williams, Antoine Leroux, Isaac Slover, Pauline Weaver, and Christopher “Kit” Carson,
to mention only a few. Among the chroniclers of this remarkable period of American history are
James O. Pattie, George Yount, Peg-Leg Smith, and Kit Carson, all of whom visited the narrows
below the confluence of the Colorado and Gila Rivers.
The first recorded American mountain men to visit the Crossing were in a party of about
32 trappers under the leadership of Ewing Young.79 In December 1825, Young and his party,
which included George Yount and Peg-Leg Smith, left Santa Fe for the Gila River on a trapping
77
Most of the histories of the Southwest give only casual mention to the American fur trade and virtually
ignore the role of the mountain men. Although scores of these adventurers are known to have trapped the
streams of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and California, the exploits of only a few are documented.
78
Kenneth L. Holmes, Ewing Young, Master Trapper (Portand, Ore.: Binsfords & Mort, 1967), p. 10.
79
In James O. Pattie’s personal narrative, he claims that as early as December 1824, he trapped the upper
Gila, “a river never before explored by white people.” However, he did not go as far as the Yuma
Crossing. James O. Pattie, The Personal Narrative of James O. Pattie, of Kentucky, During an Expedition
from St. Louis, Through the Vast Regions Between That Place and the Pacific Ocean, and Thence Back
Through the City of Mexico to Vera Cruz, During Journeyings of Six Years; In Which He and His Father,
Who Accompanied Him, Suffered Unheard of Hardships and Dangers, Had Various Conflicts With the
Indians, and Were Made Captives, In Which Captivity His Father Died; Together With a Description of the
Country, and the Various Nations Through Which They Passed, ed. Timothy Flint (Cincinnati: E.H. Flint,
1833), p. 51 (hereafter cited as Pattie, Personal Narrative).
Appendix C
expedition. At about the same time80 (January 2, 1826), James O. Pattie, in company with a
party of French-Americans led by Michel Robidoux, also set out for the upper Gila, trapping
downstream to its junction with the Salt River, where the party of thirteen, with the exception of
Robidoux, Pattie and one other “Frenchman,” was killed by Indians.81 A few days later, to their
good fortune, the survivors encountered Ewing Young and joined his party. Pattie recorded their
adventure:
We thence returned down the Helay [Gila], which is here about 200 yards wide,
with heavily timbered bottoms. We trapped its whole course, from where we met it, to its
junction with Red [Colorado] river. The point of junction is inhabited by a tribe of Indians
called Umede [Yumas]. Here we encamped for the night.82
Continuing up the Colorado River, the party traveled through the Grand Canyon area of
northern Arizona and into the central Rocky Mountains, returning to Santa Fe in August 1826.
A year later, in September 1827, James Pattie and his father, Sylvester, in company with
a party of trappers, again left Sante Fe for the Colorado by the Gila River route. A portion of the
party, which included George Yount, subsequently separated from the Patties, apparently
following a disagreement. The Pattie party, now reduced to eight men, and the Yount party
continued on their separate ways.83
At the junction of the Gila and Colorado Rivers, Pattie and his men again encountered
the Quechans. On his previous visit with Ewing Young, Pattie had found the Quechans to be
friendly; now, however, they showed signs of hostility and ran off the trappers’ horses. Unable to
retake their mounts, the trappers attacked the Indian village, probably located near the site of
present-day Fort Yuma. Finding the village deserted, the trappers gained a measure of revenge
by burning it to the ground. Recrossing the river to the Arizona size, the party constructed a rude
fort and made preparations to continue their journey.
On the morning of the fourth [of December 1827] we commenced digging out our
canoes, and finished and launched two. These we found to be insufficient to carry our
furs. We continued to prepare, and launch them, until we had eight in the water. By
80
The year of the encounter between Young and Pattie is a subject of scholarly debate. The dates provided
herein are the actual dates reported by, or reckoned from, Pattie in his Personal Narrative. However, it is
probable that Pattie actually met up with Young in January 1827, rather than in 1826 as Pattie reported.
For an analysis of the dates and activities of several trapping parties during the years between 1825 and
1827, see Joseph J. Hill, “Ewing Young in the Fur Trade of the Far Southwest, 1822-1834,” Quarterly of
the Oregon Historical Society 24 (March 1923), pp. 1-35.
81
Some sources, including Charles L. Camp, ed., George C. Yount and His Chronicles of the West
(Denver: Old West Publishing Company, 1966), (hereafter cited as Camp, George C. Yount), suggest that
the Frenchman’s name may have been E. Bure, Burr, or Du Breuil. Alternatively, Charles Kelley,
“Antoine Lerous – Pathfinder,” Desert Magazine 8 (Oct. 1945), p. 7 states that Antoine Leroux was
apparently with Michel (also called Miguel) Robidoux in 1827.
82
83
The Pattie party included James and Sylvester Pattie, Isaac Slover, Nathaniel Prior, Richard Laughlin,
William Pope, Jesse Ferguson, and James Puter.
Appendix C
uniting them in pairs by a platform, we were able to embark with all our furs and traps . .
.84
Pattie and his men, floating with the current and trapping as they went, continued down
the Colorado to tidewater, encountering tribes of both friendly and hostile Indians. The varieties
of animals they encountered along the lower Colorado would surprise today’s visitors.
There are [wrote Pattie] but few wild animals that belong to the country farther
up, but some deer, panthers, foxes and wild-cats. Of birds there are great numbers, and
many varieties, most of which I have never before seen. We killed some wild geese and
pelicans and likewise an animal not unlike the African leopard [probably a jaguar or an
ocelot], which came into our camp, while we were at work upon the canoe.85
Finding it impossible to navigate against the tidal currents as they neared the Gulf of
California, the trappers were forced to abandon their canoes and bury their furs, to be retrieved
later. Guided by friendly Indians, the party set out on foot across the desert to the California
coast, which they thought, based on information from the Indians, was not very distant. Instead,
the trek through Baja California and southern California, during which Sylvester Pattie and Isaac
Slover almost died from thirst, took them two months. The party, including the two Patties, Isaac
Slover, Nathaniel Prior, Richard Laughlin, William Pope, Jesse Ferguson, and James Puter,
arrived in San Diego on April 26, 1828, thus ending an odyssey that had begun on the Mississippi
River in 1824. These men were among the earliest (if they were not the first) Anglo-Americans to
cross the Southwestern wilderness to California by way of the Gila Trail and the Yuma Crossing,
both of which were to remain geographically obscure for another twenty years.
Meanwhile, George Yount and his companions, who had separated from the Patties on
the Gila, arrived at the Colorado soon after Pattie passed by. Yount also found the tidewaters
difficult to navigate:
After descending to a point where the tide rises to a height of three feet, our
trappers retraced their steps, and trapped up again to the junction of the two rivers . . .,
glad to retreat from a place so undisirable [sic], so repulsive. At the junction of these two
rivers, the Gila and the Colorado, it was interesting to our trappers to observe the lofty
natural fortification. It is a very important point—Perhaps the day may come, when shall
be another Gibraltar or Quebeck there . . .86
Yount’s prophecy was only to become partially true. The Crossing was to be a very
important point, but it was not destined to become another Gibraltar.
84
85
86
Camp, George C. Yount, p. 46.
Appendix C
In August 1829, Ewing Young, with a party of trappers which included twenty-year-old Kit
Carson, set out from Taos for the beaver streams of Arizona. Carson, in his autobiography,
reported:
In those days licenses were not granted to citizens of the United States to trap
within the limits of Mexico. To avoid all the mistrust on the part of the [Mexican]
government officers, we traveled in a northern direction for fifty miles and then changed
our course to southwest. Traveling through the country occupied by the Navajo Indians,
we passed the village of Zuni, on the head of Salt River, one of the tributaries of the Rio
Gila.
[After a battle with Indians,] . . . we continued our march, trapping down Salt
River to the mouth of San Francisco [Verde] River, and up to the head of the latter
stream. We were nightly harassed by the Indians, who would frequently crawl into our
camp, steal a trap or two, kill a mule or horse, and do whatever damage they could.
On the head of San Franscisco River the party was divided, one section, of which
I was a member, to proceed to the valley of the Sacramento in California, and the other
return to Taos. . . . Young took charge of the party for California, consisting of eighteen
men.
. . . On the fourth day we arrived on the Colorado of e West, below the great
[Grand] Cañon [and near the Mohave villages].87
Carson, Young, and the others in the party crossed the Colorado at a point far above the
Yuma Crossing, and continued on to the mission of San Gabriel, a few miles east of the pueblo of
Los Angeles. From the Colorado to the mission, Young and Carson followed the route first
traveled by Jedediah Smith in September 1826. Smith had arrived at the Mohave villages by way
of the Colorado River from Nevada. The following year, after a sojourn in southern California,
Young, Carson, and party of the original party retraced their route to the Mohave villages on the
Colorado, then proceeded down the Colorado. As Carson, in his autobiography, related:
We trapped down the south side of the Colorado to tidewater without any further
molestation [from the Indians], and up the north side to the mouth of the Gila, then
[crossing the Colorado near the Yuma village] up the Gila to near the mouth of the San
Pedro . . . We continued up the Gila to a point opposite the [Santa Rita] copper mines [in
Grant County, New Mexico] . . .The beaver, some two thousands pounds in all, was
disposed of to advantage at Santa Fe. In April, 1831, we had all arrived safely at Taos.
The amount due us was paid, each of us having several hundred dollars. We passed the
time gloriously, spending our money freely, never thinking that our lives had been risked
in gaining it. Our only idea was to get rid of the dross as soon as possible, but at the
same time have as much pleasure and enjoyment as the country could afford.88
The risks were indeed high. Of the scores of mountain men who trapped along the
southwestern beaver streams, few survived for many years. In 1824, 116 men arrived in New
Mexico with James O. Pattie; only 16 were still alive three years later.89 Indians, starvation, wild
87
Christopher “Kit” Carson, Kit Carson’s Autobiography, ed. Milo Milton Quaife (Chicago: Lakeside
Press, 1935), p. 9 (hereafter cited as Carson, Autobiography).
88
Carson, Autobiography, p. 12.
89
Appendix C
animals, dehydration, and mountain blizzards took an immense toll of the early adventurers in the
Southwest. Some of those who did survive remained on the western frontier for the rest of their
lives, making important contributions to the settlement of the region. Ewing Young founded the
first settlement in the Willamette Valley of Oregon, William Wolfskill became the first commercial
orange grower in southern California, George Yount opened the Napa Valley of California, and
Pauline Weaver spent the last years of his life near Prescott, Arizona. James Ohio Pattie went
back to Kentucky and was later reported to have returned to the West. One account suggests
that he was killed by Indians or froze to death in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in eastern
California in the winter of 1849-50.90 A few who survived the hardships of the 1820s and 1830s
remained on the southwestern frontier to play a role during the 1840s in the Mexican War. Most
notable of these, perhaps, was Kit Carson who later gained fame as a guide for the Army of the
West, an army officer, Indian agent, merchant, and a prominent resident of New Mexico and
Colorado.
In addition to the mountain men whose explorations in the Gila and Colorado valleys are
recorded in their writings, other unknown American trappers and adventurers crossed and
recrossed Arizona by way of the Gila valley, the Old Spanish Trail, and other less traveled routes
during the years between 1824 and the Mexican War. By 1846, the Gila Trail was an established
route across the Southwest, although maps of the region dating before the 1850s contained only
scanty information, much of which was incorrect.
Even though the mountain men, many of them only marginally literate, kept few records
of their travels through Arizona, the geography and peoples of the region were well-known to
them. It was from this group of knowledgeable frontiersmen that the United States Army, during
the Mexican War, would obtain the guides it needed to find the trails, mountain passes, water
holes and river crossings between Santa Fe and the Pacific Coast – almost a quarter of the
distance across the country.
THE MEXICAN WAR SOLDIERS: OPENING THE CROSSING
A number of reasons can be found for the war between the United States and Mexico,
including boundary disputes, cultural differences, mutual prejudices, and Indian raids in both
directions across the border. Knowing little of each other, except from contacts on a frontier
distant from both capitals, the two young, proud nations were spoiling for a fight that each thought
it would win.
The immediate cause of the war, however, was the annexation of the Republic of Texas
by the United States in 1845. Texas, once part of Mexico, had existed as an independent
republic for almost ten years without Mexico making any sustained effort to regain it. When
Congress voted to annex Texas, Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with the United States. To
add to the controversy, the location of the boundary between Texas and Mexico was in dispute.
90
James O. Pattie, The Personal Narrative of James O. Pattie of Kentucky, ed. Timothy Flint, introduction
by Milo Milton Quaife (Chicago: Lakeside Press, 1930), p. xxv.
Appendix C
Texas, and subsequently, the United States claimed that the Rio Grande was the boundary, while
Mexico contended that the boundary was the Nueces River, 150 miles north of the Rio Grande.
When General Zachary Taylor was ordered to protect the border and crossed into the disputed
territory between the Rio Grande and the Neuces, the boundary controversy developed into
fighting. On May 13, 1846, Congress declared war.
On the same day he signed the declaration of war, President James K. Polk placed
Colonel Stephen Watts Kearny in command of an “Army of the West.”91 Kearny’s orders were to
occupy the vast territory stretching from New Mexico to California and, if possible, to lend aid to
other United States forces fighting in Mexico.
Part of Kearny’s army was the “Mormon Battalion.” The volunteer Battalion, comprised
almost entirely of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,92 had been raised
by Kearny on orders of the Secretary of War acting in response to a Mormon request for
assistance in moving the Latter-Day Saints to the West. There they hoped to settle on vacant
lands and practice their religion without the persecution they had experienced in the East.
With the promise of land in California after the war was won, five companies of Mormons
enlisted at Council Bluffs, Iowa, and marched to Santa Fe. When their commander, Captain
James Allen,93 died before reaching Santa Fe, Kearny placed Captain Philip St. George Cooke in
91
Depending on the time cited, there are varying numbers of personnel in the Army of the West because of
later recruitments, additions, and number of civilians involved (i.e. women with the Mormon Battalion).
Philip St. George Cooke of the 1st Dragoons in his Conquest of New Mexico and California: An Historical
and Personal Narrative (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1878; reprint ed., Albuquerque: Horn & Wallace,
1964), pp. 5-6 (hereafter cited as Cooke, Conquest of New Mexico and California) says there were about
1,700 rank and file, with 1 regular cavalry, 2 batteries of horse artillery, 2 companies of infantry – “all raw
recruits,” and 6 troops of the 1st Dragoons. John T. Hughes, Doniphan’s Expedition; Containing an
Account of the Conquest of New Mexico; General Kearney’s Overland Expedition to California;
Doniphan’s campaign against the Navajos; his Unparalleled March Upon Chihuahua and Durango; and
the Operations of General Price at Santa Fe, with a Sketch of the Life of Col. Doniphan (Cincinnati: J.A. &
U.P. James, Publishers, 1850), p. 27 (hereafter cited as Hughes, Doniphan’s Expedition) gives 1,685 men
total, and Bancroft says 1,800 in his History of Arizona and New Mexico, 1530-1888 (San Francisco: The
History Company, Publishers, 1889; reprint ed., Albuquerque: Horn & Wallace, Publishers, 1962), p. 409
(hereafter cited as Bancroft, Arizona and New Mexico).
92
In his Conquest of New Mexico and California, p. 140, Cooke states that there was only one member of
the Battalion who was not a Mormon. In Ralph P. Bieber, ed. Exploring Southwestern Trails 1846-1854
(Glendale, Calif.: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1938), p. 131 (hereafter cited as Bieber, Southwestern
Trails), the man’s name is given as John Allen, a private in Company E. There is evidence that John Allen
became a Mormon and was baptized, so he could join the Battalion and thus go to California. He was
subsequently excommunicated, court-martialled, and “drummed out of the Army.” Elmer J. Carr, ed.
“Honorable Remembrance: The San Diego Master List of the Mormon Battalion” (Mormon Battalion
Visitors Center, San Diego, California, 1972-1978), p. 14 (hereafter cited as Carr, “Master List of the
Mormon Battalion”).
93
James Allen, the first Mormon Battalion commander, died August 23, 1846, at Fort Leavenworth, just as
the group was leaving that place to march to Santa Fe. Lieutenant A. J. Smith of the 1st Dragoons was then
placed in command. When Colonel Kearny (then south of Albuquerque) was notified of Allen’s death, he
put Philip St. George Cooke in command. Bancroft, Arizona and New Mexico, p. 410; Carr, “Master List
of the Mormon Battalion.”
Appendix C
command of the Battalion. Cooke was to gain a measure of fame that would equal that of
Kearny.
Santa Fe, the capital of New Mexico, was captured without a battle on
August 18, 1846. Kearny—by then promoted to brigadier-general—left a garrison there, sent a
large part of his men south to fight in Mexico, and, with the remainder, started for California.94 On
the advice of his mountain man guide, Thomas Fitzpatrick, that it was impossible to take the
supply and baggage wagons to California by way of the Gila River Trail, Kearny decided to move
an advance party along the Gila River through the rugged mountain canyons of western New
Mexico and eastern Arizona with only pack mules. He assigned to Cooke and his Mormon
volunteers the task of finding a route for the supply wagons.
While still in the Rio Grande Valley near Socorro, New Mexico, Kearny’s army
encountered, by chance, another well-known guide, Christopher “Kit” Carson. Carson had been
in California when the war began, having guided John C. Frémont’s second expedition there by
the way of the Great Salt Lakt in Utah. Commodore Robert F. Stockton, commanding the
American naval forces, and erroneously believing that he was in control of California after only a
few minor skirmishes with Mexican troops, had ordered Carson to take dispatches to Washington
D.C. Upon seeing Carson,
the General [Kearny] then said—“Lieutenant! You have just passed over the
country we intend to traverse, and you are will acquainted with it: we want you to go back
with us as our guide, and pilot us through the mountains and deserts.”95
In his autobiography, Carson briefly commented on the meeting:
On the sixty of October, 1846, I met General
Kearny on his march to
California, and he ordered me to join him as his guide. I did so, . . .96
Fitzpatrick was assigned the task of delivering Stockton’s dispatches, and Carson, who
had hoped to spend time with his family in New Mexico on his way to Washington, “turned his
face to the westward again.”97
With Carson leading the way, Kearny marched with 100 soldiers, burdened by two
cumbersome mountain howitzers, along the Gila River. Their first sight of the Yuma Crossing, on
94
The garrison left at Santa Fe was under the command of Colonel Sterling Price. About 1,000 men under
Colonel A. W. Doniphan marched south to Chihuahua to join General Wool’s forces. Cooke’s Mormon
Battalion, after he weeded out the sick, elderly, women, and children, amounted to more than 300 men.
Cooke reluctantly allowed 5 women, wives of offices and sergeants, to accompany the Battalion and to be
“transported and provisioned at their own expense.” Cooke, Conquest of New Mexico and California, pp.
91-92; Bieber, Southwestern Trails, pp. 65-66.
95
Hughes, Doniphan’s Expedition, p. 209.
96
Kit Carson’s Autobiography, ed. Milo Milton Quaife (Chicago: Lakeside Press, 1935), p. 109 (hereafter
cited as Quaife, Carson’s Autobiography).
97
Hughes, Doniphan’s Expedition, p. 209.
Appendix C
November 23, 1846, was described in detail by Lieutenant William H. Emory, one of several men
from the Corps of Topographical Engineers who had been assigned to the Army of the West:
[We] saddled up to visit the junction of the Gila and Colorado, which we found
due north from our camp, and about a mile and a half distant . . .The Gila comes into it
nearly at right angles, and the point of junction, strangely chosen, is the hard butte
through which, with their [the Gila and Colorado] united forces they cut a cañon, . . .
The walls of the cañon are vertical, and about 50 feet high, and 1,000 feet long.
Almost before entering the cañon, in descending the Gila, its sea-green waters are lost in
the chrome colored hue of the Colorado. For a distance of three or four miles below the
junction, the river is perfectly straight, and about 600 feet wide; and up, at least, to this
point, there is little doubt that the Colorado is always navigable for steamboats. Above,
the Colorado is full of shifting sandbars, but is, no doubt, to a great extent susceptible of
navigation . . .
Near the junction, on the north side, are the remains of an old Spanish church,
built near the beginning of the 17th century, by the renowned missionary, Father Kino
[sic].98 This mission was eventually sacked by the Indians, and the inhabitants all
murdered or driven off. It will probably yet be the seat of a city of wealth and importance,
most of the mineral and fur regions of a vast extent of country being drained by the two
rivers.99
As Kearny’s command was fording the Colorado River, the Mormon Battalion,
under Leiutenant Colonel Cooke,100 was making its way to the Yuma Crossing with the
supply wagons. Experienced southwestern mountain men Antoine Leroux, Pauline
Weaver, and Baptiste Carbonneau were the guides.101 Cooke had moved south along
the Rio Grande (beyond the point where Kearny had turned west to the headwaters of
the Gila), crossed the mountains through Guadalupe Pass in the southeast corner of
what is now Arizona, passed through the then-abandoned San Bernardino Ranch,
marched up the San Pedro River, and continued on to Tucson. Traveling north from
Tucson to the Pima villages near present-day Florence, the Mormon Battalion came to
the Gila River Trail, over which Kearny had passed six weeks before and which had been
98
Emory was mistaken. The mission was built by Father Francisco Garcés.
99
U.S. Army. Corps of Topographical Engineers, Notes of a military Reconnoissance from Fort
Leavenworth, in Missouri, to San Diego, in California, Including Part of the Arkansas, Del Norte, and Gila
Rivers, by Lieut. Col. W.H. Emory, 30th Congress, 1st Session, House Ex. Doc. 41, (Washington: Wendell
and Van Benthuysen, Printers, 1848), p. 95.
100
When Captain Cooke took command of the Mormon Battalion, he was brevetted to the rank of
lieutenant colonel.
101
The San Diego Master List gives names of ten scouts, or guides, who were with the Battalion: Antoine
Leroux, Paulilne W. Weaver, Stephen G. Foster, Willard P. Hall, Jean Baptiste Charboneaux, Tasson,
Chacon, Francisco, Appolonius, and Philip Thompson. Antoine Leroux, who had arrived in Santa Fe in
1822, was undoubtedly familiar with most of the trails and streams in New Mexico and Arizona and
probably trapped the Gila and San Pedro Rivers in the 1820s and 1830s. Pauline Weaver was especially
familiar with part of Cooke’s route, having visited the Casa Grande, near the Pima villages, in 1832.
Appendix C
blazed by Pattie and the fur trappers two decades earlier. They moved west along the
Gila and on January 8, 1847,
. . . encamped at or near the mouth of the Hela one mile from the Colorado; . . .
[and the next day] marched about 12 miles down the Colorado to the crossing and
encamped; this is a very rich bottom and the river bed is as wide as the Missourie . . .102
Supplies were low and the mules were breaking down. Henry W. Bigler described the
situation in his diary:
Marched 12 miles through heavy sand and
camped on the bank of the Colorado
River. This morning we found one of the mules dead, the teams are weak and poor, having
nothing to eat. This morning we left 2 wagons and harness. We have nothing to eat but very
poor beef and mutton and hardly any flour and the Doctor says the meat is unhealthy and that he
had seen meat sold, that the seller had been fined five hundred dollars for selling much better
meat. Our beef is so poor that it is jelly- like and the hide full of grubs.103
When Cooke first saw the Colorado, he was little impressed.
The Río Colorado here resembles the Missouri in size and color of the water. It has
immense bottoms difficult to pass; they are of rich soil. I believe it to be the most useless of rivers
to man; so barren, so desolate and difficult, that it has never been explored; running through
volcanic mountains and sand deserts, at places through chasms of vertical rock perhaps five
thousand feet deep. The hapless wanderer, to its verge, is famished for even a cup of its water,
which is more tantalizing to his sight than was ever the mirage of eastern deserts. The rocks of
these chasms, I am told, would fit together if restored to the union which has apparently once
existed. It cannot be navigable far.104
The next day, however, his opinion was changed.
It seems, by [Pauline] Weaver’s account, that I have done injustice to this river’s
uses, etc. He says it will admit of navigation by steamboats for three hundred and fifty
miles from its mouth from April to September, and that the rich bottoms extend that high.
It is probable that sugar cane would flourish here. He says the Cochano [Indians] have
rich fields as high up as I have named, where the canyons commence. He speaks of a
very rich extensive bottom below, that does not overflow.105
The Battalion approached the river with some trepidation. It was a mile wide and difficult
to cross. In places where the current was slow, there was an inch of ice on the water, due to
102
Robert S. Bliss, “The Journal of Robert S. Bliss, with the Mormon Battalion,” Utah Historical Quarterly
4 (July 1931), 83.
103
Henry W. Bigler, “Extracts from the Journal of Henry W. Bigler,” Utah Historical Quarterly 5 (April
1932), p. 53.
104
Bieber, Southwestern Trails, p. 200.
105
Bieber, Southwestern Trails, p. 201.
Appendix C
unusually cold weather. It took two days, but finally the entire Battalion had ferried across, many
in crude boats made by lashing two wagon beds together.
At last, on January 19, 1847, Cooke and his men arrived at their destination, San Diego.
They staggered in exhausted, but they had accomplished their mission. They had opened the
first transcontinental wagon road106 through the Southwest—a road that would soon be crowded
with men, women, and children who would settle the West. Cooke, who had initially been wary of
his Mormon volunteers, now looked upon them with respect:
History may be searched in vain for an equal march of infantry [he wrote]. Half of
it had been through a wilderness where nothing but savages and wild beasts are found,
or deserts where, for want of water, there is no living creature. There, with almost
hopeless labor, we have dug deep wells, which the future traveler will enjoy. Without a
guide who had traversed them, we have entered into trackless table lands where water
was not found for several marches. With crow-bar and pick and ax in hand, we have
worked our way over the mountains, which seemed to defy aught save the wild goat and
hewed a passage through a chasm of living rock more narrow than our wagons. To
bring these first wagons to the Pacific, we have preserved the strength of our mules by
herding them over large tracts, which you have laboriously guarded without loss.107
Kearny had arrived in California six weeks before Cooke and filed an official report of his
westward journey:
Headquarters, Army of the West, San Diego, Upper California, Dec. 12, 1846.
Sir: As I have previously reported to you, I left Santa Fe (New Mexico) for this country
on the 25th of September, with 300 f the 1st dragoons, under Major Sumner. We crossed
to the bank of the Del Norte at Albuquerque, (65 miles below Santa Fe,) continuing down
on that bank till the 6th October, when we met Mr. Kit Carson, with a party of sixteen
men, on his way to Washington City, with a mail and papers . . . I directed that 200
dragoons, under Major Sumner, should remain in New Mexico, and that the other 100,
with two mountain- howitzers, under Captain Moore, should accompany me as a guard
to Upper California. With this guard, we continued our march . . . and on the 20th reached
the river Gila, proceeded down the Gila, crossing and recrossing it as often as
obstructions in our front rendered necessary; on the 11th November reached the Pimos
village, about 80 miles from the settlements in Sonora. . . . On the 22nd November,
reached the mouth of the Gila . . .
We crossed the Colorado about 10 miles below the mouth of the Gila, and
marching near it about 30 miles further, turned off and crossed the desert—a distance of
about 60 miles—without water or grass. On the 2d December, reached Warner’s rancho,
(Agua Caliente,) the frontier settlement in California, on the route leading to Sonora . . .
Encamped that night near another rancho (San Maria) of Mr. Stokes, about 40 miles from
San Diego.
The journals and maps, kept and prepared by Captain Johnson, (my aid-decamp,) and those by Lieutenant Emory, topographical engineers, which will accompany
or follow this report, will render any thing further from me, on this subject, unnecessary.
106
The road became known as Cooke’s Wagon Road.
107
Frank Alfred Golder, The March of the Mormon Battalion from Council Bluffs to California, Taken from
the Diary of Henry Standage. (New York: Century Co., 1928), pp. 207-208.
Appendix C
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
S. W. Kearny,
Brigadier-general, U.S.A.
Brigadier-general R. Jones,
Adjutant-general, U.S.A.108
Following the Battle of Los Angeles on January 9, 1847, Carson left the command of
General Kearny and rejoined his old friend, Lieutenant Colonel John C. Frémont.109 Again he
was assigned the task of carrying dispatches to Washington. On February 25, 1847 (after the
Mormons had arrived), Carson, accompanied by Navy Lieutenant Edward F. Beale110 (later to
rejoin the Yuma Crossing story), departed from Los Angeles and, following the usual route over
the Yuma Crossing and the Gila River Trail, arrived in Santa Fe. While on the Gila they were
attacked by Indians but succeeded in defending themselves without loss of life. Carson
proceeded on to Washington and, after meeting with President Polk, again returned to California,
this time by way of the Old Spanish Trail. When the war ended, Carson returned to New Mexico
and continued to serve his country as a guide, army officer, Indian fighter, and Indian agent. He
died in Colorado in 1868.
The treaty ending the Mexican War, signed at Guadalupe Hidalgo111 on February 2,
1848, was ratified by the United States and Mexico by May 30 of that year. A month later, the 1st
Dragoons in Mexico, commanded by Major Lawrence P. Graham, began a long, tiresome trek
from Monterrey in the State of Neuvo León, Mexico, to southern California, where they were to be
assigned the task of occupying the new United States territory. When they arrived at the Yuma
Crossing, traveling for much of the way along Cooke’s newly opened wagon road, Lieutenant
Cave Johnson Couts sardonically noted the occasion in his journal:
Friday Nov. 24 [1848]. We are quietly resting on the
banks of the long
looked for Colorado, without provisions, or as good as out, awaiting its waters to open
and let the “Israelites” pass.112
Throughout the journey, Couts had been caustically critical of Graham’s command. He
could not resist making derisive observations of the comedy of errors that surrounded the
crossing of the river:
108
Edwin Bryant, What I Saw In California, introduction by Richard H. Dillon (Palo Alto: Lewis Osborne,
1967), pp. 395-396.
109
110
111
Quaife, Carson’s Autobiography, p. 118.
Quaife, Carson’s Autobiography, p. 119.
Guadalupe Hidalgo was a provincial town some 10 miles north of Mexico City.
112
Cave Johnson Couts, Hepah, California! The Journal of Cave Johnson Corts from Monterey, Neuvo
Leon, Mexico to Los Angeles, California During the Years 1848-1849, ed. Henry F. Dobyns (Tucson:
Arizona Pioneers’ Historical Society, 1961)), p. 79 (hereafter cited as Couts, Hepah, California!).
Appendix C
West Bank of the Rio Colorado, Tuesday 28th Nov. Crossed the river yesterday
27 . . . Master workmen, ship-makers, carpenters, coopers, blacksmiths, majors and
quartermasters, and generally artificers and mechanics of all and every description
(saying nothing of soldier folks and teamsters) all, all had a finger in the pie, or Raft.
Every one found a small place in the monster, or “Felix Grundy #2” to slip in an idea of
his own . . .
. . . she was not more than christened, before six or eight men jumped aboard of
her, and under she went. Then another shout, the men paddle for shore, and up she
comes. The wood is too heavy, dead cottonwood, although 20 kegs are under her and
she sinks with about ten men. Another was constructed on 26th of same wood, but kegs
left out, much larger than the “#2” called the “Pawnee Dash” . . . The Dash drew as much
water as she well could without sinking: but with stretched ropes, pulleys, &c . . . we
could send over nearly one wagon at a time. So . . . in a couple of days we had all over,
making about six trips per hour, a wagon with a very light load could go but otherwise her
freight had to be landed for another trip. The horses and mules were swam about three
miles above, where we thought there was a fair landing on The west side, but it was very
bad, the bank nothing but quicksand, and soon as out of that, into an almost
inextricable thicket . . .113
th
With the command safely across, the dragoons continued on to Los Angeles, where they
arrived early in January 1849, completing an overland journey of 1,613 miles in 162 days.
When Lieutenant Couts returned to the Yuma Crossing a few months later as escort to a
party of surveyors with the United State and Mexican Boundary Commission, he found the
junction swarming with emigrants on their way to California, seeking their fortunes in gold. Most
of them had crossed Arizona by way of the trails blazed by the mountain men and opened by the
Army of the West and Mormon Battalion. The gateway was again open.
THE EMIGRANTS: TREKKING WESTWARD
On January 24, 1848, James W. Marshall was supervising the construction of a sawmill
for his employer, John A. Sutter, a Swiss immigrant who had a ranch on the South Fork of the
American River about 50 miles northeast of the present-day city of Sacramento. Bending down
to inspect the millrace, he noticed a flint of metal in the bottom of the ditch, whose water would
soon turn the saw. He examined some of the flakes, then ran to the mill shouting that he had
found gold.
Sutter attempted to keep Marshall’s discovery a secret, but it was impossible to do so.
By June, Californians had learned of it, and San Francisco and Monterey were almost
depopulated as men dropped everything to seek their fortunes in gold. The word was slower to
reach the rest of the country, but each telling of the news added to the excitement. Lieutenant
Edward F. Beale of the United States Navy arrived in Mexico City en route to Washington, D.C.,
and, according to a New Orleans newspaper, asserted that many people at the gold mines were
113
Couts, Hepah, California!, pp. 79-80.
Appendix C
“clearing $70 a day with no other implement than a spade.”114 A Philadelphia paper published a
long letter from the alcalde of Monterey, California, claiming that the area in which metal could be
found was so large—one hundred miles long and fifty miles wide—“that ten thousand men in ten
years could not exhaust it.”115 Exaggerated stories began to spread like wildfire. Many people
actually believed that large chunks of gold were scattered on the ground just waiting for someone
to pick them up. At the end of 1848, in his annual message to Congress, President James K.
Polk removed the last doubts as to the authenticity of the gold discovery: “. . . There is every
reason to believe that . . . the supply is very large, and that gold is found at various places in an
extensive district of country.”116 Tens of thousands of people decided to seek their fortunes in
California, joining those who were already gathering there from all over the world.
Farmers threw aside their plows, lawyers and doctors took down their shingles,
carpenters put down their hammers, and shop keepers locked their doors for good. The largest
single westward movement in the nation’s history began.
As the spring approached, crowds began to collect in Independence, Missouri, ready to
start the overland journey in May, which was as early as it was safe to start.117 In most cases,
emigrants formed companies, which were organized along military lines, adopting a constitution
and by-laws, contributing a specified amount of money to buy supplies in common and defray
other expenses, and electing officers to direct the organization.118 On January 16, 1849, for
example, the following advertisement appeared in the New York Tribune:
OVERLAND TO CALIFORNIA – The Kit Carson
association to be
composed of young men of good health and character is now forming—we invite
particular enquiry into plan of the journey and the method of mining proposed by this
association. . . .119
The “Forty-Niners,” as they came to be called, used a number of routes to get to
California. Some went by sea, around Cape Horn or across the Isthmus of Panama, but most
west overland. One overland route, known as the Humbolt Trail, went across what are now the
states of Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada. The primary southern route followed the Santa
Fe Trail through the present states of Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico to Santa Fe, where the
114
Ralph P. Bieber, ed., Southern Trails to California in 1849 (Glendale, California: Arthur H. Clark
Company, 1937), p. 22 (hereafter cited as Bieber, Southern Trails).
115
Bieber, Southern Trails, p. 23.
Message from the President of the United States to the Two Houses of Congress, 30 Cong., 2nd Session,
House Ex. Doc. 1 (Washington: Wendell and Van Benthuysen, Printers, 1848), p. 10.
116
117
Since the country could not be crossed in winter, the earliest to go to California went by water. Other
eager “argonauts” sailed to Galveston, Texas, and then proceeded overland.
118
Few companies remained intact for the duration of the journey. Many were plagued by disputes,
desertions, and other misfortunes and, at various points, split up and regrouped with other companies.
119
Harvey Wood, Personal Recollections of Harvey Wood, ed. John B. Goodman III (Pasadena: privately
printed, 1955), p. xii (hereafter cited as Wood, Personal Recollections).
Appendix C
emigrants divided along a number of trails, three of which were most popular. One of these
followed the Old Spanish Trail through Colorado and Utah. Another followed Kearny’s route
along the length of the Gila and over the Yuma Crossing. The third, and by far most traveled
route through Arizona, was Cooke’s Wagon Road, also known as the Southern Emigrant Road.
While some who decided to journey over little-used trails employed American fur trappers as
guides, most of the who used Cooke’s Wagon Road or Kearny’s pack trail relied on published
editions of Cooke’s journal120 or Emory’s notes,121 which chronicled Kearny’s expedition, for their
geographical information.
As the emigrants set out on their overland journey, however, few knew anything of the
actual conditions along the trail. They would soon learn.
One of the most dangerous stretches of the trek to California was from the Pima villages
along the Gila River, southeast of present-day Phoenix, to the Yuma Crossing. The journey took
from ten to thirty days, depending on the condition and preparedness of the company. By
October 1849, the emigrants’ wagon and mule trains stretched up and down the Gila, often as far
as the eye could see. “In fact,” wrote one gold seeker, “the whole river from the Pima Villages to
the Colorado is one vast Camp as far as we can learn.”122
Although some had the good sense to travel by moonlight, most traveled during the day
under the scorching sun. In the summer months, temperatures of 114° in the shade were
recorded, and one traveler, who found the heat particularly unbearable, swore that the
thermometer stood at “two or three hundred—more or less.”123
On some stretches of the route, lack of water was a serious problem, and the scarcity of
grass created additional difficulties, since mules, horses, and cattle depended upon it for survival.
Even those few patches of grass that were available early in 1849 were soon depleted as
thousands of animals passed by. One Forty-Niner, who made the journey late in the year,
reported:
We found the whole line of the river . . . to the mouth at Yuma, devoid of grass,
and the only food our Cattle could find was Willow leaves and Flags, and once or twice a
little bunch grass . . . . Before we finished the Journey they became so weak that when
120
Official Journal of Lieutenant Colonel Philip St. George Cooke, from Santa Fe to San Diego
(Washington: Union office, 1849).
121
W. H. Emory, Notes of a Military Reconnaissance from Fort Leavenworth, in Missouri, to San Diego in
California, Including Part of the Arnaksas, Del Norte, and Gila Rivers, 30th Congress, 1st Session, Ex. Doc.
41 (Washington: Wendell and Van Benthuysen, Printers, 1848).
122
H. M. T. Powell, The Santa Fe Trail to California, 1849-1852: the Journal and Drawings of H. M. T.
Powell, ed. Douglas S. Watson (San Francisco: The Book Club of California, 1931), p. 170 (hereafter cited
as Powell Journal).
123
Cornelius C. Cox, “From Texas to California in 1849: The Diary of C. C. Cox,” ed. Mabelle Eppard
Martin, Southwestern Historical Quarterly 29 (July 1925-April 1926), p. 201. The author was, of course,
exaggerating.
Appendix C
we came to a difficult place we were compelled to pull the Wagons over ourselves with
ropes.124
In a spirit of cooperation, many emigrants left notices along the way, warning those who
followed of conditions up ahead. One such notice read:
To all whom it may concern. Grass in bunches will be found 1-1/2 mile South
East of here, which will sustain your stock and prepare them for the 25 miles ahead
without grass or water. Two Cottonwood trees on the bank of the river, above which you
will find a good place to water your stock.125
The emigrants trudged onward, working their way toward the Colorado, weathering
blinding dust storms and dodging “singing” rattlesnakes. The dust was intolerable, filling every
pore. “We eat dust, drink dust, breathe dust, and sleep in dust. I never was so worn out with
dust in my life,” wrote one weary traveler.126 Along the roadside were stewn wagons, spare
axles, ox yokes, wheels, boxes, and other items abandoned by the emigrants in an effort to
lighten their load, so that they could safely complete their journey. The carcasses of dead
animals, their stench filling the air, also lay along the wagon road where they had dropped under
their burdens, exhausted and weakened from lack of food and water. Occasionally, the
emigrants saw reminders of a fate that could await them:
The body of W.S. Christian of Scott Co., Ky [read one cottonwood headstone],
died Aug. 9 1849, aged 21 yrs. Capt. Day’s Comp. Cal. Emmigrants [sic].127
It is no small wonder, then, given such circumstances, that many of those who had
entertained such high expectations at the beginning of their expeditions now were demoralized.
Companies of emigrants who had pledged to stand by each other were divided and subdivided
over the most minor disputes. Many wondered why they had ever set out on such a journey.
We have become entirely indifferent to danger [wrote one emigrant from
Pennsylvania]. The object of our journey seldom enters our mind, and when the gold of
California is spoken of, it is only in connection with— “If we were only where people lived,
and we could get something to eat and drink, the de’il [devil] might have all the gold” . . .
“If the Sierra Nevada Mountains were made of gold, they cannot repay us for what we
have endured on this journey,” . . .128
124
Charles Edward Pancoast, A Quaker Forty-Niner: The Adventures of Charles Edward Pancoast on the
American Frontier, ed. Anna Paschall Hannum (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1930), p.
251 (hereafter cited as Pancoast, A Quaker Forty-Niner).
125
Powell Journal, pp. 158-159.
126
Powell Journal, p. 159.
127
Robert Eccleston, Overland to California on the Southwestern Trail, 1849: Diary of Robert Eccleston,
eds., George P. Hammond and Edward H. Howes (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1950), p. 226.
128
William H. Chamberlin, “From Lewisburg (Pa.) to California in 1849,” ed. Lansing B. Bloom, New
Mexico Historical Review 10 (1945), pp. 177-178.
Appendix C
A number of Forty-Niners avoided some of the hardships by traveling down the Gila River
in boats. Those who attempted to float down on log rafts often met failure; the river was littered
with deserted rafts. But flatboats worked admirably well. E.H. Howard traveled in a boatwagon—a flatboat mounted on wheels for land service but used to cross rivers en route. At the
Gila, Howard launched the wagon and floated to the junction of the river with the Colorado.129 On
the way, his wife gave birth to a baby boy, appropriately named “Gila.”130
When later emigrants finally reached the Yuma Crossing, their problems did not end.
The Quechans had been friendly to travelers who had passed through the spring of 1849, but as
time passed, they grew increasingly hostile and took to pilfering everything they could from the
Americans. The growing hostility stemmed from the insensitive and often harsh treatment they
received from the Forty-Niners. On one occasion, a party of Texans broke into the cache where
the Indians had stored their winter supply of food and stole it. Later companies heightened the
problem by picking hundreds of bushels of beans from the mesquite trees, further depleting the
Quechans’ sustenance.
At the river bank, tensions increased as the emigrants prepared to cross. Although early
in the year they utilized a ferry raft provided, for a price, by the Indians, most emigrants crossed in
conveyances of their own making. One party constructed a scow from a wagon body abandoned
by Major Lawrence Graham the previous year and caulked it with strips of torn-up shirts and
tallow. Another constructed a fourteen-foot boat composed of a willow-branch framework
covered with tents and India-rubber blankets. Still others crossed in crude rafts built of dry willow
logs and canoes fashioned from hollowed-out logs.
As more and more emigrants began to use the rafts of those who had preceded them,
the Quechans became increasingly belligerent and began killing the travelers’ animals as they
swam them across the river.
[The Quechans] having the end of the rope attached to the mule or horse and
swimming along side of the animal, when near the [opposite] shore would jerk the
animal’s head under water by using his foot on the slack of the rope, then the carcass
could be drawn out on the shore, cut up and devoured by the hungry Indians . . .131
129
The boat was 16 feet long by 5 feet 6 inches wide. After his arrival at the Yuma Crossing, Howard sold
the boat to Lieutenant Cave Couts, who used it as a ferry boat across the Colorado during his stay there.
When Couts finished with it, the boat was transported to San Diego, where it was used on the bay. San
Francisco Bulletin, July 8, 1885, cited in Grant Foreman, Marcy & the Gold Seekers (Norman: University
of Oklahoma Press, 1939), p. 306. See also Hubert Howe Bancroft, History of Arizona and New Mexico
1530-1888 (San Francisco: The History Company, Pushers, 1889; reprint ed., Albuquerque: Horn &
Wallace, Publishers, 1962), p. 487.
130
Cave J. Couts, From San Diego to the Colorado in 1849: The Journal and Maps of Cave J. Couts, ed.
William McPherson (Los Angeles: Arthur M. Ellis, pp. 53-54. Pancoast, who wrote his memoir of his
journey to California forty years later, describes a similar incident. However, in his account, two “rafts”
were built along the river; the incident took place a month later; and the baby was a girl. It is possible that
he is describing the same event but that the intervening forty years blurred his memory. Pancoast, A
Quaker Forty-Niner, p. 251.
131
Wood, Personal Recollections, p. 14.
Appendix C
Not all of the emigrants were seeking gold; some went West in the search of adventure,
better land, or a new start in life. All endured the hardships of the trail.
Once safely across the Colorado, the travelers, most of them ill-prepared for the journey,
trekked across the sand dunes of the Colorado Desert to San Diego or Los Angeles. Most made
their way north to the gold fields where a few found riches. Some returned to former homes, but
many settled down and became citizens of California. The settlement of the West had begun in
earnest.
THE BOUNDARY SURVEYORS: MARKING NEW LANDS
At the close of the Mexican War in 1848, representatives of the United States and Mexico
signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which established a new boundary between the two
countries. In what was later to become Arizona, the region south of the Gila River would remain
in the possession of Mexico, which the area north of the Gila would become United States
territory. The treaty also provided that each nation would appoint representatives to the United
States and Mexican Boundary Commission, which would be responsible for surveying and
marking the new boundary. The initial meeting of the Joint Boundary Commission was to be in
San Diego before May 30, 1849.132
President James K. Polk appointed John B. Weller of Ohio as the United States
Commissioner. Major William H. Emory, a member of the Corps of Topographical Engineers who
had marched with Kearny’s Army of the West in 1846, was designated “chief astronomer and
head of the topographical scientific corps of the Commission.”133 Lieutenant Amiel Weeks
Whipple and Brevet Captain E.L.F. Hardcastle of the Corps of Topographical Engineers were
assigned to accompany Emory as his assistants. The United States Surveyor was Andrew B.
Gray, who had earlier worked in marking the boundary between the United States and the
Republic of Texas. Gray was not only a competent surveyor but also an experienced
frontiersman. The Mexican Commissioner was General Pedro García Condé, also an
experienced frontiersman and respected topographical engineer; his equally able chief surveyor
was José Salazar Larregui.134
Weller, Emory, Gray, and other members of the United States Boundary Commission
were delayed in reaching San Diego by the long journey to California by way of the Isthmus of
Panama.135 They found the trip slow and difficult, for they were caught up in the gold rush then
132
Report of the Secretary of the Interior in Answer to a Resolution of the Senate Calling for Information in
Relation to the Operations of the Commission Appointed to Run and Mark the Boundary between the
United States and Mexico, 1850, Part 1, 31st Congress, 1st Session, Senate Executive Document 34 (n.p.,
1850), pp. 2-3 (hereafter cited as SED 34).
133
SED 34, p. 3.
134
Report of the Secretary of the Interior Made in Compliance with a Resolution of the Senate Calling for
Information in Relation to the Commission Appointed to Run and Mark the Boundary between the United
States and Mexico, 1852, 32nd Congress, 1st Session, Senate Executive Document 119 (n.p., 1852), p. 56
(hereafter cited as SED 119).
135
SED 34, pp. 7-8.
Appendix C
underway. Thousands of men were in Panama City trying to secure passage to California. This
was not an easy task, for men were willing to fight and even die for a berth. Thus the commission
was stranded in Panama for more than a month and did not reach San Diego until June 1849,
only one day late for the meeting date set by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. General Condé
and the Mexican Boundary Commission did not arrive until July 3. On July 6, Weller and Condé
met and organized the Joint Boundary Commission in accordance with the terms of the treaty.
Almost a year and a half after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo had been signed, Mexico and the
United States were ready to survey and mark the boundary between the two countries.
While Gray and Salazar were drawing a new map of San Diego harbor, the astronomical
team under Emory’s direction was determining two fixed points—one on the coast south of San
Diego and the other near the Yuma Crossing at the mouth of the Gila River. Lieutenant Whipple
and a small military escort commanded by Lieutenant Cave Johnson Couts were sent to the
Crossing and remained there from September to December of 1849. Captain Hardcastle was
assigned the task of reconnoitering the 130-mile survey line between San Diego and the
confluence of the Colorado and Gila Rivers.136 By mid-February 1850, the line had been
surveyed from the Pacific coast to the junction of the Gila and Colorado Rivers. With the western
portion of the international boundary established, the United States and Mexican Boundary
Commission adjourned to meet again in El Paso in November 1850 to continue their work on the
eastern part of the boundary.
In late February 1850, it was learned that Weller had been removed as United States
Commissioner, and Major Emory was instructed to act as temporary chief. Leaving Captain
Hardcastle to oversee the placing of the agreed-upon seven boundary monuments, and
instructing Lieutenant Whipple to take the instruments to El Paso, Major Emory then went to
Washington to arrange for much-needed funds. Soon after, in November 1850, Emory’s earlier
request for other duty was approved, and he left the commission.137
In June 1850, John Russell Bartlett was chosen to succeed Weller.138 Bartlett, a votary
of history and geography and a founder of the American Ethnological Society, became an
ineffectual and controversial commissioner. He spent much of his time on sightseeing trips
through Mexico and California, gathering material for a book he planned to write on his
136
SED 34, pp. 30-31. For more detailed accounts of the three months spent at the Crossing, see The
Whipple Report: Journal of an Expedition from San Diego, California to the Rio Colorado, from
September 11 to Dec. 11, 1849, ed. E. I. Edwards (Los Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1961); Cave Johnson
Couts, From San Diego to the Colorado in 1849: The Journal and Maps of Cave J. Couts, ed. William
McPherson (Los Angeles: Arthur M. Ellis, 1932).
137
SED 34, Part 2, pp. 8-10.
138
John Russell Bartlett, Personal Narrative of Exploration and Incidents in Texas, New Mexico,
California, Sonora, and Chihuahua, Connected with the United States and Mexican Boundary Commission,
During the Years 1850, ’51, ’52, and ’53, 2 vols. (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1854), Vol. 1, p. 3
(hereafter cited as Bartlett, Personal Narrative). SED 119, p. 7.
Appendix C
adventures in the West. Moreover, his frontier inexperience caused him to make serious
strategical and logistical blunders.
In early December 1850, Commissioner Bartlett arrived in El Paso. When he met with his
Mexican counterpart, Pedro García Condé, on December 3, 1850, they made a startling
discovery – there were two major errors in the J. Disturnell 1847 map of the United States, which
had been specified as a controlling document in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.139 The Rio
Grande was shown more than 100 miles too far east, and El Paso (a key point in determining
parts of the boundary that did not follow some natural geographic feature) was mislocated 34
miles too far north.140 Naturally, each commissioner wanted to place the boundary where it would
be most advantageous to his own country.
To resolve the dilemma, a compromise was struck. Under this agreement, Mexico would
retain the Mesilla Valley, a rich agricultural region north of El Paso, and the United States would
acquire valuable land, rich with minerals, near present-day Silver City, New Mexico. However,
the compromise was threatened by a treaty provision which required that all transactions be the
unanimous act of the commissioners and the surveyors of both governments. Since Gray, the
United States Surveyor, had not yet arrived in El Paso, Bartlett decided to appoint Lieutenant
Whipple “surveyor ad interim,”141 so he could sign the document. This accomplished, Bartlett
then directed Whipple to begin surveying the compromise boundary.
When Gray arrived on the scene of July 1851, after an absence from the Southwest of
over six months,142 he felt the compromise was improper and refused to sign it.143 He, and many
who agreed with him, vehemently argued that Bartlett was giving away the very land necessary
for the eventual construction of a transcontinental railroad. The route of such a railroad, Gray
argued, would have to run south of the Bartlett-Condé Line in order to avoid the mountainous
country to the north. Others agreed with Bartlett, including the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of War. They believed the controversial strip of land was worthless, fit only for Indians.
Moreover, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo obligated the United States to halt Indian raids into
Chihuahua and Sonora, and according to Mexico’s interpretation of the agreement, to
compensate Mexicans for damages caused by marauding Indians from north of the boundary.
This strip was full of nomadic Apaches, who constantly conducted raids, and many claims for
compensation had already been filed by Mexican victims. From the point of view of the
139
SED 119, p. 388. The 1847 Disturnell map indicated in the treaty was the seventh one printed that year
(each printing or edition slightly different), and it was a revision of the 1846 Disturnell map, which had
been heavily plagiarized and borrowed from earlier maps. Okie V. Faulk, Too Far North, Too Far South
(Los Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1967), pp. 58-59.
140
Bartlett, Personal Narrative, Vol. 1, p. 201.
141
SED 119, pp. 124-125, 406; and Bartlett, Personal Narrative, Vol. 1, pp. 204-205, 211.
142
Gray had been detained in Washington by illness and did not arrive at Bartlett’s Santa Rita del Cobre
Headquarters until July 19, 1851. Bartlett, Personal Narrative, Vol. 1, p. 340; SED 119, p. 434.
143
Appendix C
Departments of State and War, relinquishing this strip of land to Mexico would reduce the
problem, as the Apaches would then become residents of Mexico.
Because of the compromise controversy raging in Washington and El Paso, work was
halted on the Bartlett-Condé Line. Bartlett was anxious to proceed, so he sent Lieutenant
Colonel James D. Graham,144 then the topographical commander, with one crew down the lower
Rio Grande to survey the boundary between the State of Texas and Mexico, and directed Gray
and Whipple to proceed west along the Gila River toward the Colorado River.
With some 40 men (surveyors, astronomers, assistants, and laborers), Gray and Whipple
began their work on the Gila on October 10, 1851.145 By mid-December, they were within 80
miles of the Yuma Crossing. With supplies dangerously low, Whipple and his party set out to
obtain provisions at Camp Yuma, only to find it had been recently abandoned. They pushed on
to San Diego, followed ten days later by Gray and his party, which, in the meanwhile, had brought
the survey line 20 miles nearer the Crossing.146
According to Frank Wheaton, a topographer with Whipple’s crew, an interesting incident
occurred at the Crossing during the time the surveyors were encamped there on the way to San
Diego.
When we arrived on the east bank of the Colorado
river [Wheaton related]
we found ourselves confronted by an array of 1500 Indians . . . The Indians gave
notice . . . that there was no way for us to cross . . . the great Colorado of the West. We
expected that they would attack us in the night. About 4 o’clock in the afternoon the
Indians appeared to be listening to addresses from their chiefs . . . The interpreters
informed Lieut. Col. Craig that the enemy had decided we were not to be permited to
leave the spot and massacred before morning. We prepared for a desperate resistance,
making a circular breastwork of our apparatus, wagons and camp property. We were
well armed, nearly every man having a good rifle and two pistols . . . Toward night the
chief and his leading warrior came toward our camp, asking to see our head man, as they
wanted to know how much money we had and where we kept it . . . Lieut. Whipple
offered $2 apiece for every man of the command that the Indians would ferry across the
river, and $1 for every horse and mule that the Indians would swim across. . . . While the
interview was in progress the families of the two chiefs were attracted by curiosity to our
camp. The women came forward and peeped into the tents. . . Suddenly a young Indian
girl, about 14 or 15 years of age, left a group of Indian squaws and children and moved
forward to her father, Juan Antonio, whispering a few words into his ear . . . Presently the
interpreter addressed . . . [Lieutenant Whipple] saying: “These warriors think they have
seen you before. They would like to know whether you came to the Colorado river from
San Diego, on the Pacific coast, two years ago, and camped on the hill opposite this
present camp?”
144
Graham was appointed in October 1850. He replaced Colonel John McClellan, who served briefly as
Chief Astronomer after Major Emory had resigned. McClellan was dismissed by Bartlett for misbehavior
en route to El Paso from Washington and did not participate in the commission’s work.
145
SED 119, p. 306.
146
SED 119, pp. 306-307.
Appendix C
Lieut. Whipple replied that he was upon the spot two years before, having made the trip
with a surveying party under escort of a company of dragoons. His party camped on the hill . . .,
making astronomical observations. No sooner was the lieutenant’s reply made known than the
chief’s daughter arose, took her father by the hand and led him to the white man’s camp. Going
straight to Lieut. Whipple, she touched him on the arm and made a remark to her father.
“I saw by the expression of delight on the face of the interpreters” said
[Wheaton], “that all danger was past . . .” Two years before the Indian maiden was
extended a kindness by Lieut. Whipple. She was in hunger and suffering at the time, and
the lieutenant had called her to his tent and given her a watermelon and a little round
looking glass. The chief’s daughter recognized her former benefactor and the sequel
proved that an Indian never forgets a kindness. Within an hour the two boats were
carrying our party across the river and we found ourselves surrounded by friends . . .147
This story of Whipple and the “Quechan Pocahontas” was related by Wheaton some forty
years after the occurrence, raising a question as to its veracity. Whipple does not mention the
incident in his account of that period.
It was February 1852 before Bartlett joined Gray, Whipple, and others of the commission
in San Diego, and the end of May before he was ready to once more begin with the surveying
work. Bartlett and Whipple, with a party of 58 mounted men, 6 wagons, and a 25-mule pack train,
left San Diego on June 1, 1852, and headed overland by way of the Yuma Crossing to the Rio
Grande Valley. Gray had been relieved of his duties by official orders from Washington and did
not accompany the group.148 Lieutenant Colonel L. S. Craig commanded the commissioner’s
military escort; mountain man Antoine Leroux was engaged to take charge of the animals and
supply wagons. Leroux had arrived in San Diego as the guide for the Sitgreaves expedition from
Santa Fe to San Diego by way of the Yuma Crossing and was anxious to return to New Mexico
with the boundary surveyors.149
On June 6, near a watering place called Alamo Mucho, Colonel Craig was killed in an
encounter with two deserters from Fort Yuma.150 The lure of the gold fields had caused many
soldiers to desert from the army and a number of civilian employees of the commission to resign.
Other mishaps occurred en route to the Crossing, so it was with great relief that “at 6 o’clock [on
the morning of June 9], . . . [Bartlett and his party] were greeted with a sight of the great Colorado
147
Arizona Daily Citizen, 27 July 1895, p. 3.
148
SED 119, p. 121. Gray did not learn of his removal from the boundary commission until after he and
Whipple had surveyed the Gila River almost to the Yuma Crossing and were in San Diego waiting for
Bartlett to arrive with supplies. Bartlett did not hear the news until April 24, 1985. Bartlett, Personal
Narrative, Vol. 1, p. 85.
149
Captain Lorenzo Sitgreaves, of the Corps of Topographical Engineers, headed an expedition in 1851 to
explore the Zuñi, Little Colorado, and Colorado Rivers. The party was at the Yuma Crossing in November
of that year and reached San Diego in January 1852. L[orenzo] Sitgreaves, Report of an Expedition down
the Zuni and Colorado Rivers, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, Senate Executive Document 59 (Washington:
Beverly Tucker, Senate Printer, 1854); Bartlett, Personal Narrative, Vol. 1, pp. 85-86.
150
Bartlett, Personal Narrative, Vol. 2, pp. 136-138, 141-147; Journal of Lt. Thomas W. Sweeny, 18491853, ed. Arthur Woodward (Los Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1956) pp. 159-164.
Appendix C
River, . . . much swollen . . . [and rushing] by with a great velocity . . .”151 A few miles further on,
they saw “. . . the stars and stripes waving from the flagstaff at Fort Yuma.”152
Bartlett was anxious to have Lieutenant Whipple complete the 60-mile unsurveyed
stretch of the Gila River east from the Crossing and arranged with Major Heintzelman’s ferry
service for Whipple’s crew to cross the Colorado first. The ferry, Bartlett noted, was
. . . well-conducted, and though the facilities for crossing are not as great as they
might be, they are perhaps as great as the expenses of carrying it on will warrant.153
He paid $504.00 for ferrying the commission and its escort: $1 for each man, $2 for each
mule or ox, $10 for a wagon load, and $1 for a mule load.154
It had been the practice to swim animals across the river, but, with it so swollen, it was
necessary to ferry them over in a “small and indifferent scow.”155 Bartlett found this to be
. . . a more troublesome task than was expected. As they refused to lie down in
the small scow, they were lassoed and thrown, and then drawn into it by their feet with
mules. Once, just as the scow reached the opposite bank, one of the cattle broke loose,
leaped into the river, and swam back; the current carrying him so far down, that he
escaped into the woods, and could not again be found.156
In spite of the vexing problems, Bartlett was aware of the beauty of the landscape at the
junction of the Gila and Colorado Rivers:
The Colorado comes from the north, and where it receives the Gila, is about five
hundred yards wide. A bend, which the Gila takes about fifteen miles from its mouth,
makes it come from the south to join the Colorado. The united stream first takes a
westerly course, forcing itself through a canon in a chain of rocky hills seventy feet high,
and about three hundred and fifty yards in length. After sweeping around some seven or
eight miles, it again assumes a southerly direction; and after a very tortuous course for
about a hundred and thirty miles, it empties into the Gulf of California. The rocky hills
extend four or five hundred yards north of the junction, and between two and three miles
to the south of it. Beyond the latter termination rises the great plateau, or desert. The
Colorado flows through a bottom or valley from two to four miles in width, thickly covered
with cottonwood and mezquit [sic]; beyond which is the desert, from sixty to seventy
feet above the valley. As far as I could judge, from a bird’s-eye view taken from Fort
Yuma, I should think the bottom-land of the Gila was from three to four miles wide near
the junction. The portion towards the river is thickly covered with cottonwood, and with
willows on the margin, while that further back has nothing but mezquit. A fine panoramic
view is presented of the whole country, from the summit of the hills on which the fort
151
152
153
Bartlett, Personal Narrative, Vol. 2, pp. 176-177.
154
155
156
Appendix C
stands. Looking northward, the course of the Colorado can be traced for about fifteen
miles, when it suddenly winds around the base of a mountain ridge, and diverges to the
north-west. In this direction the view is most extensive. Ridge after ridge of mountains is
seen, one rising above and beyond the other, for a distance of about eighty miles. The
higher chains assume the most varied and fantastic shapes, resembling cupolas,
minarets, pyramids, domes, chimneys, etc. One of these singular summits is called the
“Chimney Rock;” and from Fort Yuma is the most striking object in the landscape.157
Lieutenant Whipple completed the remaining 60-mile portion of the boundary survey
along the Gila, while Bartlett enjoyed the sights along the way. By August 1852, the group
arrived in El Paso.158 There they learned that Major Emory, who had once again been assigned
to the commission as head of the scientific corps (replacing both Gray and Graham),159 was at
Ringgold Barracks on the lower Rio Grande, and that the survey of the Rio Grande was almost
completed.160
Sending Whipple north from El Paso to survey the Bartlett-Condé Line that had been left
unfinished the previous summer, Bartlett went by way of northern Chihuahua to Ringgold
Barracks, where he arrived in December 1852. While there, he received official notice from
Washington that the commission’s funds were being withheld, due to disapproval of his
compromise with Condé. Without funds, Bartlett disbanded the commission.161 Thus, almost five
years after the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the boundary between the United
States and Mexico had still not been entirely surveyed and marked.
Early in January 1853, funding for the commission was reestablished, and General
Robert Blair Campbell was appointed Boundary Commissioner. Major Emory was again
assigned to the commission as Surveyor and Chief Astronomer.162 Their task of finishing the
boundary survey from Laredo, Texas, to the mouth of the Rio Grande was expeditiously
accomplished by September 1853. Emory then spent the remainder of the year and through the
spring of 1852 in Washington preparing reports and maps on the Boundary Commission’s
accomplishments for publication.163
Because of the controversy surrounding the Bartlett-Condé compromise and the national
administration’s desire to obtain Mexican land south of the Gila, special minister James Gadsden
was sent to Mexico City in July 1853 to confer with the Mexicans. Negotiations with Mexican
President Santa Ana and his foreign affairs minister resulted, after much debate in both countries,
in the Gadsden Treaty of 1853. Under this treaty, the boundary between the United States and
157
158
159
SED 119, p.121.
160
161
SED 119, pp. 514-517.
162
Faulk, Too Far North, Too Far South, p. 143.
163
Appendix C
Mexico was moved southward to include all of modern Arizona south of the Gila, thus settling the
dispute over the Bartlett-Condé Line.
In August 1854, Major William H. Emory was again sent to the Southwest, this time not
only as Surveyor but also as the Commissioner for a new United States and Mexican Boundary
Commission.164 Beginning on January 11, 1855, Emory and his counterpart, Mexican Boundary
Commissioner José Salazar Larregui (formely the surveyor under Condé), soon ascertained the
initial survey point (31°17’ latitude) on the Rio Grande and began to survey westward. At the
same time, Emory’s assistant, Lieutenant Nathaniel Michler, beginning at the confluence of the
Gila and Colorado River, surveyed 20 miles down the Colorado River and then southeastward to
meet Emory at 31°20’ latitude on the 111th meridian.165 The field work was completed by October
15, 1855, and Major Emory returned to Washington to compile the data and to arrange for the
publication of reports and maps. His excellent work as Boundary Commissioner was rewarded
by his promotion to brevet lieutenant colonel.166
On November 14, 1856, Captain Hilarion García relinquished the Tucson presidio to the
Americans and the Stars and Stripes was raised over the United States’ last continental
acquisition of territory. With the establishment of the new boundary line, an era of peace,
friendship, and cooperation between the United States and Mexico, which has lasted for over a
hundred years with only minor interruptions, began.
THE RIVER MEN: NAVIGATING THE COLORADO
The first ferry service at the Crossing can be attributed to Lieutenant Cave Johnson
Couts, who was, for the second time,168 at the Crossing in the fall of 1849 as commanding
officer of the military escort accompanying Lieutenant Whipple during the boundary survey.
During the three months he was there,169 Couts assisted the emigrants on their way to California
167
164
Faulk, Too Far North, Too Far South, p. 145; William H. Emory, Report on the United States and
Mexican Boundary Survey, 34th Congress, 1st Session, House of Representatives Executive Document 135
(Washington: Cornelius Wendell, Printer, 1857), (hereafter cited as HED 135).
165
HED 135, p. 113.
166
Hubert Howe Bancroft, History of Arizona and New Mexico, 1530-1888 (San Francisco: The History
Company, Publishers, 1889; reprint ed., Albuquerque: Horn & Wallace, Publishers, 1962), p. 487
(hereafter cited as Bancroft, Arizona and New Mexico).
167
168
Lieutenant Couts was first at the Yuma Crossing in November 1848 with Major Lawrence P. Graham’s
dragoons during the overland march from Monterrey, Neuvo León, Mexico, to San Diego, at the close of
the Mexican War. The manuscript diary of Couts, “Diary of Lt. Cave J. Couts, 1st Dragoons, U.S. Cavalry,
from September 21, (or Sept. 1?) 1846 to November 30, 1849, beginning at Evansville, Arkansas, and
Ending at the Junction of the Gila with the Colorado River,” is at the Bancroft Library, and a portion of it
has been published as Hepah, California! The Journal of Cave Johnson Couts from Monterey, Neuvo
Leon, Mexico to Los Angeles, California During the Years 1848-1849, ed. Henry F. Dobyns (Tucson:
Arizona Pioneers Historical Society, 1961), (hereafter cited as Couts, Hepah, California!).
169
Cave J. Couts, From San Diego to the Colorado in 1849: The Journal and Maps of Cave J. Couts, ed.
William McPherson (Los Angeles: Arthur M. Ellis, 1932), pp. 22-24 (hereafter cited as Couts, Journal).
Appendix C
during the height of the gold rush. He purchased a wagon-boat from an emigrant, and utilized it
as a ferry, carrying travelers across the Colorado.170
Although the Forty-Niners seemed to have a high regard for Couts’ hospitality, Couts
expressed disdain in his journal for the multitude of Americans who trudged through the desert:
The emigrants! Ah! “Still they come.” I never was in my life so annoyed. To sit
and tell them of California, work on maps and waybills for them, is only a pleasure. But
then follows begging for sugar, flour, molasses, pork, a little fresh beef, rice, coffee, etc.
and God only knows how they have the face to push such entreaties as they do. They
have stopped on the route and kept me up at night listening to their stories of the Indian
depredations on the Colorado, stealing their animals, etc., when they go up, and almost
under my own eyes, steal my mules! . . . Instead of humoring, and using all forbearance
with the Indians, they provoke them beyond all endurance. They [the Quechans] have
undoubtedly manifested every disposition to aid the emigrants in crossing; the latter turn
their animals loose in the thicket, lie down and go to sleep, and next morning if they [the
animals] are not all at their camp, immediately accuse the Indians of having stolen
them.171
Nevertheless, Couts was a kind-hearted officer who endeavored to aid the emigrants,
many of whom were near starvation:
. . . this evening was the first meal eaten alone for some two weeks. My table
admits but three seats, and upon several occasions, I have not got in before the 4th table,
very frequently having to keep it set from three p.m., until eight or nine o’clock at night,
and then direct the cook to say that the provisions are out, and that the commissary
Sergt. is absent. From the way they shovel down the pork and bread, is sufficient proof of
its rarity, and the sugar and coffee! Some are worse than ratholes to fill.172
When Couts left the Crossing in December 1849 and returned to San Diego with Whipple
and other members of the boundary survey team, the Indians operated a ferry with the assistance
of an American named Callahan. Callahan had been discharged, or had deserted, from the army
and was living with the Quechans.173
Early in 1850, Dr. Abel L. Lincoln arrived on the scene. In a letter dated April 27, 1850, to
his parents, he reported:
170
Bancroft, Arizona and New Mexico, p. 487.
171
Couts, Journal, pp. 22-24.
Couts, Journal, pp. 48, 49.
172
173
The details of Callahan’s involvement with the Indians and with the Lincoln-Glanton operation are not
clear. “An Irishman named Callahan” surfaces in many accounts of the ferry operation at the Crossing
early in 1850. Some sources infer that Callahan was at the Crossing when Lincoln and Glanton arrived,
while others suggest that he arrived with Glanton. Bancroft, Arizona and New Mexico, p. 488, offers one
version of the story.
Appendix C
This is the first and only ferry that has ever been established on this river.174 I
have been here some three months, during which time I have crossed over 20,000
Mexicans all bound for the [California gold] mines and I am still carrying some 100 per
day. During the three months that I have been here I have taken in over $60,000. My
price, $1 per man, horse or mule $2, the pack $1, pack saddle 50 cents, saddle 25 cents.
But my expenses are high. I have 12 Americans, Deserters of the army, that I am paying
$100 per month, also 10 Mexicans that I pay $40 each. These men I have all armed with
Colts revolvers for which I paid $75 each for I purchased them of a New York company of
emigrants that were emigrating to California. I have also 16 U.S. rifles and a small piece
of artillery . . .
The letter continued:
I shall not remain longer than six months at all events and perhaps not more than
one month. I shall sell at the first opportunity and make you all a visit if I meet with no
misfortunes. This is an unsafe place to live in, and in addition to that this rush of
emigrants will shortly cease in a great measure, as the Mexicans are generally going to
California to live.175
A short time after Lincoln began his ferry operations, John Glanton and a small group of
adventurers appeared at the Crossing with the same idea in mind.176 Glanton had earned a
reputation as a reckless, daring desperado and has been enticed to become a bounty hunter by
rewards offered by the State of Chihuahua for Apache heads and scalps. Together, Lincoln and
Glanton, with a crew of Americans and Mexicans, operated the ferry and made money rapidly.177
The Indians’ desire to operate a ferry, and Glanton’s competition, conduct, and illtreatment of the Quechans led to hostilities. Glanton apparently first killed the American captain
of the Indian ferry and then stole the Quechans’ boats. In retaliation, the Indians massacred the
Lincoln-Glanton party on April 23, 1850, with the exception of four men who escaped to Los
Angeles.178 Three of the survivors, Joseph A. Anderson, Marcus L. Webster, and William Carr
(fictitious names), mailed Dr. Lincoln’s letter to his parents after Lincoln had been killed.179
174
Lincoln’s ferry was not the first, although Lincoln appears to have been the first to go to the Crossing
specifically for the purpose of operating a ferry.
175
Abel L. Lincoln, Hayden File, Arizona Historical Society, Tucson (hereafter cited as Lincoln-Hayden
File).
176
Lincoln and Glanton both arrived at the Crossing late in 1849 or early in 1850. It is difficult to say with
certainty which one arrived first. Lincoln, in the letter to his parents, claims he was first and makes no
mention of Glanton by name. Lincoln-Hayden File.
177
The number of persons involved in the Lincoln-Glanton operation is variously reported. Also, it is a
matter of conjecture as to whether Lincoln accepted Glanton as a partner willingly or under coercion.
178
Lincoln-Hayden File. The Declaration of William Carr, attested to by Joseph A. Anderson and Marcus
L. Webster, before Los Angeles alcalde Abel Stearns, on May 9, 1850, and that only Carr, Anderson, and
Webster escaped the Indian attack. See also John Russell Bartlett, who relates the incident, gives the
principals as Dr. Langdon and “a man named Gallatin,” in his Personal Narrative of Explorations and
Incidents in Texas, New Mexico, California, Sonora, and Chihuahua, Connected with the United States and
Mexican Boundary Commission, during the years 1850, ’51, ’52, and ’53, Vol. 2 (New York: D. Appleton
& Company, 1854; reprint ed. Chicago: The Rio Grande Press Inc., 1965), p. 174-176.
Appendix C
Another survivor was Samuel Emery Chamberlain, who reported the events surrounding
the massacre in his manuscript, “My Confession.”180 Chamberlain had left Monterry with Major
Graham in 1848181 but had deserted from the army in Tucson and joined Glanton’s gang. In his
manuscript, Chamberlain relates that he and three others, Ben Tobin, “Crying Tom” Hitchcock,
and “Long” Webster,182 survived the massacre and proceeded to California. It is difficult to
harmonize all of the Chamberlain journal with other reports of the Lincoln-Glanton massacre, but
the major events of the incident are consistently told.
Word spread quickly in California about the fabulous wealth garnered by the LincolnGlanton ferry. In San Francisco, a young stevedore, George Alonzo Johnson, organized a
company to establish a Crossing ferry.183 Louis Jaeger,184 a bay steamer deck hand, was one of
the first to join the ferry company. Eventually, a party of twelve members and seven employees
set out from San Diego for the Crossing; they arrived on July 10, 1850. Although somewhat
intimidated by the Quechans, the ferrymen set about to establish their business. After
constructing a fortification,185 the men dug a saw pit and began cutting cottonwood boards from
which to make their ferry boats. Their first boat was completed on August 10, 1850,186 one month
after their arrival. Jaeger described it as a flat-bottom scow measuring 35 feet long by 12 feet
wide by 2 feet deep, held together by wood pegs. A second ferry, 60 feet long by 12 feet wide,
was soon afterwards put into service. “A team was charged $10; a single animal, as a horse or
cow, 50 cents [for crossing the river].”187
179
After Lincoln’s death, Carr, Anderson, and Webster added a postscript and mailed Lincoln’s letter to his
parents. They said that April 27, 1850, was an incorrect date for his letter but explained it was because the
ferry part “had no almanac and of course no time was kept.” Lincoln-Hayden File.
180
Samuel E. Chamberlain’s manuscript, “My Confession,” is at the Museum of the United States Military
Academy, West Point, New York. Abstracts from the manuscript have been published by Life Magazine in
three issues beginning with July 23, 1956, and in book form by Harper and Brothers, 1956 with the title My
Confession.
181
Couts, Hepah, California!, p. 6.
182
Chamberlain’s account of the massacre is similar to the account contained in the Carr Declaration,
Lilncoln-Hayden File. However, the names of the survivors differ in two accounts, with the exception that
a Marcus L. Webster occurs in the Carr account, and a “Long” Webster occurs in the Chamberlain account.
183
“Autobiography of Captain George A. Johnson,” George and Albert Johnson Papers, Arizona Historical
Society, Tucson, pp. 35-36 (hereafter cited as Johnson Papers).\
184
The name Iaeger is found with various spellings, the most common being Jaeger. Jaeger’s signature is
found as “Iaeger.”
185
B.A. Stephens, “A Biographical Sketch of L.J.F. Iaeger,” Annual Publication of Historical Society of
Southern California, Vol. 1, 1888-89, p. 38 (hereafter cited as Stevens, “Iaeger Sketch”). A description of
the ferrymen’s fort is found in the Johnson Papers, p. 42.
186
187
Stevens, ‘Iaeger Sketch,” p. 38.
Stevens, “Iaeger Sketch,” p. 38.
Appendix C
When the report of the Lincoln-Glanton massacre reached Los Angeles, California
Governor Burnett ordered General Joseph C. Morehead to the Crossing with a force of forty
men—which increased to 125 men by the time it reached the Colorado—to punish the Indians.
When he arrived at the Crossing in September, Morehead found the Johnson party already
established in their stockade, and he took refuge from the Quechans with the ferrymen. After
only one encounter with the Indians, Morehead was recalled to the coast.188
In November, Major Samuel P. Heintzelman arrived at the river from San Diego with two
2nd infantry companies, and after establishing the boundary of a military reservation which
included the ferry company’s corral, set out to regulate the activities at the Crossing.
Heintzelman apparently became a difficult neighbor, and the ferrymen began to sell their interests
in the company. Finally, even Johnson sold his shares, leaving the company under the control of
Jaeger and William Ankrim. As Johnson departed from the Crossing, he remarked that Jaeger
and Ankrim could run the business “under arrangements satisfactory to the interest of Major
Heintzelman.”189 Johnson and another partner, Benjamin Hartshorne, went back to San
Francisco, but returned to the Crossing later. Soon Heintzelman accepted an invitation from
Jaeger to become a partner in the ferry company.190 With the major’s entry into the business, the
affairs of the military post and the ferry became closely related, and the company, known as the
Colorado Ferry Company, prospered.
The greatest difficulty facing Major Heintzelman was the short supply of rations for his
men. The first attempt to supply the troops was by wagon train and pack mules from San
Diego—a distance of more than two hundred miles across mountains and desert. The cost of
transporting supplies overland was much too expensive--$500 a ton—so the quartermaster
sought to supply the garrison by sea. He dispatched the schooner Invincible, under the
command of Captain Alfred. H. Wilcox, with 10,000 rations to the mouth of the Colorado, around
Baja California, on December 24, 1850. Contemporary maps of the lower Colorado erroneously
showed the distance from the sea to the Gila to be only 25 miles. When the Invincible reached
the point shown on the map as the mouth of the Gila, Wilcox discovered the error in the map and
refused to take his ship father up the Colorado in search of the fort, which proved to be 120 miles
farther upstream. Heintzelman, learning of the arrival of the Invincible from Cocopah Indian
messengers, sent wagons down the Colorado to retrieve his supplies. In the meanwhile, badly
buffeted by the tidal currents, Wilcox decided not to wait for the wagons, unloaded his cargo on
the river bank, and set sail for San Diego.191 This method of supply was even less satisfactory
188
Col. H.B. Wharfield, U.S.A.F., Ret., Fort Yuma on the Colorado River, (El Cajon, Calif.: privately
printed, 1968), pp. 38-40 (hereafter cited as Wharfield, Fort Yuma).
189
Janet Lee Hargett, “Louis John Frederick Jaeger: Entrepreneur at the Yuma Crossing,” (M.A. thesis,
University of Arizona, 1967), p. 19 (hereafter cited as Hargett, “Jaeger”).
190
Hargett, “Jaeger,” p. 20.
191
Richard E. Lingenfelter, Steamboats on the Colorado River 1852-1916 (Tucson: The University of
Arizona Press, 1978), p. 5 (hereafter cited as Lingenfelter, Steamboats on the Colorado River).
Appendix C
than the overland route. Lieutenant George Horatio Derby, who had accompanied Wilcox to the
mouth of the Colorado, clearly saw the solution to the supply problem was the use of a small
sternwheel steamer. Such a craft, thought Derby, could carry to the post in twenty-four hours
more than a hundred wagons could in a week.192
In June 1851, the shortage of supplies caused Heintzelman to withdraw his troops to San
Diego, leaving only Lieutenant Thomas Sweeny and a few men to guard the Crossing.193 After
six months, they, too, ran out of rations and returned to San Diego.194 (The story of Major
Heintzelman and Lieutenant Sweeny at Fort Yuma is related in the chapter entitled The Fort
Yuma Soldiers: Securing the Crossing).
In September, George Johnson and Benjamin Hartshorne, former partners of Jaeger in
the ferry company, undertook to supply the fort on flatboats with poles from the mouth of the
Colorado. Arriving at the estuary in February 1852 on the schooner Sierra Nevada, again with
Wilcox in command, the flatboats were loaded with the supplies; one was immediately swamped
and sank with a total loss of its cargo. Johnson undertook to deliver the remaining supplies with
another boat, but the river current made the journey to the fort extremely difficult. Heintzelman
again sent his wagons to assist the boat carrying the supplies to the fort, but even then it took
four months to get all the cargo to the Crossing.195
In June 1852, Lieutenant Derby’s recommendation to utilize a steamboat to supply the
fort was finally heeded. Captain James Turnbull purchased a small steamboat and shipped it, in
sections, from San Francisco to the head of the tidewater on the schooner Capacity, where it
arrived in September. Reassembling the steamboat took over two months, but by mid-November
it was launched into the Colorado and christened the Uncle Sam. She was 65 feet long with a
beam of only 16 feet and was powered by a 20-horsepower engine. Turnbull cautiously headed
up the Colorado with 35 tons of supplies and arrived at the fort early in December after a voyage
of 120 miles in fifteen days. After a few trips, the first steamboat on the Colorado sank to the
bottom a few miles below the fort, disappearing in the muddy water.196 Turnbull departed and
never returned to the Colorado, but the Uncle Sam had demonstrated that the use of steamboats
on the river was practical.
In the fall of 1853, Captain George Johnson, in partnership with Hartshorne and Wilcox,
decided to try again on the Colorado. He shipped, disassembled, a new boat, the General Jesup,
to the mouth of the river and reassembled her there. The General Jesup, like the Uncle Sam,
was a side-wheeler, but she was much larger and more powerful. She measured 104 feet long
and was 17 feet wide at the beam and had a 50-horsepower engine. The new steamer made
192
Lingenfelter, Steamboats on the Colorado River, p. 8.
193
Journal of Lt. Thomas L. Sweeny 1819-1853, ed. Arthur Woodward (Los Angeles: Westernlore Press,
1956), p. 51 (hereafter cited as Sweeny, Journal).
194
195
196
Appendix C
round trips from the estuary of the Colorado to Fort Yuma in four or five days with 50 tons of
cargo and grossed nearly $4,000 a trip.197 In the summer of 1855, with business booming,
Johnson brought another steamer to the river. This boat, the Colorado, was the first
sternwheeler198 on the river and set the precedent for others to follow. She was much larger than
the General Jesup—120 feet long, with an 8-horsepower engine—and carried over 60 tons.
Johnson then sought to expand his route beyond Fort Yuma and looked further
upstream—to the Mormon settlements in Utah—for new opportunities. Antoine Leroux, the
famous mountain man, was still on the Colorado River scene and assured Johnson that the river
could be navigated to the mouth of the Virgin River (now under the waters of Lake Mead).
Johnson soon set out to explore the Colorado above the fort.
In 1856, Congress appropriated funds for the exploration of the Colorado, and the
secretary of war named Lieutenant Joseph Christmas Ives of the Corps of Topographical
Engineers to command the expedition.199 Johnson had hoped that Ives would hire one of his
boats, but Ives brought a small iron-hulled sternwheeler, the Explorer, with him. The Explorer
was launched on the lower Colorado on December 30, 1857—the fourth steamboat on the river.
She was only 54 feet long and, fully loaded, drew only 3 feet of water. The next day Ives set out
to determine the head of steam-powered navigation on the Colorado River.
The same day, Captain Johnson set out from Fort Yuma to accomplish the same goal.
Lieutenant James L. White and a detachment of troops from Fort Yuma were ordered by the
commander of the fort to accompany Johnson. Pauline Weaver was on board as the expedition’s
guide. Both Johnson and Ives had many problems with the river, but the shallow-draft and more
powerful General Jesup proved to be better suited to the task. Johnson continued up the
Colorado to a point more than 300 miles above the Yuma Crossing, where, because of the
shortage of supplies, he turned back. He was then a few miles above the site where Davis Dam
would later be constructed. As he was returning, and much to his surprise, Johnson encountered
Edward F. Beale, Kit Carson’s former companion during the Mexican War. Beale, utilizing
camels as pack animals and in search of a wagon route through northern Arizona, had crossed
the Colorado River at the same point the previous year and was now returning east.200 Johnson
ferried Beale and his men across the river on the General Jesup. In a letter to the secretary of
war, Beale reported on the incident:
197
198
Lingenfelter, Steamboats on the Colorado River, p.16.
199
For more on the Ives expedition, see Joseph C. Ives, Report upon the Colorado River of the West,
Explored in 1857 and 1858 by Lieutenant Joseph C. Ives, Corps of Topographical Engineers, Under the
Direction of the Office of the Exploration and Surveys, A.A. Humphreys, Captain Topographical Engineer
in Charge (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1861).
200
For an account of the Beale expedition, see May Humphreys Stacey, Uncle Sam’s Camels: The Journal
of May Humphreys Stacey Supplemented by the Report of Edward Fitzgerald Beale, ed. Lewis Burt Lesley
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929; reprint ed. Glorieta, N. Mex.: The Rio Grande Press, Inc.,
1970).
Appendix C
On my arrival at this place I found the Steamer General Jessup, Captain George
A. Johnson lying at the Bank within a few hundred yards of our crossing. Captain
Johnson had been about forty miles above, and could have ascended higher, but that his
provisions were nearly exhausted. He was accompanied by Lieut. White of the Army,
and fifteen men as escort. When I wrote you from this place on the way over, and gave
my opinion as to the navigability of the river, I had no idea it would be so shortly verified,
but the enterprise of a citizen has demonstrated it beyond all question. The boat now
here is considerable size, being in length 108 feet, and a capacity of 80 tons burthen with
30 feet over all in width.
You may well imagine what a pleasant surprise the sight of a steamboat in this
unknown region proved, and how heartily may party congratulated Captain Johnson on
the successful issue of his enterprise, the results of which will be felt more fully long after
all connected with it have passed away . . .
It is to be hoped the important and successful enterprise of Captain Johnson
may be liberally rewarded by the Government, for certainly no more important exploration
has ever been made on the western side of the Rocky Mountains, or one which opens up
a larger extent of country to be hereafter developed by the industry of our citizens. Its
important bearing upon the road is a point so clear that I feel it unnecessary to call your
attention to it. . . .201
On January 30, as he was continuing down river, Johnson met Ives, who was still
heading upriver. On his return to Fort Yuma, White dispatched his official report to the War
Department, well before Ives reached the head of navigation. In the meantime, Ives was
continuing slowly up the river and finally ascended about forty miles above the point reached by
Johnson with the General Jesup. Ives then returned to Beale’s Crossing and headed overland to
explore the area eastwardly to the Grand Canyon. The Explorer returned to the fort under the
command of steamboat Captain David C. Robinson. Johnson later purchased the Explorer at
auction for $1,000, and, stripped of her engine, she was used as a barge until 1864, when she
broke loose from her mooring near Pilot Knob and drifted into a high water slough some sixty
miles downstream. As the water receded and the channel changed its course, the Explorer was
left high and dry and abandoned. Remnants of the boat remained for many years.202
As the early explorers had anticipated, the Gila River was also navigated by steamers—
but not to the extent of the Colorado. The first boat at the Crossing, the Uncle Sam, made
excursions a short distance up the Gila, treating the soldiers at the fort to a diversion. In 1858,
placer gold was found near the Gila about fifteen miles upstream from its junction with the
Colorado. Here a community, Gila City, developed within two months. George Johnson was
soon carrying a horde of prospectors and great quantities of supplies to the town. By 1862, the
diggings had been worked out, and Gila City was abandoned.203
201
Letter from Edward F. Beale to John B. Floyd, Secretary of War, 23 January 1858, Records of the
Office of the Secretary of War, Selected Letters, Record Group 107, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
202
203
Appendix C
By the end of 1859, navigation of the Colorado and Gila by steamboats had become
routine. Johnson had brought another stern-wheeler, the Cocopah, to the Colorado and
monopolized the transport business for a number of years, carrying troops and supplies from the
estuary to Fort Yuma and Fort Mohave (near Beal’s Crossing)—the latter some 450 miles above
the sea.204 However, not until July 8, 1879, was the Virgin River, identified years before by
Antoine Leroux as the head of steam navigation, reached by river Captain Jack Mellon on the
Gila.205
Early in the 1860s, rich deposits of gold and silver were discovered along the Colorado
and thousands of prospectors, miners, merchants, tradesmen, and settlers flocked into the area.
Soon there were hundreds of mines and a number of towns along the banks of the river. A frenzy
of shipping activity and rivalry among competing steamship companies followed for a number of
years.
When the railroad reached Yuma in the late 1870s, the heyday of the river steamers
ended, although they continued in service until the last one in use, the Searchlight, sank near the
Crossing in 1916.206 In the later years, riverboats were primarily used to assist with reclamation
projects along the lower Colorado River.207
THE MULESKINNERS AND ENGINEERS: LINKING EAST AND WEST
Much of the early exploration of Arizona, especially that conducted by government
expeditions after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase, was carried out
for the purpose of determining practical routes for wagon roads and railroads. Edward F. Beale’s
“Camel Corps” was on such a mission through northern Arizona when it met the steamboat
General Jesup on the Colorado River in January 1858.
I brought with me camels laden with grain from my mules, and should have made
by return on them this winter, but the threatening appearance of our affairs with Utah has
determined me to leave them where they may be needed in the spring. I shall therefore
send them back with my clerk and leave them in his charge assisted by three or four men
until they are wanted on service again. Determined to test their ability to withstand cold
204
Lingenfelter, Steamboats on the Colorado River, pp.167, 169.
205
Lingenfelter, Steamboats on the Colorado River, p.78; for additional information, see Daily Gazette,
Phoenix, Arizona, 9 April 1895, typescript, John Alexander Mellon, Hayden File, Arizona Historical
Society, Tucson.
206
207
Lingenfelter, Steamboats on the Colorado River, pp. 149, 156, 159; Rosalie Crowe and Sidney B.
Brinckerhoff, Early Yuma: A Graphic History of Life on the American Nile (Flagstaff: Northland Press,
1976), p. 75.
Appendix C
and snow I placed them in a small valley near the summit of the Sierra Nevada
immediately on my arrival, where they have been in the snow almost ever since and
fattened every day. On one occasion the wagon employed in hauling provisions to the
camp – a strong six mule team – was completely blocked up with snow and ice at a long
distance from camp, the camels were immediately dispatched and six of them taking the
load returned through the snow, although the mules were unable to haul in the empty
wagons. On the present journey, the ice has formed every night to the thickness of an
inch in water vessels and yet they seem perfectly indifferent to it. . . .208
The acquisition of southern Arizona, resulting from the Gadsden Treaty, gained for the
United States Tucson and a practical route for the extension of a transcontinental road through
Arizona and into southern California. Until 1857, Tucson, then the most important city in what
was to become Arizona Territory,209 was isolated from the Pacific Coast by more than 400 miles
of desert and from New Mexico and Texas by only a little less. Travel and communication across
the Southwest were slow, costly, and undependable.
In 1856, California already numbered 500,000210 residents and was rapidly developing.
However, it was separated from the rest of the country by mountains and deserts and was in dire
need of wagon roads to link it with the Mississippi Valley and the industrial centers of the
Northeast. Senator John B. Weller of California undertook to have Congress appropriate funds
for the construction of three roads to California;211 one of these, as suggested by Senator
Thomas J. Rusk of Texas, was to run from El Paso to Fort Yuma, which was already linked to
San Diego by a military road. James B. Leach, one of the first civilians to be entrusted with such
an important undertaking, was named superintendent for the El Paso to Fort Yuma road.
Construction began in October 1857.212 The road corresponded largely with the Cooke Wagon
Road of 1856,213 but several changes in the route saved about forty miles and five days for
208
Letter from Edward F. Beale to John B. Floyd, Secretary of War, 23 January 1858, Records of the
Office of the Secretary of War, Selected Letters, Record Group 107, National Archives, Washington, D.C.
See also Edward Fitzgerald Beale, Wagon Roads from Fort Defiance to the Colorado River, 35th Congress,
1st Session. Ex. Doc. 124. 1858.
209
Arizona Territory was created February 24, 1863, by Congress. Until then, it had been a part of the New
Mexico Territory. Tucson was founded in 1776 as a Spanish military outpost and remained a walled
Mexican outpost until 1848. Phoenix, now Arizona’s largest city (Tucson is second), had its earliest
beginnings in 1867 with the establishment of the Swilling Irrigation Canal Company. Henry P. Walker and
Don Bufkin, Historical Atlas of Arizona (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1979), p. 60. G. Wesley
Johnson, Jr., Phoenix: Valley of the Sun (Tulsa, Okla.: Continental Press, 1982), p. 25.
210
Odie B. Faulk, Destiny Road: The Gila Trail and the Opening of the Southwest (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1973), p. 109 (hereafter cited as Faulk, Destiny Road).
211
Faulk, Destiny Road, p. 110.
Hubert Howe Bancroft, History of Arizona and New Mexico, 1530-1888 (San Francisco: The History
Company, Publishers, 1889; reprint ed., Albuquerque: Horn & Wallace, Publishers, 1962), p. 496 (hereafter
cited as Bancroft, Arizona and New Mexico.)
212
213
Appendix C
wagons. Leach divided his force of over a hundred men into parties and worked westward from
El Paso and eastward from Fort Yuma, completing the road by the end of July 1858.214 The 18foot-wide roadway was well-graded and drained, and most importantly, watering places were
constructed along the way at convenient intervals.
The Leach Wagon Road opened the Southwest to major freighting and stagecoach
efforts. Inasmuch as the route was an extension of the old Santa Fe Trail, over which goods had
moved in trade between Missouri and New Mexico since 1821, the road became a principal route
of commerce from the Mississippi Valley to Arizona and California.
The early wagon used in the Southwest had a strong similarity to a boat and was called a
prairie schooner. The Conestoga, one of the popular wagon types, weighed about four thousand
pounds. Its tongue was thirteen feet long, and its rear wheels, each weighing some three
hundred pounds, were over five feet in diameter. The wagons were pulled by teams of mules or
oxen, with eight or ten animals to a team. The driver of an ox team was called a bullwacker; the
men who drove mule teams were known as muleskinners. When ranked against stagecoach
driver and riverboat pilots, the teamsters ran a poor third in public esteem. Yet, as today’s
truckers, a muleskinner considered himself a “king of the road.”215 He took pride in his
occupation, and he showed it in the bells with which he decorated his harness and in his 10-footlong whip.
Before the Civil War, the largest freighting firm in the Southwest, as well as the entire
American West, was that of Russell, Majors, and Waddell.216 After the Civil War ended, the firm
of Tully, Ochoa and Company dominated Southwestern freighting.217
Among the first to use the route of the Leach Wagon Road on a regular basis was the
San Antonio and San Diego Mail (stagecoach) Line, which initiated service between the two cities
in the summer of 1857,218 even before the construction on the roadway had begun. (The San
Antonio and San Diego Mail Line followed the general route of Cooke’s Wagon Road.) This
company remained in service only until 1858, at which time John Butterfield’s Overland Mail
Company began semiweekly service from Missouri to San Francisco by way of El Paso, Tucson,
214
215
216
217
218
Douglas D. Martin, Yuma Crossing (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1954), p. 187.
Martin calls the company the “San Antonio and San Diego Stage Line”; Odie B. Faulk in Arizona: A Short
History (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1970), p. 87, uses the name “San Antonio and San Diego
Mail Line.”
Appendix C
Fort Yuma and Los Angeles, crossing the Colorado River on Jaeger’s ferry.219 The trip through
Arizona was particularly hazardous because of the depredations of the fierce Apaches; only the
presence of federal troops in the area made it possible for the coaches to make the journey.
Even then, attacks on the stages by both Indians and desperados were frequent.
The “only through passenger on the first westbound”220 Butterfield Overland Mail stage
from St. Louis to San Francisco in 1858 described the journey in detail:
Thus the average rate of speed on the whole route was a fraction under five
miles per hour. Now supposing that no better time than this is made . . . a route, like this,
which passes through nearly two thousand miles of uninhabitated country . . places San
Francisco within twenty-six days of New York . . .
. . . As I have frequently mentioned, the route needs thorough military protection .
. . the government might advantageously distribute [soldiers] along the route, where they
might serve the double purpose of keeping the Indians in check and protecting the mail
from desperate white men, who are none the less to be feared. . . .
. . travelers will find it convenient to carry with them as much durable food as
possible. As for sleeping, most of the wagons are arranged so that the backs of the
seats let down and form a bed the length of the vehicle. When the stage is full, the
passengers must take turns at sleeping. Perhaps the jolting will be found disagreeable at
first, but a few nights without sleeping with obviate that difficulty. . . . White pants and kid
gloves had better be discarded by most passengers. . . .
. . . Fort Yuma . . . is situated on the Colorado – west bank—near its junction with
the Gila. Most of the buildings belong to the government. About a mile below the fort is
Arizona City, consisting of a few adobe houses. We crossed the river at this point, on a
ferry kept by Mr. Yager [sic], who charges $5 for carrying an ordinary four horse team.
The boat is a sort of flatboat, and is propelled by the rapid current, being kept in its
course by pulleys running on a rope stretched across the river. . . . After a hasty
breakfast we changed our horses and were off again.221
By 1860, virtually every Overland Mail stage was loaded to capacity with passengers and
mail.
When the Union troops were moved from the Southwest to the major battlefields of the
Civil War in 1861, the stage lines, with a few local exceptions, ceased operations, and regular
overland mail service between southern California, Fort Yuma, and Tucson was interrupted. In
1863, some of Beale’s famous camels were brought into service again to carry the mail.222 After
the Beale expedition in 1858, the animals were kept at Fort Tejon, and later at Los Angeles.
219
220
Waterman L. Ormsby, The Butterfield Overland Mail, ed. Lyle H. Wright and Josephine M. Bynum
(San Marino, Calif.” The Huntington Library, 1942).
221
Ormsby, The Butterfield Overland Mail, pp. 90-103.
222
May Humphreys Stacey, Uncle Sam’s Camels: The Journal of May Humphreys Stacey Supplemented by
the Report of Edward Fitzgerald Beale, ed. Lewis Burt Lesley (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1929; reprint ed. Glorieta, N. Mex.: The Rio Grande Press, Inc., 1970), p. 131 (hereafter cited as Stacey,
Uncle Sam’s Camels).
Appendix C
From October to December of 1861, one of Beal’s drivers, Hadji Ali (“Hi-Jolly”), was assigned the
task of carrying military dispatches with camels between southern California and Tucson by way
of Fort Yuma. After a few trips, and a second try in 1863, the experimental use of camels for mail
and transportation was abandoned, mainly because of complaints from muleskinners that the
camels frightened their mules.223
In the years immediately following the Civil War, the Southwest was without stagecoach
service, for there were too few passengers to make the business profitable. It was not until 1869,
when the Southern Overland U.S. Mail and Express opened service, that the coaches again
began to rumble between El Paso and Tucson. Then, in 1870, the Tucson, Arizona City [Yuma],
and San Diego State Company, with service from Arizona to California, reestablished the
transcontinental link over the Yuma Crossing.224 The stage business was a risky one and,
without mail contracts with the government, often unprofitable. Companies frequently changed
ownerships and names; many went out of business. Before the decade was over, the era of
transcontinental stagecoach travel and wagon freighting was ended by the “iron horse.”
Meanwhile, in 1869, the first transcontinental railroad was completed. The Union Pacific,
laying track westward across the Plans, and the Central Pacific, working eastward from
California, met at Promontory Point, a small town west of Ogden, Utah. On May 10, the final
spikes were driven and the country was joined by rails—the era of the frontier was drawing to an
end. Acting to maintain a monopoly on railroading in California, the developers of the Central
Pacific began constructing branch lines to important cities throughout the state. One of these, the
Southern Pacific, ran from San Francisco to San Diego. In June 1877, a Southern Pacific spur
was completed across southern California to Jaeger’s ferry at the Yuma Crossing.225
The arrival of the railroad brought an end to coastal shipping to the mouth of the
Colorado and virtually ended the use of steamboats on the river below Yuma. As rail lines were
extended upstream, the use of river boats further declined, although some remained in service
above Yuma for another quarter of a century. With construction of dams on the Colorado, the
first in 1909 (Laguna Dam about thirteen miles above Yum), the heyday of river trade and travel
had ended.
When the Southern Pacific railroad tracks stopped at Jaeger’s Landing on the California
side of the river, travelers and freight were transported to the Arizona side of ferry, to be carried
along the Gila Trail by stage and wagon freighters to Tucson, El Paso, and beyond. The
223
Harold B. Wharfield, Fort Yuma on the Colorado River (El Cajon: privately printed, 1968), p. 127;
Stacey, Uncle Sam’s Camels, p. 130. Hadji Ali also was known as Philip Tedro.
224
225
David F. Myrick, The Roads of Southern Arizona Vol. 1, Railroads of Arizona (Berkeley, Calif.:
Howell-North Books, 1975), p. 22 (hereafter cited as Myrick, Southern Arizona Railroads).
Appendix C
construction of the railroad over the Colorado was halted while the Southern Pacific negotiated a
right-of-way across the Fort Yuma military reservation, the most practical location for the
construction of a bridge. Finally, and in defiance of an order by the Secretary of War, the bridge
was constructed, and, by cover of night, tracks were laid; on Sunday, September 30, 1877,226 the
first locomotive rolled into Arizona. Yuma remained the terminus of the railroad for some
eighteen months while the Southern Pacific sought aid from the territorial legislatures of Arizona
and New Mexico. Rumors persisted that the Southern Pacific sent $25,000 to Arizona to be used
as bribes for members of the legislature and that Governor A.P.K. Safford returned $20,000--after support of the railroad had passed—saying that only $5,000 was needed to “buy” Arizona’s
legislature.227
Construction began eastward from the Yuma Crossing along the western portion of the
Gila Trail in November 1878.228 The first train arrived in Tucson on March 20, 1880.229 After
arriving in New Mexico, the gandy dancers found their work much easier and raced into
Lordsburg on October 18, 1880; Deming on December 15; and El Paso on May 19, 1881,230
where, by earlier agreement with the Texas and Pacific Railroad, the Southern Pacific was
supposed to halt, there to be joined by the Texas and Pacific. The Texas and Pacific, however,
was moving slowly, so the Southern Pacific purchased a large interest in an obscure Texas
railroad, the Galveston, Harrisburg, and San Antonio, which was already building toward El
Paso.231 Just west of the Pecos River, the track crews of the Southern Pacific and the Galveston,
Harrisburg and San Antonio met on January 12, 1883. Another bit of track laying east of
Galveston soon completed the line to New Orleans, and the Sunset Route was opened to service
on February 5, 1883.232 The journey from the Pacific Coast to the Gulf of Mexico, a distance of
2069 miles, was now accomplished in the same number of days that had previously been months
for wagons and weeks for stagecoaches.
The result of opening the railroad to the East was immediately felt in Yuma. Where once
the Yuma Crossing had been visited only by hardy men and women, it was now visited by tourists
who came on the Pacific Express to marvel at how foreign, how un-American the Southwest
226
Myrick, Southern Arizona Railroads, p. 26.
227
228
229
230
231
Faulk, Destiny Road, p. 188-189.
232
Appendix C
seemed. At the same time, the railroad made Yuma more American, for it brought ice-making
machinery, Eastern building materials and styles, more traditional Anglo foods than chili and
beans, and comfortable hotels, such as the Southern Pacific Hotel and Depot at the foot of
Madison Avenue.
The trails of Ewing Young, Kit Carson, General Kearny and the Mormon Battalion, now
marked with cross ties and steel rails, opened the Southwest to a new invasion of settlers that
continues today.
THE FORT YUMA SOLDIERS: SECURING THE CROSSING
Although Kearny’s Army of the West, Cooke’s Mormon Battalion, and Graham’s 1st
Dragoons had passed over the Yuma Crossing in their overland treks to California during and
immediately following the Mexican War, the first attempt to establish a military outpost at the
Crossing was made by Lieutenant Cave Couts, as commander of the escort assigned to the
boundary survey party led by Lieutenant Amiel W. Whipple of the Corps of Topographical
Engineers. (The stsory of the boundary surveyors is related in the chapter entitled The Boundary
Surveyors: Marking New Lands). Lieutenant Couts, with a detachment of men, left San Diego on
September 11, 1849, and arrived at the Colorado on September 29. They encamped at the place
where Couts had forded with Major Graham the previous year, which was near Pilot Knob, some
twelve miles below the mouth of the Gila.233
After the entire party had arrived at the river, Whipple set out to determine, in conjunction
with his Mexican counterpart, the latitude and longitude of the international boundary station at
the junction of the Colorado and Gila Rivers. Whipple established his astronomical observatory
and camp on the bluff opposite the mouth of the Gila, where Father Garcés had built his mission
in 1780. Couts, with his troopers and wagons, followed Whipple up the Colorado and set up his
tent camp in the river bottom below the hill. He named his bivouac Camp Calhoun234 in honor of
John C. Calhoun, former Secretary of War and Secretary of State. Couts had little to do with the
actual survey work and was always at odds with Whipple and his superior officers in San Diego.
His corrosive attitude seems to have placed him in a position of disfavor by his superiors, and for
this reason he probably found himself posted to the Colorado, which was not considered a
prestigious assignment.
During Couts’ brief stay on the Colorado, he maintained a generally cordial relationship
with the Indians and dabbled in operating a ferry. With the survey work at the Crossing
233
The Whipple Report: Journal of an Expedition from San Diego, California, to the Rio Colorado, from
Sept. 11 to December 11, 1849, ed. E.I. Edwards (Los Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1961), p. 12 (hereafter
cited as Whipple, Report); Cave Johnson Couts, From San Diego to the Colorado in 1849; The Journal and
Maps of Cave J. Couts, ed. William McPherson (Los Angeles: Arthur M. Ellis, 1932), (hereafter cited as
Couts, Journal).
234
Couts, Journal, p. 52; Journal of Lt. Thomas W. Sweeny 1849-1853, ed. Arthur Woodward (Los
Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1956), p. 231 (hereafter cited as Sweeny, Journal).
Appendix C
completed in December 1849, Couts and Whipple returned to San Diego, leaving the Crossing
again under the control of the Quechans.
On April 5, 1851, Couts married Ysidora Bandini, the daughter of a prominent Californian
who had supported the United States during the Mexican War. A few months later, he resigned
his commission and devoted his considerable energies to developing a southern California ranch
(now a San Diego County park) and public service. He and his wife had a large family who
remained in the San Diego area, where a street now bears his name.235
In January 1850, a group of Americans established the first commercial ferry at the
Crossing, but the party was soon killed by the Quechans. (The story of ferry service at the
Crossing is related in the chapter entitled The River Men: Navigating the Colorado). Following
the massacre, California Governor Peter H. Burnett instructed General Joshua H. Bean to send a
punitive force of California militia, under the command of Joseph C. Morehead, to chastise the
Indians at the Crossing. Some months after the killings, Morehead set out with 142 volunteers.
The soldiers’ pay was the highest ever offered for frontier duty: privates $5 per day, corporals $6,
sergeants $7, lieutenants $10, and $1 per day extra for mounts.236
When he arrived at the river in September 1850, Morehead found another group of
Americans, including Johnson and Jaeger, operating a ferry and well-established in a fortification
on the California side, a short distance below Couts’ old camp.237 The volunteers were eager for
a fight with the Indians, and under the date of November 30, 1850, a San Francisco newspaper,
the Alta California, reported:
. . . difficulties at once commenced, and a battle ensued in which the General
after an hour and one- half of fighting, was glad to retreat beneath the guns of the
[ferryman’s] little fort, the Indians having lost ten men. The American force under
Morehead was 104, their loss not stated. . . .238
After the skirmish, Morehead moved his force to Whipple’s old camp on the bluff but was
soon recalled to the coast without engaging in further hostilities. As the California militia were
returning home, they were met by Major Samuel Peter Heintzelman, in command of a
detachment of U.S. soldiers sent out to protect the emigrants at the Crossing. One of
Heintzelman’s officers, Lieutenant Thomas W. Sweeny noted in his journal, “. . .the speed at
which he [Morehead] traveled seemed hardly consistent with the dignified march of a
conqueror.”239
235
Cave Johnson Couts, Hepah, California! The Journal of Cave Johnson Couts from Monterey, Nuevo
Leon, Mexico to Los Angeles, California during the years 1848-1849, ed. Henry F. Dobyns (Tucson:
Arizona Pioneers’ Historical Society, 1961), p. 101.
236
Douglas D. Martin, Yuma Crossing (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1954), p. 151.
237
H.B. Warfield, Fort Yuma on the Colorado River (El Cajon, Calif.: H.B. Wharfield, 1968), p. 38
(hereafter cited as Wharfield, Fort Yuma).
238
Quoted in Wharfield, Fort Yuma, p. 39.
239
Appendix C
Heintzelman, with Companies “D” and “H” of the 2nd Infantry, arrived at the Crossing in
November 1850. The November post return contained the following notation: “. . . arrived at and
occupied the Junction of the Gila and Colorado Rivers on the 27th Inst. . . .” The camp was
located in the river bottom about a mile downstream from the bluff opposite the Gila and was
named Camp Yuma.240 By early December, Heintzelman’s command consisted of four officers,
including a medical officer, and ninety-two men. Lieutenant Sweeny, although he left San Diego
with Heintzelman, did not, according to the January 1851 post return, reach Camp Yuma until
January 22, 1851.
“Fighting Tom” Sweeny, a twice-wounded hero of the Mexican War, was a tough soldier
and had a dislike for his commanding officer. In his journal, Sweeny not only made barbed
remarks about Major Heintzelman but also colorfully described life at Camp Yuma.
Heintzelman, upon his arrival at the Colorado, almost immediately established the
boundary of a military reservation and set about organizing and directing activities at the
Crossing, including the operation of the civilian ferry. After he had become familiar with the
locale, Heintzelman moved his camp from the river bottom to the bluff and began constructing
wattle and daub241 quarters and storage sheds near the site of Garcés 1780 mission.242 Within a
few molnths, the Camp Yuma garrison was so short on rations that Heintzelman was instructed to
withdraw to Santa Ysabel, south of Warner’s Ranch. His orders authorized him to assign one
officer, one non-commissioned officer, and nine privates to guard the government property at the
Crossing until the main force could return. Lieutenant Sweeny was detailed to this onerous duty,
and, on June 5, 1851, Heintzelman and the main body of his command marched off to Santa
Ysabel.243
Sweeny soon moved off the bluff and established a new camp in the river bottom. In his
journal, he recorded the event.
I have moved down the river six miles below the old camp, where I have orders
to establish myself, and to take charge of all the public property on the river in the vicinity;
to render all aid and assistance in my power to emigrants passing this way; to hinder the
commission of any depredations on, or by, the Indians, and to prevent hostile incursions
by our tribes into the Mexican territory, &c., &c., &c.
June 7th. [1851]—I have selected my camp ground, and christened it Camp
Independence. Do you think the name appropriate? As touching myself it is; for though I
am not “Monarch of all I survey My orders there are none to dispute.” It is true I am still
under the Major’s [Heintzelman’s] command, but only in a general way; for I am as much
the commanding officer here with my command, as he is elsewhere with his, and I think a
little more so; nobody thinks of disputing my orders, while there is not one he issues that
is not objected to by somebody under this command.244
240
Sweeny, Journal, p. 51, 221.
241
Wattle and daub is a primitive construction method utilizing a framework of poles and branches
plastered with mud.
242
Sweeny, Journal, p. 51, 221-222; Martin, Yuma Crossing, p. 157.
243
244
Sweeny, Journal, p. 54-55.
Appendix C
Sweeny realized that his position was a precarious one and wrote in his journal:
Nothing but fear restrains them [the Indians], and nothing but ceaseless vigilance
on our part can keep them in check, and prevent them from trampling me and my small
command into non-entity.245
However, through diplomacy and a show of strength, Sweeny was able to live side by
side with the Quechans without bloodshed. In fact, the emigrants and gold seekers were more of
a problem to Sweeny than the Indians. The lieutenant even developed friendships with several of
the Indians, especially a beautiful girl, called by the soldiers, the “Rose of the Colorado.” Sweeny
wrote:
. . [her eyes are] large, wild and almost dazzling with their black brilliancy. Her
features are even, and their expression much softer and more intelligent than any I ever
observed in an Indian face before. But her form, which was almost nude, was truly
magnificent, and would have been a glory to a young sculptor. She is tall for a woman;
her carriage exceedingly graceful, half boldness and half timidity, like the movement of a
gazelle or antelope. Her sole garment was the El- thudhik, a kind of petticoat, made of
the inner bark of the willow, and consisting of two separate parts; one in front like an
apron, interwoven with a little colored woolen cord and some fringes, and the other half
behind perfectly plain. She wore a necklace of shells, and ear-rings, and nose-rings of
the same material. She was tattooed as usual, and the mark of her tribe was imprinted in
the like manner on her chin.246
She and Fighting Tom frequently met and discussed, in halting Spanish, the customs of
their cultures. She jokingly told Sweeny, “Mexicans are Christians, and have a God—Americans
and Yumas [are] just alike—they have no God.”247 Sweeny passed the time with his pets—a
goat, a dog, a horse, and some tame quail—and his journal, in which he frequently complained
about the heat.
I have endeavored to preserve a box of sperm candles, . . . by depositing them in
the coolest corner of my own quarters, but as they continued to melt, have dug a hole in
the floor and buried the box therein, instructing José to pour water upon the spot daily,
hoping by such means to save the balance of the candles.248
245
246
247
248
Appendix C
Early in November 1851, the Indians began to become more hostile. The trouble was
instigated by Antonio Garra,249 a Quechan with wide influence among the Colorado River and
southern California tribes. After killing four Mexican herders near Algodones, who were on their
way to the California settlements with a flock of sheep,250 the Indians surrounded Camp
Independence. Sweeny threatened the warriors with his twelve-pound howitzer, and the Indians
withdrew. Lieutenant Edward Murray with sixteen men of the 2nd Infantry arrived soon after the
incident to relieve Sweeny. However, because of the hostilities, Murray decided to retain Sweeny
and sent only four soldiers to San Diego to report his command’s dire need for rations.
Then, to make the supply situation worse, on November 30, 1851, Captain Lorenzo
Sitgreaves and a party of scientists and packers with Antoine Leroux as guide, escorted by Major
Henry L. Kendrick and a detachment of thirty soldiers, arrived at the Crossing.251 The Sitgreaves
expedition had been exploring the Zuñi River and continued across northern Arizona to the
Mohave villages. From there they proceeded down the Colorado to the Crossing. Sitgreaves’
men had been forced to eat their mules, and the arrival of the party at Sweeny’s Camp
Independence further reduced the garrison’s scanty supply of rations. The supply situation
further deteriorated with Captain Delozier Davidson arrived from Santa Ysabel with a detachment
of sixteen men and little food. Facing starvation conditions, Captain Davidson, now the senior
officer present, decided to abandon the Crossing without orders from his superiors. On
December 6, 1851, the entire command, numbering about 100 persons, started out for San
Diego.252 Although the Crossing was abandoned by the army, emigrants continued to arrive and
had only minor difficulties with the Indians.
Early in 1852, Major Samuel Heintzelman was ordered to reestablish the military
presence at the Yuma Crossing.253 Returning with an enlarged force of more than 200 men,
Heintzelman occupied once more the dilapidated remains of Camp Yuma, now designated Fort
Yuma.254 An attempt was made to supply the large command by ocean steamer, but was only
partially successful—the supplies that arrived at the mouth of the Colorado had to be carried
249
Sweeny, Journal, p. 146; for a full account of Garra, see Arthur Woodward, “The Garra Revolt of
1851,” Westerners Brand Book (Los Angeles: Los Angeles Corral of Westerners, 1947).
250
Sweeny, Journal, pp. 248-249. The Camino del Diablo (Devil’s Highway) was a well-known trail from
Caborca and Sonoita, Sonora, to California, crossing the Colorado near the mouth of the Gila. Although
lacking in watering places and passing through difficult terrain, this route was shorter than the Gila River
route from southern Sonora to California and was used by early Spanish explorers. Later it became one of
the principal trails followed by Mexicans taking cattle and sheep to the California settlements.
251
L[orenzo] Sitgreaves, Report of an Expedition down the Zuni and Colorado Rivers, 33 Congress, 1st
Session, Senate, Ex. Doc. 59 (Washington: Beverly Tucker, Senate Printer, 1854), p. 21; Sweeny, Journal,
pp. 137, 139.
252
253
Wharfield, Fort Yuma, p. 63.
254
Constance Wynn Altshuler, Starting with Defiance: Nineteenth Century Military Posts (Tucson: The
Arizona Historical Society, 1983), p. 67; the post returns do not show the name change until July 1852,
Appendix C
overland by wagon from the steamer to the camp. On at least one occasion, the Indians attacked
the wagons sent to the river’s mouth and forced the supply train to return to Camp Yuma emptyhanded.
In March 1852, after Lieutenant Sweeny arrived at the Crossing with 139 new recruits
and eight supply wagons to strengthen the garrison, Major Heintzelman began a campaign
against the Colorado tribes. His plan to subdue the Indians called for the destruction of their
villages and fields, rather than direct confrontation in battle. This tactic was successful255 and
coupled with the constant intertribal warfare which reduced the Indian populations256 brought
organized Indian resistance at the Crossing to an end. On October 2, 1852, a “Great Council”257
was held, ending open hostilities between the United States and the Quechan tribe.
On October 26, 1852, a fire almost destroyed Fort Yuma. Sweeny recorded the event in
his journal:
Everything was going on its usual monotonous way until the 26th ult., when an
incident occurred which spread consternation through the camp and came very near
reducing it to ashes . . . we heard the cry of “Fire” and the report of Number Three’s
musket, a sentinel stationed on an adjoining hill. . . . We all made a rush in the direction
of the alarm and found D Company’s kitchen on fire. It spread from there to D
Company’s quarters, and then to H Company’s quarters and kitchen. The guardhouse
went next, and while we were making every exertion to save the quarter of I Company,
the cry started through the camp that the “Commissary store-house is afire!” Now, in
order to give you an idea of the state of our feelings at the time, and the terror and
dismay caused by this alarming cry, it is necessary to inform you that not only were all
our commissary stores and quartermaster’s property contained in the commissary store,
but also two barrels of cannon powder and about forty boxes of ammunition. . . .
Half frantic we rushed to the building, calling on the men to follow us. A few of
the old soldiers did, as far as the door, but here they stopped on perceiving the flames
inside. At this time Major Heintzelman and myself were the only two persons in the
building. The roof at this time was burning directly over where the powder lay and fire
dropping down in flakes, which we brushed off with our hands. After looking at each
other for a moment, and knowing that the grand tableaux could not be long postponed,
the major begged me for “God’s sake” to get some men. . . . So, taking some of the
nearest (as there was no time to spare), I marched at their head into the burning building
and remained there with the major until the powder was all removed and placed in safety.
We saved the ammunition but lost the provisions, for none of the men but the few who
followed me could be induced to enter the building or go near it while the powder was
there.258
255
Sweeny, Journal, p. 252; Wharfield, Fort Yuma, p. 70; John Russell Bartlett, Personal Narrative of
Exploration and Incidents in Texas, New Mexico, California, Sonora, and Chihuahua, Connected with the
United States and Mexican Boundary Commission During the years 1850, ’51, ’52, and ’53, 2 vols. (New
York: D. Appleton & Company, 1854; reprint ed. Chicago: The Rio Grande Press, Inc., 1965), p. 173.
256
Wharfield, Fort Yuma, pp. 84-85; Robert L.Bee, Crosscurrents Along the Colorado: The Impact of
Government Policy on the Quechan Indians (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1981), p. 12; Jack D.
Forbes, Warriors on the Colorado: The Yumas of the Quechan Nation and their Neighbors (Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press, 1965), pp. 77-80.
257
258
Appendix C
By the end of 1852, supplies were arriving at the Crossing with regularity, and life at Fort
Yuma was becoming more pleasant. Sweeny, in his journal, described the Christmas party that
year.
On Christmas morning the major invited us all to his quarters to partake of an
egg-nog in honor of the day. In the afternoon we sat down to a sumptuous dinner,
consisting of beef soup, roast venison (without port wine or currant jelly), potatoes,
onions and squash. Dessert—apple and pumpkin pies, cheese, gingerbread and one
glass of egg-nog apiece, with which we drank the following toasts: “The President of the
United States”—may his shadow never be less. . . . We then adjourned to my quarters to
smoke some excellent cigars . . . a few of which I had reserved for the occasion.259
The following year, the veterans of the Indian campaign began to be reassigned to other
duty, and, on December 12, 1853, Sweeny left Fort Yuma.260 He later served in the Civil War and
retired from the army as a brigadier general. Major Heintzelman was relieved of his command at
Fort Yuma on July 15, 1854.261 He, too, served in the Civil War and retired as a major general.262
The army settled into Fort Yuma and continued to improve the post. Construction of
permanent adobe buildings had been commenced by Heintzelman and was continued by
succeeding post commanders. For some reason, prior to the Gadsden Purchase of 1854 the
narrow “Whipple Strip”263 of United States territory on the Arizona side of the river was little used
by either the ferrymen or the solders, although Heintzelman had included two small areas of the
strip on the Fort Yuma Military Reservation for a ferry landing.264
Soon after the secession of the Southern States from the Union, the repercussions of the
Civil War reached Fort Yuma. Many of the officers and soldiers stationed in the West went to
Eastern battlefields, some as “Billy Yanks,” and others as “Johnny Rebs.” With the transfer of
most of the regular troops to the East, California organized volunteer units to carry on the Union
cause in the Southwest. Colonel James H. Carleton was assigned the task of driving the
Confederates from Arizona, New Mexico, and West Texas. His force of 1600 volunteers, known
259
260
261
Wharfield, Fort Yuma, pp. 78-79.
262
263
Until Whipple determined the boundary point at the mouth of the Gila River, and the east-west direction
of the Colorado River immediately below the confluence of the Colorado and Gila Rivers, it was generally
thought that Mexico would retain all land on what is now the Arizona side of the Colorado River below the
mouth of the Gila River. As a result of his survey, Whipple determined that a narrow strip of land below
the mouth of the Gila, to the Boundary Commission’s surprise, was to become United States territory. This
became the “Whipple Strip.”
264
Appendix C
as the California Column, replaced the regular soldiers at Fort Yuma after marching overland
from Warner’s Ranch across the Colorado Desert. Much of the volunteer army’s heavy
equipment had been shipped by ocean steamer to the mouth of the Colorado and then sent
upstream to the Yuma Crossing by river steamboats, where it was unloaded on the Arizona side
at the site of the future Quartermaster Depot.
The first units of the California Column, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel J.R.
West, arrived at Fort Yuma in November 1861 and prepared to push across the desert to Tucson
and on to Fort Bliss, Texas.265 Work details were sent out from Fort Yuma along the Gila Trail to
cut and store hay at abandoned Butterfield Overland Mail Stage stations, in preparation for the
arrival of the main force.
At about the same time, Confederate troops were taking over the mines around Tucson
in an attempt to bolster the treasury of the Confederate States of America. The secessionist
force of about 100 men, commanded by Captain Sherod Hunter,266 arrived in Tucson on February
28, 1862, and was welcomed by Confederate sympathizers.267 Hunter soon headed north to the
Pima villages. From the Indians, he learned that a Union scouting party, under Captain Willaim
A. McCleave, was on a reconnaissance to the villages. On the night of March 6y, 1862,
McCleave arrived at the Pima villages and was captured by a Confederate patrol at Ammi White’s
mill.268
When news of McCleave’s capture arrived at Fort Yuma, Captain William P. Calloway
and several companies of the advance guard of the California Column, guided by Pauline
Weaver, were sent out to rescue him. About 80 miles east of the Crossing, at a stage corral
named Stanwix Station, Calloway encountered a Confederate patrol which had been sent out to
burn the California Column’s stacked hay.269 Shots were exchanged by the California pickets and
the rebel raiding party. One of the Californians was slightly wounded; the Confederates
apparently suffered no casualties and withdrew. Pursued by the Californians, the Rebs retreated
toward Tucson.
Approaching Picacho Pass, between the Pima villages and Tucson, Union Lieutenant
James Barrett discovered Confederate Captain Hunter had set up an outpost there. Barrett’s
patrol and another led by Lieutenant E.C. Baldwin rode on the outpost by different routes. Barrett
was the first to arrive and was met by Confederate fire. In the skirmish, Barrett and two of his
men were killed and three were wounded. The Confederates had one man killed, four wounded,
and three taken prisoner.270 Upon arriving at Picacho Pass, Captain Calloway decided his force
265
266
Boyd Finch, “Sherod Hunter and the Confederates in Arizona,” The Journal of Arizona History 10
(Autumn 1969): 140. Hunter’s name is also spelled Sherrod.
267
Finch, “Sherod Hunter and the Confederates in Arizona,” p. 169.
268
269
270
Finch, “Sherod Hunter and the Confederates in Arizona,” p. 183-185; Richard H. Orton, Records of
California Men in the War of the Rebellion, 1861-1867 (Sacramento: State Office, 1890), p. 47.
Appendix C
was too short of supplies to march on Tucson and withdrew to the Pima villages. Confronted by
the federal troops, Hunter retreated for Mesilla on May 4, 1862, and the Union forces occupied
Tucson without a fight.271
The remainder of the California Column’s campaign was spent in occupation duty in the
areas vacated by the Texas secessionists and in the frontier settlements of Arizona, New Mexico,
Nevada and west Texas. Most of their efforts were directed toward reestablishing the Union
posts abandoned at the outbreak of the Civil War and controlling the Indians, especially the fierce
Apaches. During these years, Fort Yuma remained a principal supply depot for military
operations in the Southwest. Receiving supplies by river steamboat, the Quartermaster Depot
became a hub of activity during and after the Civil War. First used about 1862, the depot burned
in 1867 and was immediately rebuilt.272
In 1873, work was commenced on a military telegraph line from San Diego to the Arizona
outposts. Construction was begun from several locations, and from Fort Yuma soldiers worked
both eastward and westward, erecting poles and stringing iron wire toward San Diego and
Maricopa Wells, near present-day Phoenix. Within a year work was largely completed and San
Diego was linked by wire to Fort Yuma and Tucson.273
Fort Yuma and the Quartermaster Depot remained important installations during the
Indian campaigns of the 1870s, but with the completion of two continental railroads across
Arizona by 1883,274 their usefulness was greatly diminished. In 1883, the Quartermaster Depot
was closed, and its equipment was transferred to Fort Lowell, near Tucson.275 During the early
1880s, Fort Yuma was garrisoned by small units, and on May 17, 1883, a news item in the San
Diego Union reported the fort’s closing.
A sergeant and nine men of Company A, 8th Infantry, who have been stationed at
Fort Yuma for the past year, arrived last evening. . . . Fort Yuma has been abandoned as
a military post, and all government property there which had not been sent to other posts,
was sold at auction last Saturday.276
271
272
The depot site was apparently first used in about 1862 for unloading and storing supplies. The
Quartermaster Depot was established in 1864 by Major William B. Hooper. After it burned in 1867, it was
rebuilt by Captain W. H. Hughes. American Sentinel 13 October 1877 (Yuma, Arizona Territory).
273
274
The Southern Pacific Railroad was completed between San Diego and Fort Yuma in 1877 and between
Fort Yuma and New Orleans in 1883. The Atlantic and Pacific Railroad (now the Atchison, Topeka &
Santa Fe) was completed across Arizona in 1883.
275
276
Quoted in Wharfield, Fort Yuma, p. 176.
Appendix C
The Fort Yuma Military Reservation was transferred to the Department of the Interior on
July 6, 1883,277 and the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation was established on January 9, 1884. The
rocky bluff opposite the mouth of the Gila River was once again in the possession of the
Quechans.
Few military posts served as an important a role in the development and settlement of the
West as did Fort Yuma. Today, many of the original adobe buildings remain at Fort Yuma and
the Quartermaster Depot as reminders of the days when Fighting Tom Sweeny and the Rose of
the Colorado watched the steamboats and ferries arriving at the landing below the fort. They
could not have possibly imagined that during the next century the shadow of a massive highway
bridge, capable of carrying horseless wagons across the river, would fall on the very spot where
the steamboats were then moored.
The military presence at the Crossing proved to be the stabilizing force needed for the
establishment of a civilian community there.
THE TOWNSPEOPLE AND CONVICTS: BUILDING A CITY
In 1854, Charles Debrille Poston arrived at the confluence of the Colorado and Gila
Rivers. There he and cartographer Herman V. Ehrenberg surveyed a proposed townsite, which
they named Colorado City. Twenty proprietors and three trustees laid claim to 936 acres, and a
joint stock company was established to locate towns and trading posts along the Colorado
River.278
Poston was a frontiersman and entrepreneur who tried one scheme after another,
unsuccessfully, to get rich. And he was a lover of the tall tale. The account of his activities at the
Yuma Crossing is one of his better-known stories, which has been passed on as fact. The story
first appeared in print in 1870 in a highly popular travel narrative, Across America and Asia by
Rafael Pumpelly, in which the author described a journey through New Mexico and Arizona with
Poston in 1861.
Soon after the purchase of Arizona, [wrote Pompelly], my friend had organized a
party and explored the new region. Wishing to raise capital in California to work a
valuable mine, he was returning thither with his party, when they reached the Colorado
river at this point. The ferry belonged to a German, whose fare for the party would have
amounted to about $25. Having no money, they encamped near the ferry to hold a
council over this unexpected turn of affairs, when my friend, with the ready wit of an
explorer, hit upon the expedient of paying the ferriage in city lots. Setting the engineer of
the party . . . at work with the instruments, . . . they soon had the city laid out in squares
and streets, and represented in due form on an elaborate map, not forgetting water lots,
and a steam ferry. Attracted by the unusual preceeding, the owner of the ferry crossed
the river, and began to interrogate the busy surveyors, by whom he was referred to my
277
Bertha P. Dutton, American Indians of the Southwest (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press,
1983), p. 174.
278
Diane M.T. Rose, “The Maps, Plans and Sketches of Herman Ehrenberg,” paper prepared for the 7th
International Conference on the History of Cartography, Washington, D.C., August 7-11, 1977, p.4.
Appendix C
friend. On learning from that gentleman that a city was being founded so near to his own
land, the German became interested and as the great future of the place was unfolded in
glowing terms, and the necessity of a steam ferry for the increasing trade dwelt upon, he
became enthusiastic and began negotiations for several lots. The result was the sale of
a small part of the embryo city, and the transportation of the whole party over in part
payment for one lot.279
Perhaps when Poston told Pumpelly this imaginative account of the founding of Colorado
City, he never realized that one day the tale would be published and accepted by many as fact.
In reality, a San Francisco business syndicate had sent Poston and Ehrenberg to acquire
the land that would most likely become the western terminus of a proposed transcontinental
railroad, the Texas Western Railroad.280 The syndicate hoped to sell this land to the railroad
company at an inflated price. Poston and the other speculators believed that the railroad line
would terminate at a seaport, so that freight and passengers could be transferred to ocean
vessels for passage along the California coast or overseas. Moreover, at that time, Poston was
under the erroneous impression that the United States intended to purchase much of what is now
northern Mexico as part of the Gadsden Treaty,281 then in negotiation. Since he also reasoned
that the Texas Western Railroad would want to terminate the line as close to Texas as possible,
he decided that the most likely location for the necessary seaport was on the coast of the Gulf of
California. For almost six months, Poston explored the Gulf Coast, but due to a series of mishaps
and a major miscalculation—the United States did not purchase any of Mexico bordering the Gulf
Coast—Poston failed in his mission.
Meanwhile, surveyor Andrew Gray had been exploring in the Southwest for the Texas
Western to determine a suitable route.282 Poston decided to catch up with Gray to learn what
decision he had made regarding the western terminus. Hearing that the surveyor had completed
his work and was on his way to Fort Yuma, Poston, Ehrenberg, and three others hastened to the
Yuma Crossing.
Poston arrived at Fort Yuma on July 11, 1854, and found Gray had already departed. He
then concluded that the railroad builders would probably end their line at San Diego, the
southern-most U.S. seaport. Unfortunately for Poston, since San Diego was already owned by
Americans, large profits from a speculative land transaction seemed unlikely. Never one for
defeat, Poston reasoned that the Yuma Crossing was the only location in the vicinity for the
279
Pumpelly’s Arizona: An Excerpt from Across America and Asia by Raphael Pumpelly, Comprising those
Chapters which Concern the Southwest, ed. Andrew Wallace (Tucson: Palo Verde Press, 1965), pp. 107108.
280
David F. Myrick, The Roads of Southern Arizona Vol. 1, Railroads of Arizona (Berkeley, Calif.:
Howell-North Books, 1975), p. 22 (hereafter cited as Myrick, Southern Arizona Railroads).
281
The Gadsden Treaty was signed on December 30, 1853, and was in effect on June 30, 1854.
282
The A.B. Gray Report: Survey of a Route on the 32nd Parallel for the Texas Western Railroad, 1854, and
including the reminiscences of Peter J. Brady who accompanied the expedition, ed. L.R. Bailey (Los
Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1963), p. xiv.
Appendix C
railroad to cross the Colorado en route to San Diego. As a result, he and Ehrenberg went to work
surveying a new townsite, which they named Colorado City. This town was to become Arizona
City, and later Yuma.283 Ironically, the Texas Western rails never were extended across Arizona
to the Pacific Coast, due to lack of funds. Poston remained a major participant in the affairs of
New Mexico Territory, and when Arizona Territory was created, he was elected territorial delegate
to Congress.
A month after the townsite was mapped, in August 1854, Julius Froebel, on his travels
through northern Mexico and the West, noted:
A town, Colorado City, is rising opposite to the fort,
some houses being built
and others in the course of erection. It cannot fail to become of considerable importance;
for it must be the emporium of all the trade of the Gila and Colorado basins, including
also the neighboring oases of Sonora, and eventually of the great Salt Lake district, or at
least of part of it.284
Few visitors to the fledgling town at the Yuma Crossing were so impressed, however.
Sylvester Mowry, stationed at Fort Yuma, complained in a letter, “Yuma is a hell of a place. More
than two hundred miles from anywhere . . . –hotter than hell—and not a sign of anything for
amusement.”285 In 1872, an eastern newspaper, the Review, opined:
Arizona City is built of mud and inhabited by Mexicans, naked Indians, and
Americans. This is the hottest place in the world; so hot in the summertime that wings
melt off mosquitos, and flies die in the excessive heat of the scorching sun. . . . the
Americans stand in the Colorado River half the day and keep drunk the rest of the time to
avoid death from melting.286
Indeed, the heat was often the subject of jocularity. J. Ross Browne penned the oftrepeated legend: “It is said that a wicked soldier died here, and was consigned to the fiery regions
below for his manifold sins; but unable to stand the rigors of the climate, sent back for his
blankets.”287 And Sarah Bowman,288 popularly known as the “Great Western,” described Yuma
as “a thin tissue paper of sand over the fires of hell.”289
283
Will C. Barnes, Arizona Place Names, revised by Byrd H. Granger (Tucson: University of Arizona
Press, 1960), p. 390.
284
Julius Froebel, Seven Years’ Travel in Central America, Northern Mexico, and the Far West of the
United States (London: Richard Bentley, 1859), pp. 527-528.
285
Sylvester Mowry, Letter to Ned Brinknall, October 29, 1855, p. 1, Edward S. Wallace File, Arizona
Historical Society, Tucson (hereafter cited as Wallace File).
286
Quoted in Frank Love, From Brothel to Boom Town: Yuma’s Naughty Past (Colorado Springs, Colo:
Little London Press, 1981), pp. 46-47 (hereafter cited as Love, Yuma’s Naughty Past).
287
J. Ross Browne, Adventures in the Apache Country: A tour through Arizona and Sonora, 1864, ed.
Donald M. Powell (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1974), p. 56.
288
Sarah Bowman, six feet tall with fire-red hair, was named the Great Western after the second steamer to
cross the Atlantic from England to New York City. The ship was the largest steamer then afloat—a 750
Appendix C
The Great Western was a colorful figure who is generally credited with being Yuma’s first
citizen. She traveled with her soldier husband, a Mr. Bourdett, to Mexico during the Mexican
War. Although she and her husband apparently parted ways, she continued to follow the army
across northern Mexico, finding employment as a laundress, cook, nurse, cartridgemaker, and
prostitute. Respected for her kind heart and her courage—she was known to nurse and cook for
the soldiers in the heat of battle—she was breveted a colonel for services rendered in the
Mexican War and was granted an army pension.
When the army reached El Paso after the war, the town was full of Forty-Niners rushing
to the California gold fields. Seizing the opportunity, the Great Western left the army and opened
a bar and brothel. By 1853, the influx of emigrants had waned, so she left El Paso for Fort Yuma.
Across the river from the fort, she and her new husband, Albert Bowman, built an adobe building
that served as a home, bar, and bordello. This was the first building in what was to become
Yuma.290
Sylvester Mowry wrote to a friend about Bowman:
The “Great Western” you remember don’t you, as the woman who distinguished
herself so much at the Fort Brown bombardment. . . . She has been with the Army twenty
years and was brought up here where she keeps the officers’ mess. Among her other
good qualities she is an admirable “pimp.” She used to be a splendid looking woman and
has done “good service”—but is too old for that now.291
About 1856, Sarah Bowman sold her house to George Hooper, who operated a store,
and followed the First Regiment U.S. Dragoons, to Fort Buchanan in southeastern Arizona. She
returned to the Yuma Crossing following the outbreak of the Civil War, when the troops at Fort
Buchanan were ordered to Fort Fillmore on the Rio Grande. When she died in 1866, she was
given a military funeral and buried in the post cemetery292 at Fort Yuma.
In 1857, a post office was established as Colorado City and the following year the name
of the town was changed to Arizona City.293 That year, Lieutenant Joseph Christmas Ives,
horse-power side-wheeler, 236 feet in length, which was 58 feet longer than her rival steamship, the Sirius.
Sarah Bowman was known at various times as Bourdett or Bowman-Phillips, and Samuel Chamberlain
refers to her in his memoirs, My Confession, as Sarah Borginnis. Frank Love, From Brothel to Boom
Town: Yuma’s Naughty Past (Colorado Springs: Little London Press, 1981) pp. 5-9; “The Great Western:
An Amazon Who Made History,” The Branding Iron, No. 34, Los Angeles Corral, June 1956, pp. 4-8;
Sarah Bowman Biographical File, Arizona Historical Society, Tucson.
289
Quoted in Clifford E. Trafzer, Yuma: A Short History of a Southwestern Crossing (Yuma: Yuma
County Historical Society, p. 1974), p. 29.
290
Love, Yuma’s Naughty Past, p. 7.
291
Wallace File, p. 2.
292
In 1890, after Fort Yuma was abandoned as a military base, her remains were disinterred along with
those of the soldiers buried there and reburied at the Presidio in San Francisco.
293
Barnes, Arizona Place Names, p. 390.
Appendix C
exploring up the Colorado River, described the town as “but a few straggling buildings, the
principal of which are a store, blacksmith’s shop, and tavern.”294 The 1860 census listed 85
residents of Arizona City (additionally, 131 persons had made their home in Jaegerville across
the river). These pioneers included steamboat men, Captain George Alonzo Johnson, Captain
Isaac Polhamus Jr., and David Neahr, and store proprietor George Hooper.
Then in 1862, the Gila River overflowed its banks. As the Daily Alta California, of San
Francisco, reported:
The Gila River has not, within the past thirty years, been so swollen as it was by
the late storm . . . [It] rose to such an unprecedented state, that its waters flowed over
and through the site of Colorado City [sic], washing away or destroying nearly all the
houses of that place.295
The town was soon rebuilt, but the following year the post office was discontinued
because of Civil War events. When the post office was reestablished in 1866, post office
regulations required a new name, and Yuma was chosen.296
The little town continued to grow steadily, despite periodic flooding.297 By 1870, it had
become the territory’s second largest city with 1,144 residents. The Yuma Crossing’s role as an
important transportation corridor helped the town to flourish. Cattlemen and sheep herders
ferried their animals across the river, travelers stopped en route between California and Tucson,
and steamboats plied the river, bringing supplies to the Quartermaster Depot to be distributed
throughout the territory. By 1876, according to the San Diego Union, the town contained:
11 saloons (2 gambling), 9 general stores, 1 drug store, 1 barber shop, 2 harness
shops, 1 tin ship, 1 machine shop . . . 3 blacksmith and wagon shops, 1 livery stable, 2
hotels, the “Railroad” and 1 newspaper (the Arizona Sentinel, weekly), 4 lawyers, 2
doctors, 2 notaries, [and] 1 District Judge. . . .298
Soon, the focal point of the community became the Arizona Territorial Prison. In 1868,
the Fifth Legislative Assembly decided to establish a prison, to be located in Phoenix.299 In a
294
U.S. Army Corps of Topographical Engineers, Report upon the Colorado River of the West, Explored in
1857 and 1858 by Lieutenant Joseph C. Ives, 36th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Ex. Doc. [no number]
(Washington: G.P.O., 1861), p. 43.
295
Daily Alta California, February 17, 1862, 1:1-2. The newspaper article erroneously refers to Colorado
City since the name had been changed in 1858 to Arizona City.
296
In 1869, the town was again named Arizona City, was incorporated under the name in 1871, and
retained the name until April 14, 1873, when it became Yuma by legislative action. Barnes, Arizona Place
Names, p. 390.
297
The Gila River again flooded in 1884, 1891, and 1916.
298
San Diego Union, November 16, 1876, 4:2.
299
Acts, Resolutions and Memorials Adopted by the Fifth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona
(Tucson: Tucson Publishing Company, 1869), p. 19.
Appendix C
major oversight, however, no appropriation was made to actually build the prison. Then in 1875,
Granville H. Oury of Phoenix introduced a bill authorizing a bond issue of $25,000 for construction
of the prison. Unbeknownst to the Eighth Territorial Legislature, however, Yuma legislators José
Maria Redondo and R.B. Kelley substituted “Yuma” for “Phoenix” as the location of the prison to
be constructed. When the bill passed, Yuma became the site of one of the territory’s first major
construction projects. Governor Safford appointed prominent Yuma citizens David Neahr, José
Maria Redondo, and Captain Isaac Polhamus Jr. as the first prison commissioners.300
Although the outmaneuvered Phoenicians may not have appreciated it, the 8.38-acre site
donated to the territory by the Town of Yuma was in many ways ideal. Located high atop a bluff
(across the river from Fort Yuma), the prison was surrounded by the forbidding desert in all
directions. This, along with the fast-flowing Colorado River which impeded escape to California,
hindered many a would-be escapee.
Bonds for construction were issued and quickly sold at 80 cents on the dollar to A. Luther
of San Francisco for a total of $21,265.25 in currency. Due to a fluctuation in the value of
currency, however, only about $19,000 in gold was received. A prize of $150.00 was offered for
the best prison design, which was won by Mr. A.L. Grove of Yuma.301
By February 1876, construction had begun under the direction of David Neahr, who had
training as an engineer, and L.A. Smith, the general contractor. On April 28, 1876, when the
cornerstone was laid, Mayor A.J. Finley officiated at a simple ceremony placing under the
cornerstone a copy of the Arizona Sentinel of April 15, 1876, and some U.S. silver coins. The
original prison buildings consisted of two stone cells and an adobe building containing prison
rooms, a kitchen, a dining hall for the guards, the superintendent’s quarters, and an office. This
complex was enclosed by a wooden stockade. The prison also included a water reservoir with a
pump, engine, and boiler, and a blacksmith shop. The prison, which was reportedly capable of
holding 30 prisoners, was built by the future inmates themselves, who were temporarily
incarcerated in the Yuma County Jail.302
On July 1, 1986, seven prisoners were removed from the county jail to the new territorial
prison. This first group of convicts included two murderers, one robber, and one forger; one was
convicted for larceny, one for perjury, and another for both crimes.
From the beginning, it was recognized that the prison was not sufficiently large to meet
the territory’s needs. As early as October 1876, just over three months after the prison opened,
the commissioners appealed to the governor for an additional appropriation of $20,000, so that
the prison could be expanded to serve the territory “for years to come.”303 Over the years,
300
Safford originally appointed William H. Hardy of Hardyville, not Captain Polhamus. However, Hardy
declined the appointment, and Polhamus was appointed in his place.
301
John Mason Jeffrey, Adobe and Iron: The Story of the Arizona Territorial Prison (La Jolla, California:
Prospect Avenue Press, 1969), p. 24 (hereafter cited as Jeffrey, Adobe and Iron).
302
Jeffrey, Adobe and Iron, p. 27.
303
David Neahr, and A.J. Finley, Report of the Construction Committee of the Territorial Prison
Commission, October 26, 1876.
Appendix C
additional cells were built, including special cells for women prisoners, maximum security
inmates, sick prisoners, and the insane. Eventually, sufficient cells were built to accommodate
400 inmates.
Additionally, a “dark cell” for solitary confinement was constructed. Nicknamed the
“Snake Den,” this dungeon was carved into the hill and consisted of a room about fifteen feet
square and twenty feet high, with only a small ventilation shaft for light and air. Inside the
dungeon was an iron cage in which incorrigibles were confined.304
Commanding the entire prison was the main guard station on top of the reservoir. On the
floor of this station was a Lowell battery,305, a highly maneuverable version of the Gatling gun,
which could be readily aimed at any part of the prison. Additionally, the original wooden stockade
was replaced by a high adobe wall with a stone foundation. The top of the wall was paved as a
walkway for the patrolling guards.
But a prison must offer more than confinement if the prisoners are to be returned to
society, as most were. To further this end, shops were built so that convicts could be employed
and acquire skills. These included, in addition to the blacksmith shop, a carpenter’s work shop, a
tailoring shop, a shoe shop, and a bakery.306 The products of these workshops were often sold to
buyers outside the prison, with the revenues helping to offset prison costs. For example, in 1896,
the prison supplied the Insane Asylum in Phoenix with 194 pairs of pants and 74 pairs of shoes.
Additionally, prisoners were employed in making adobe bricks which were sold in Yuma, much to
the consternation of some of Yuma’s businessmen, who resented the competition. They quarried
granite for building foundations and erected the adobe prison buildings, covering them with
plaster and whitewash. They reconditioned city streets and highways, constructed buildings in
Yuma, and in 1892 rebuilt the town levee, which had been washed away in a devastating flood
the previous year.307
When not employed in manufacturing goods for the prison, many prisoners made items
to be sold at the public bazaars held in the prison on Sunday after church services. These
included inlaid boxes; canes made of ironwood, horn, leather, and onyx; onyx-topped tables; and
lace. With the money they earned, prisoners could make weekly purchases of fruits, canned
goods, and smoking materials from stores in Yuma.308
304
305
306
Additional prison facilities constructed over the years included a bath house, a laundry, an enlarged
kitchen and dining room for the inmates, a store house, a barber shop, a hospital, a new engine room, and
an electric light plant.
307
Jeffrey, Adobe and Iron, pp. 107, 109.
308
Two-thirds of the profits could be retained for the prisoners’ personal use; the remainder went into the
prison fund.
Appendix C
For the enjoyment and edification of the prisoners, a library was started in 1877.309 By
the turn of the century, this long room which also served as a chapel and later as a school,
contained 1,934 bound books and 1,390 magazines. The magazines included those most
popular at that time, such as Harpers, Cosmopolitan, Scribner’s, Leslie’s Illustrated, Collier’s, and
Scientific American (including a Spanish edition). The library was maintained by a 25-cent fee
charged to prison visitors.
Beginning in 1900, a prison school was held in the library. By 1902, it was reported that
sixty-nine inmates were enrolled in classes, including Spanish, German, English (the most
popular class), arithmetic, music, grammar, penmanship, spelling, and composition. In addition to
participating in such diversions as afforded by the library and the school, prisoners played cards
and other games, and some participated in the prison band.
Dubbing the prison the “Country Club of the Colorado,” many members of the public, who
believed a prison should be more strict, sharply criticized the operation of the penitentiary. The
Arizona Sentinel editorialized, “It is well-known here that the prison on the hill is more a place of
recreation and amusement than servitude.” Any day of the week, one could find prisoners lying in
the shade “singing and sky-larking, reading the latest newspapers and periodicals of the day;
joking and conversing with each other and all in all having a grand old time. . .”310 Similarly, a
Phoenix weekly, the Arizona Graphic, intoned:
Fortunate is the offender against the law who commits his offense in Arizona and
receives his punishment in the Territorial prison in Yuma. It is possible that there is a
more humane penal institution in the world, but it is highly improbable. From the
prisoners’ standpoint there is no better prison than Yuma. It is a refined spirit and dainty
stomach that would receive any genuine punishment by confinement there . . .311
During the prison’s thirty-three years of operation, 3,069 prisoners, some of whom were
repeaters, lived within the confines of its adobe walls. The prisoners had been miners, farmers,
cooks, carpenters, teamsters, cowboys, blacksmiths, barbers, and clerks. There were also
bakers, butchers, painters, printers, shoemakers, and sailors. The largest numbers were
classified as “laborer” or “Indian without occupation.” Most were convicted for grand larceny,
burglary, assault, manslaughter, murder, selling liquor to Indians, and forgery. A few were
incarcerated for such offenses as adultery, polygamy, and “mayhem.”
One inmate, “Three-Fingered Jack” Laustenneau,312 a Romanian labor agitator, was
convicted for leading a miners’ strike at Morenci in June 1903. Charged with inciting a riot, he
309
Paul G. Hubbard, “Life in the Arizona Territorial Prison, 1876-1910,” Arizona and the West 1 (Winter
1959), p. 328.
310
Arizona Sentinel, June 6, 1896, 2:1.
311
Arizona Graphic, January 27, 1900, 1:1.
312
Appendix C
had organized 1,600 strikers, persuading them that his efforts had the support of both President
Theodore Roosevelt of the United States and President Porfirio Díaz of Mexico. Unfortunately for
Laustenneau, the beginning of the strike was postponed by rain, which gave mining officials time
to call in the Arizona National Guard.
Only 31 women served time in the Yuma Territorial Prison. The most notorious of these
was Pearl Hart. Her first and only crime on record was the amateurish holdup of the Globe stage,
with her companion, Joe Boot. On May 30, 1899, dressed in men’s clothing, Hart searched and
robbed the passengers of $400, a gold watch, and two pistols while Boot held a gun on the
victims. After robbing the passengers, the bandits returned $1 to each so that they would not be
left penniless. After her arrest, Hart made the most of her publicity as a lady stage robber.
Reporters knew a good story when they saw one and attributed to her, wholly imaginary rail and
stage robberies. With high hopes of a future as an actress, she posed before photographers with
pistols aimed at imaginary victims. After she was released from prison, Hart realized her dream,
joining the Orpheum Vaudeville circuit as a novelty act—a lady outlaw.313
As early as 1897, a movement began to relocate the prison, because there was little
room left on Prison Hill for expansion. Bills introduced in 1897 and 1903 to move the prison to
Prescott and Benson, respectively, were defeated. Then in 1907, a bill to move the penitentiary
to Florence was passed. When, on September 15, 1909, the last prisoner was transferred to
Florence, a memorable chapter in the history of the Yuma Crossing ended.314
That year, another chapter in the epic of Yuma was begun. On March 27, 1909, Laguna
Dam, thirteen miles upriver from Yuma, was completed. This was the first phase of the Yuma
Project, the second major irrigation project in the United States constructed under the
Reclamation Act of 1902.315 Laguna Dam was designed to control the flood waters of the
Colorado, and especially, to irrigate the fertile valley lands of the Colorado and Gila rivers. When
the dam was completed, a great celebration was held. Throngs of people lined both sides of
Main Street, watching floats pass through a great archway proclaiming “Yuma-Gateway of the
Great S. West” before continuing on down the boulevard graced with potted trees, palm fronds,
and flags. That night, an enormous barbecue was held, with 3,000 pounds of beef, 1,000 pounds
of beans (laced with 100 pounds of bacon), and 1,000 loaves of bread.316
313
Interestingly, Hart was released from prison before even her minimum sentence was served, after it was
discovered she was pregnant.
314
September 1909 was not the end of the history of the complex of adobe buildings on Prison Hill. In
1910, the Yuma Union High School burned while in the final stages of construction. In an emergency
measure, the school board decided to use the old prison buildings, and the first four graduating classes in
Yuma went to school there. To this day, the school’s athletic teams are called the Yuma Criminals, and the
honor society is called the Wardens.
315
The first major reclamation project was the Salt River Project, initiated by the construction of Roosevelt
Dam, in the vicinity of Phoenix.
316
Rosalie Crowe and Sidney B. Brinkerhoff, Early Yuma: A Graphic History of Life on the American Nile
(Flagstaff: Northland Press for the Yuma County Historical Society, 1976), p. 78.
Appendix C
Six years came and went before the irrigation project was finished. Finally, in 1912, the
Yuma Siphon was completed, bringing irrigation water to the parched, but fertile Yuma Valley.
The Yuma Siphon, located forty feet under the bed of the river, carries water from the California
side of Laguna Dam to an outlet on the Arizona side. A month before water was released into the
siphon, 200 curious citizens of Yuma were allowed to look inside the tunnel. The Arizona
Sentinel recorded the novel occasion:
For the first time in history human beings went from Yuma . . . to the California
side of the Colorado River
through a 900 foot tunnel forty feet beneath the river bed
...
Early in the day not much water was in evidence in the tunnel, but the continual
seepage of small leaks covered the floor of the tunnel as the day wore on, and at night
visitors had to wade and quite a few ladies were seen going home last evening holding
their dresses above their ankles . . .317
When the siphon was opened on June 28, 1912, crowds gathered to watch the beginning
of what was lauded as the “greatest achievement in the history of Arizona.”318 According to the
Arizona Sentinel for July 4, 1912:
. . . Miss Anna C. Egan, superintendent of the Fort Yuma Indian School, pressed
the button connecting the big motor at exactly 8:25 this morning and the great throng of
people who had assembled from all over the Southwest witnessed the water rushing
madly into the big Siphon for the first time.319
Thirty-five minutes later, the tunnel had filled with onrushing water, which was carried
through a series of irrigation canals to fields of cotton, alfalfa, lettuce, and melons. As the
cornucopia of Yuma’s rich lands prospered, like those along the Nile of Africa, the Yuma Crossing
had come of age.
The City of Yuma, now with a rapidly growing population of 42,433, is the seat of Yuma
County and the 7th largest city in Arizona.320 Although the river streamers and ferries have long
since disappeared, the historic Yuma Crossing, now spanned by an interstate highway bridge,
carried more than 6.5 million travelers in 1981.321
317
Arizona Sentinel, June 6, 1912, 2:3.
318
Arizona Sentinel, July 4, 1912, 2:3-4.
319
Arizona Sentinel, July 4, 1912, 2:3-4.
320
The census information is from Department of Economic Security newsletter regarding the 1980 Census
of Population and Housing, at the Phoenix Public Library.
321
The formula used was based on a daily vehicle count of 6,110 (furnished by Arizona Department of
Transportation through Arizona State Parks) x 3 persons per car x 365 days per year = number of visitors of
1981.
Appendix C
Bibliography
Aldrich, Lorenzo D. A Journal of the Overland Route to California & the Gold Mines.
Ed., Glen Dawson. Los Angeles: Dawson’s Book Shop, 1950.
Altshuler, Constance Wynn. “The Southern Pacific Caper.” Journal of Arizona History
21 (Spring 1980): 1-10.
_____. Starting with Defiance: Nineteenth Century Arizona Military Posts. Tucson:
Arizona Historical Society, 1983.
Arizona Photographs: An Inventory of a Selection of Pictures of Arizona Housed in the
Southwest Museum. State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Audubon, John W. Audubon’s Western Journal: 1849-1850. Ed., Frank Heywood
Hodder. Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark Co., 1906.
Bancroft, Hubert Howe. History of Arizona and New Mexico, 1530-1888. San Francisco:
The History Co., Publishers, 1889; reprint ed., Albuquerque: Horn & Wallace, Publishers, 1962.
Barnes, Will C. Arizona Place Names. Revised by Byrd H. Granger. Tucson: University
of Arizona Press, 1960.
Barney, James. “The Story of the Lincoln Ferry at Yuma Crossing on the Colorado
River.” Sheriff Magazine 10 (June 1951): 27-35.
_____. Biographical File. Arizona Historical Society Library, Tucson, Arizona.
_____. Hayden File. Arizona Historical Society Library, Tucson, Arizona.
_____. Manuscript Collection. Arizona Historical Society Library, Tucson, Arizona.
Bartlett, John Russell. Personal Narrative of Exploration and Incidents in Texas, New
Mexico, California, Sonora, and Chihuahua, Connected with the United States and Mexican
Boundary Commission, During the Years 1850, ’51, ’52, and ’53. 2 vols. New York: D. Appleton
& Co., 1854.
Beale, Edward Fitzgerald. Wagon Road from Fort Defiance to the Colorado River. 35th
Congress, 1st Session, Ex. Doc. 124, N.P., 1858.
Beattie, George William. Ed. “Diary of a Ferryman and Trader at Fort Yuma, 1855- 1857.”
Historical Society of Southern California Annual Publications 14 (1928-1929): 89-128, 213-242.
Appendix C
Bee, Robert L. Crosscurrents along the Colorado: The Impact of Government Policy on
the Quechan Indians. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1981.
Belknap, Augustus. Hayden File. Arizona Historical Society Library, Tucson, Arizona.
Bell, James G. “A Log of the Texas-California Cattle Trail, 1854.” Southwestern
Historical Quarterly 35 (July 1931-April 1932), 208-307.
Bender, A.B. “Government Explorations in the Territory of New Mexico, 1846-1859.”
New Mexico Historical Review 9 (January 1934), 1-32.
Berton, Francis. A Voyage on the Colorado, 1878. Ed., Charles N. Rudkin. Los
Angeles: Glen Dawson, 1953.
Bieber, Ralph P., ed. Exploring Southwestern Trails. Glendale, CA: Arthur H. Clark Co.,
1938.
_____. Southern Trails to California in 1849. Glendale, CA: Arthur H. Clark Co., 1937.
“Biennial Report of the Territorial Prison to the Governor of the Territory of Arizona.”
1893-4, 1895-6, 1899-1900. Arizona Department of Library, Archives, and Public Records,
Phoenix.
Bigler, Henry W. “Extracts from the Journal of Henry W. Bigler.” Utah Historical
Quarterly 5 (April, July, October 1932): 35-64, 87-112, 134-160.
Billings, John Shaw. A Report on Barracks and Hospitals with Descriptions of Military
Posts. N.p., 1870.
Biven, Rasey. Hayden File. Arizona Historical Society Library, Tucson, Arizona.
Bliss, Robert S. “The Journal of Robert S. Bliss, with the Mormon Battalion.” Utah
Historical Quarterly 4 (July, October 1931): 67-96, 110-128.
Bolton, Herbert Eugene. Anza’s California Expeditions, 5 vols. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1930.
_____. Coronado, Knight of Pueblos and Plains. New York: Whittlesey House, 1949;
reprint edition, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1964.
_____. The Padre on Horseback: A Sketch of Eusebio Francisco Kino, Pacific Coast
Pioneer. New York: Macmillan, 1936.
Appendix C
_____. Rim of Christendon: A Biography of Eusebio Francisco Kino, Pacific Coast
Pioneer. Macmillan, 1936.
_____. Spanish Exploration in the Southwest, 1542-1706. New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1916.
Bowman, Sarah. Biographical File. Arizona Historical Society, Tucson, Arizona.
Boyle, Henry G. Hayden File. Arizona Historical Society, Tucson, Arizona.
Brewerton, George Douglas. Overland with Kit Carson. New York: Coward-McCann,
1930.
Brodhead, Michael J. A Soldier-Scientist in the American Southwest: Being a Narrative
Of the Travels of Elliott Coues, Assistant Surgeon, U.S.A., with his Observations Upon Natural
History . . .Tucson: Arizona Historical Society, 1973.
Brown, Charles O. Hayden File. Arizona Historical Society Library, Tucson, Arizona.
Browne, J. Ross. Adventures in the Apache Country: A Tour through Arizona and
Sonora, 1864. Ed., Donald M. Powell. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1974.
Bryant, Edwin. What I Saw in California. Introd., Richard H. Dillon. Palo Alto: Lewis
Osborne, 1967.
Burrus, Ernest J. Kino and the Cartography of Northwestern New Spain. Tucson:
Arizona Pioneers’ Historical Society, 1965.
_____. Kino and Manje, Explorers of Sonora and Arizona, Their Vision of the Future.
Rome: Jesuit Historical Institute, 1971.
Cabeza de Vaca. Cabeza de Vaca’s Adventures in the Unknown Interior of America.
Trans., Cyclone Covey. New York: Crowell-Collier Publishing Co., 1961.
Canyon Graphics and Graffiti. Utah Museum of Natural History, University of Utah.
Cargill, Andrew Hayes. “Charley Brown’s Story of the Glanton Massacre.” Arizona
Department of Library, Archives, and Public Records, Phoenix.
Carr, Elmer J. Ed. “Honorable Remembrance: The San Diego Master List of the Mormon
Battalion.” Mormon Battalion Visitors Center, San Diego, California, 1972-78.
Appendix C
Carson, Christopher. Kit Carson’s Autobiography. Ed., Milo Milton Quaife. Chicago: The
Lakeside Press, 1935.
Chamberlain, Samuel E. My Confession. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers,
1956.
_____. Chamberlain Papers. Museum of the United States Military Academy, West
Point, N.Y.
_____. “The Romantic Memoirs of a Soldier Artist,” Life 41-4 (July 23, 1956): 68-91;
“Victory at Buena Vista,” 41:5 (July 30): 52-70; “A Lost Love and New Adventure.” 41:6 (Aug 6):
64-86.
Chamberlin, William H. “From Lewisburg (Pa.) to California in 1849: Notes from the
diary of William H. Chamberlin.” Ed., Lansing B. Bloom. New Mexico Historical Review 20
(1945): 14-357.
“Coming of the Kearney Expedition, Establishing U.S. Authority.” Arizona Historical
Review 1 (April. 1928): 33-49.
Conklin, E. Picturesque Arizona. New York: Mining Record Printing Establishment,
1878.
Cooke, Philip St. George. Conquest of New Mexico and California: An Historical and
Personal Narrative. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1878; reprint ed., Albuquerque: Horn and
Wallace, 1965.
_____. Report from the Secretary of War, Communicating, in Compliance with a
Resolution of the Senate, of the 21st February, 1849, a copy of the Official Journal
Of
Lieutenant Colonel Philip St. George Cooke, from Santa Fe to San Diego, Etc. 30th Congress,
Special Session, 1849. Senate Ex. Doc 2. Washington: Union Office, 1849.
_____. “Report of Lieut. Col. P. St. George Cooke of his March from Santa Fe, New
Mexico, to San Diego, upper California.” Notes of Military Reconnaissance, From Fort
Leavenworth, in Missouri, to San Diego in California, Including Part
of the Arkansas, Del
th
st
Norte, and Gila Rivers. 30 Congress, 1 Session. House Ex. Doc. 41. Washington: Wendell
and Van Benthuysen, 1848.
Copp, G.G. “The American Nile.” Harper’s Monthly Magazine, April 1906.
Appendix C
Corson, Joseph Kirby. Portion of a Reminiscent Diary (Written about 1910) as a Surgeon
In the U.S. Army while Stationed at . . . Yuma, A.T. between 1878 and 1882. Special Collections.
University of Arizona Library, Tucson, Arizona.
Counts, George. Journal of the Travel of George Counts to California in 1849. George
Counts Biographical File. Arizona Historical Society, Tucson, Arizona.
Couts, Cave Johnson. Diary of Lt. Cave J. Coutts [sic], 1st Dragoons, U.S. Cavalry, from
September 21, (or Sept. 1?) 1846 to November 30, 1849, beginning at Evansville, Arkansas and
Ending at the Junction of the Gila with the Colorado River. Copy of original, Arizona Department
of Library, Archives, and Public Records, Phoenix.
_____. From San Diego to the Colorado in 1849: The Journal and Maps of Cave J.
Couts. Ed., William McPherson. Los Angeles: Arthur M. Ellis, 1932.
_____. Hepah California! The Journal of Cave Johnson Couts from Monterey, Neuro
Leon, Mexico to Los Angeles, California during the Years 1849-1849. Ed., Henry F.
Dobyns. Tucson: Arizona Pioneers’ Historical Society, 1961.
Cox, Cornelius C. “From Texas to California in 1849: The Diary of C.C. Cox.” Ed.,
Mabelle Eppard Martin. Southwestern Historical Quarterly 29 (July 1925-April 1926): 36-223.
Coy, Owen Cochran. The Great Trek. Los Angeles: Powell Publishing Co., 1931.
Croix, Teodoro de. Teodoro de Croix and the Northern Frontier of New Spain, 1776 Ed.,
Alfred Barnaby Thomas. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1941.
Crowe, Rosalie and Sidney B. Brinckerhoff. Early Yuma: A Graphic History of Life on
The American Nile. Flagstaff: Northland Press, 1976.
Davis, Goode P., Jr. Man and Wildlife in Arizona: The American Exploration Period,
1824-1865. Scottsdale, Arizona: Arizona Game and Fish Dept. and Arizona Cooperative Wildlife
Research Unit, 1982.
Davis, John. Treasure, People, Ships, and Dreams. San Antonio: Texas Antiquities
Committee and Institute of Texan Cultures, 1977.
Dolley, Frank S. “Wife at Port Isabel, a Pioneer Woman’s Colorado River Letters.” The
Westerners Brand Book. Los Angeles Corral, 1957.
Dunne, Peter Masten. Juan Antonio Balthasar: Padre Visitador to the Sonora Frontier,
1774-1745, Two Original Reports. Tucson: Arizona Pioneers’ Historical Society, 1957.
Appendix C
Dutton, Bertha P. American Indians of the Southwest. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico Press, 1983.
Eccleston, Robert. Overland to California on the Southwestern Trail, 1849: Diary of
Robert Eccleston. Ed., George P. Hammond and Edward H. Howes. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1950.
Emory, William H. Calendar of Correspondence between Emory, and Cave Johnson
Couts. Arizona Collection, Hayden Library. Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
_____. Notes of a Military Reconnaissance from Fort Leavenworth, in Missouri, to San
Diego, in California, Including part of the Arkansas, Del Norte, and Gila Rivers. 30th Congress, 1st
Session, Ex. Doc. 41. Washington: Wendell and Van Benthuysen, 1848.
_____. Report on the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey, made under the
Direction of the Secretary of the Interior, by William H. Emory, Major First Cavalry, and United
States Commissioner. 34th Congress, 1st Session, U.S. House Of Representatives, Ex. Doc. 135.
Washington: Cornelius Wendell, 1857.
Evans, George W.B. Mexican Gold Trail: the Journal of a Forty-Niner. Ed., Glenn S.
Dumke. San Marino: The Huntington Library, 1945.
Fages, Pedro. The Colorado River Campaign, 1781-1782: Diary of Pedro Fages. Ed.,
Herbert Ingram Priestly. Berkeley: University of California, 1913.
Faulk, Odie B. Arizona, a Short History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1970.
_____. Destiny Road: The Gila Trail and the Opening of the Southwest. New York:
Oxford Press, 1973.
_____. Too Far North, Too Far South. Los Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1967.
Finch, Boyd. “Sherod Hunter and the Confederates in Arizona.” Journal of Arizona
History 10 (Autumn 1969): 137-206.
“The First Overland Trip to California.” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, 1862.
Flohrs Collection, Arizona Collection, Hayden Library. Arizona State University: Tempe,
Arizona.
Font, Pedro. The Anza Expedition of 1775-1776: Diary of Pedro Font. Ed., Frederick J.
Teggart. Berkeley: University of California, 1913.
Appendix C
Forbes, Jack D. Warriors on the Colorado: The Yumas of the Quechan Nation and Their
Neighbors. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1965.
Forde, C. Daryll. Ethnography of the Yuma Indians. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1931.
Foreman, Grant. Marcy & the Gold Seekers: the Journal of Captain R.B. Marcy, with an
Account of the gold Rush over the Southern Route. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press,
1939.
Froebel, Julius. Seven Years’ Travel in Central America, Northern Mexico, and the Far
West of the United States. London: Richard Bentley, 1859.
Garcés, Franciso. A Record of Travels in Arizona and California, 1775-1776. Ed., John
Galvin. San Francisco: John Howell-Books, 1967.
Garraty, John A. The American Nations: A History of the United States to 1877. 3rd
Edition. New York: Harper and Row, 1975.
Glanton, John. Hayden File. Arizona Historical Society Library, Tucson, Arizona.
Golder, Frank Alfred. The March of the Mormon Battalion from Council Bluffs to
California, Taken from the Journal of Henry Standage. New York: The Century Co., 1928.
Gracy, David B., II and Helen J.H. Rugeley. “From the Mississippi to the Pacific: An
Englishman in the Mormon Battalion.” Arizona and the West 7 (Summer 1965): 127-160.
Graham, J.D. Report of the Secretary of War, Communicating, in Compliance with a
Resolution of the Senate, the Report of Lieutenant Colonel Graham on the Subject of the
Boundary Line between the United States and Mexico. 32nd Congress, 1st Session, Senate Ex.
Doc. 121 Washington: n.p., 1853.
Gray, A.A., Francis P. Farquhar, and William S. Lewis. Camels in Western America.
San Francisco: California Historical Society, 1930.
Gray, Andrew Belcher. The A.B. Gray Report: Survey of a Route on the 32nd Parallel for
the Texas Western Railroad, 1854 and Including the Reminiscences of Peter R. Brady Who
Accompanied the Expedition. Ed., L.R. Bailey. Los Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1963.
_____. Manuscript Collection. Arizona Historical Society Library, Tucson, Arizona.
Appendix C
“The Great Western: An Amazon Who Made History.” The Branding Iron. 34 (June
1956): 5-8.
Green, Robert B. On the Arkansas Route to California in 1849: The Journal of Robert B.
Green of Lewisburg, Pennsylvaia. Ed., J. Orin Oliphant. Lewisburg, Penn- Sylvania: Bucknell
University Press, 1955.
Griffin, John S. A Doctor Comes to California: The Diary of John S. Griffin, Assistant
Surgeon with Kearny’s Dragoons, 1846-1847. Introd., George Walcott Ames., Jr. San Francisco:
California Historical Society, 1943.
Guinn, J.M. “Yuma Indian Depredations and the Glanton War.” Annual Publication of
The Historical Society of Southern California and of the Pioneers of Los Angeles County.
6 (1903): 50-62.
Hafen, LeRoy R., ed. The Mountain Men and the Fur Trade of the Far West. Glendale,
California: Arthur H. Clark Co., 1972.
Hafen, LeRoy R. and Ann W., eds. Fremont’s Fouth Expedition: A Document Account of
the Disaster of 1848-1849, with Diaries, Letter, and Reports by Participants in the Tragedy.
Glendale, California: Arthur H. Clark co., 1960.
Hammond, George P. and Agapito Rey. Don Juan de Oñate, Colonizer of New Mexico,
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1953.
_____. Narratives of the Coronado Expedition, 1540-1542. Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico Press, 1940.
Hargett, Janet Lee. “Louis John Frederick Jaeger: Entrepreneur at the Yuma Crossing.”
Masters thesis, University of Arizona, 1968.
Harris, Benjamin Butler. The Gila Trail: The Texas Argonauts and the California Gold
Rush. Ed., Richard H. Dillon. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1960.
Hawkins, Helen. “The First Two Wagon Roads and their Influence in Arizona.” Helen
Hawkins Biographical File. Arizona Historical Society, Tucson, Arizona.
Hayes, Judge Benjamin. Pioneer Notes from the Diaries of Judge Benjamin Hayes, Los
Angeles: Privately printed, 1929.
Heintzelman, Samuel P. [Report on Fort Yuma] in Reports on the Numbers, CharacterIstics, Localities, Etc., Etc., of the Indians in the Department of the Pacific. 34th Congress, 3rd
Session, U.S. House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. 76. Washington: n.p. 1867.
Appendix C
_____. Hayden File, Arizona Historical Society Library, Tucson, Arizona.
Hill, Joseph J. “Ewing Young in the Fur Trade of the Far Southwest, 1822-1834.”
Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society 26 (March 1923): 1-35.
_____. New Light on Pattie and the Southwestern Fur Trade.” Southwestern Historical
Quarterly 26 (April 1923): 243-254.
Hinton, Richard J. The Hand-Book to Arizona: Its Resources, History, Towns, Mines,
Ruins and Scenery. San Francisco: Payot, Upham & Co., 1878.
Holmes, Kenneth L. Ewing Young, Master Trapper. Portland, Oregon: Binfords & Mort,
1967.
Houston, Flora Belle. “The Mormon Battalion.” Historical Society of Southern California
Annual Publications 14 (1930): 339-354.
Hubbard, Paul G. “Life in the Arizona Territorial Prison, 1876-1910.” Arizona and the
West 1 (Winter 1959): 317-330.
Hughes, John T. Doniphan’s Expedition: Containing an Account of the Conquest of New
Mexico: General Kearney’s Overland Expedition to California: Doniphan’s Campaign Against the
Navajos: His Unparalleled March upon Chihuahua and Durango: and the Operations of General
Price at Santa Fe, with a Sketch of the Life of Col. Doniphan. Cincinnati: J.A. & U.P. James,
Publishers, 1950.
Hunt, Aurora. “Overland by Boat to California in 1849.” Historical Society of Southern
California Quarterly 31 (September 1949): 212-218.
Huntington, Daniel J.W. Huntington Papers. Arizona Historical Society Library, Tucson,
Arizona.
Ives, Joseph C. Report Upon the Colorado River of the West: Explored in 1857 and
1858 by Lieutenant Joseph C. Ives, Corps of Topographical Engineers, Under
the Direction of
the Office of Explorations and Surveys, A.A. Humphreys Captain Topographical Engineers, in
Charge. 36th Congress, 1st Session. Washington: G.P.O., 1861.
Ives, Ronald L. “Retracing the Route of the Fages Expedition of 1781.” Arizona and the
West 8 (Spring and Summer 1966): 49-70, 157-170.
Appendix C
International Boundary Commission. Report of the Boundary Commission upon the
Survey and Re-Marking of the Boundary between the United States and Mexico West of the Rio
Grande, 1891 to 1896. Washington: G.P.O., 1898.
Jackson, W. Turrentine. Wagon Roads West: A Study of Federal Road Surveys and
Construction in the Transmississippi West, 1846-1869. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952.
Jaeger, Louis John Frederick. Diary, 1849, Special Collections. University of Arizona
Library, Tucson, Arizona.
Jeffrey, John Mason. Adobe and Iron: The Story of the Arizona Territorial Prison at
Yuma. La Jolla: Prospect Avenue Press, 1969.
Johnson, Charles Granville. The Territory of Arizona. San Francisco: Vincent Ryan &
Co., 1869.
Johnson, George Alonzo. “The Steamer General Jesup.” Quarterly of the Society of
California Pioneers 9 (1932): 108-118.
_____. Johnson Papers. Arizona Historical Society Library, Tucson, Arizona.
Johnson, G. Wesley., Phoenix, Valley of the Sun. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Continental
Heritage Press, 1982.
Johnston, A.R. “Journal of Captain A.R. Johnston, First Dragoons.” Notes of a Military
Reconnaissance, from Fort Leavenworth, in Missouri, to San Diego, in California, Including part of
the Arkansas, Del Norte, and Gila Rivers. 30th Congress, 1st Session, House Ex. Doc. 41.
Washington: Wendell and Van Benthuysen, 1848.
Jones, Rebecca M. “Extracts from the Life Sketch of Nathaniel V. Jones.” Utah
Historical Quarterly 4 (January 1931): 3-24.
Josephy, Alvin M., Jr. The Indian Heritage of America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1973.
Kelley, Charles. “Antoine Lerous – Pathfinder.” Desert Magazine 8 (October 1945): 5-9.
Appendix C
Kendall, Charles P. “Engineer’s Nightmare: Bridging the Colorado at Yuma in 1915.”
Journal of Arizona History 19 (Autumn 1978): 283-296.
Kerckhoff, Mary Ben. The Old Customhouse (Quartermaster’s Residence at Yuma
Crossing). Yuma: Sun Printing Co., 1976.
Kino, Eusebio Francisco. Kino’s Historical Memoirs of Primeriá Alta: A Contemporary
Account of the Beginnings of California, Sonora, and Arizona, by Father Eusebio Francisco Kino,
S.J., Pioneer Missionary Explorer, Cartographer, and Ranchman, Ed., Herbert Eugene Bolton.
Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark Co., 1919.
Kroeber, Clifton B., ed., “The Route of James O’ Pattie on the Colorado in 1826, a ReAppraisal by A.L. Kroeber.” Arizona and the West 6 (Summer 1964): 119-136.
Lewis, Perley M. Movements of the Gila and the Colorado Rivers in the Yuma Area
During Historic Times: with Specific Attention to Certain Lands in Township 8 South, Range 23
West, Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona. Phoenix: n.p., 1961.
Lingenfelter, Richard E. Steamboats on the Colorado River, 1852-1916. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press, 1978.
Lippincott, J.B. “The Yuma Project.” Out West (June 1904): 508-18.
Lockwood, Frank C. “American Hunters and Trappers in Arizona.” Arizona Historical
Review 2 (July 1929): 70-85.
Love, Frank. From Brothel to Boom town: Yuma’s Naughty Past. Colorado Springs:
Little London Press, 1981.
_____. Mining Camps and Ghost Towns: A History of Mining in Arizona and California
Along the Lower Colorado. Los Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1974.
_____. “Poston and the Birth of Yuma: The Father of Arizona Invents a Story.” Journal
of Arizona History 19 (Winter 1978): 403-415.
Manje, Juan Mateo. Unknown Arizona and Sonora, 1693-1721, from the Francisco
Fernańdez del Castillo version of Luz De Tierra Incognita. Trans., Harry J. Karns. Tucson:
Arizona Silhouettes, 1954.
Martin, Douglas D. Yuma Crossing. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press,
1954.
Martin, Mabelle Eppard. “From Texas to California in 1849: Diary of C.C. Cox.”
Southwestern Historical Quarterly 29 (July 1925-January 1926): 36-50, 128-146, 201-223.
Appendix C
McGehee, James Stewart. Private Papers of James Stewart McGehee. Arizona
Department of Library, Archives and Public Records, Phoenix, Arizona. Mellon, John Alexander.
Hayden File. Arizona Historical Society Library, Tucson, Arizona.
Mills, Hazel Emery. “Father Jacobo Sedelmayr, S.J.: A Forgotten Chapter in Arizona
Missionary History.” Arizona Historical Review 7 (January 1936): 3-18.
Möllhausen, Baldwin. Diary of a Journey from the Mississippi to the Coasts of the Pacific
with a United States Government Expedition. 2 vols. London: Longman, Brown, Green,
Longman, and Roberts, 1858.
Murphy, Lawrence R. Lawrence R. Murphy Papers. Arizona Historical Society Library,
Tucson, Arizona.
Myrick, David F. Railroads of Arizona. 2 vols. Berkeley: Howell-North Books, 1975.
National Archives. “Letter from Edward F. Beale to John B. Floyd.” Records of the Office
of the Secretary of War, Selected Letters. Record Group 107.
_____. Account of Lt. Edward F. Beale’s Journey from San Diego to Washington. U.S.
Naval Register (1846). Naval Historical Center. Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.
Neahr, David and A.J. Finley. Report of the committee of the Territorial Prison. N.p.,
October 26, 1876.
Oaks, George Washington. Man of the West: Reminiscences of George Washington
Oaks, 1840-1917. Tucson: Arizona Pioneers’ Historical Society, 1956.
Ormsby, Waterman L. The Butterfield Overland Mail. Eds., Lyle H. Wright and
Josephine M. Bynum. San Marino: Huntington Library, 1942.
Orton, Richard H. Records of California Men in the War of the Rebellion, 1861-1867.
Sacramento: State Office, 1890.
Palmer, Edward. Original Manuscripts Dealing with Indians, Arizona Military Posts.
Special Collections, University of Arizona Library.
Palmer, Lyman L. History of Napa and Lake Counties of California. San Francisco:
Slocum, Bowen & Co., 1881.
Appendix C
Pancoast, Charles Edward. A Quaker Forty-Niner: The Adventures of Charles Edward
Pancoast of the American Fontier. Ed., Anna Paschall Hannum. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1930.
Parke, John C. Hayden File. Arizona Historical Society Library, Tucson, Arizona.
Pattie, James Ohio. The Personal Narrative of James O. Pattie, of Kentucky, During an
Expedition From St. Louis, Through the Vast Regions Between That Place and the Pacific Ocean,
and Thence Back Through the City of Mexico to Vera Cruz, During Journeyings of Six Years; In
Which He and His Father, Who Accompanied Him, Suffered Unheard of Hardships and Dangers,
Had Various Conflicts With the Indians, and Were Made Captives, In Which Captivity His Father
Died; Together With a Description of the Country, and the Various Nations Through Which They
Passed. Ed., Timothy Flint. Cincinnati: E. H. Flint, 1833.
_____. The Personal Narrative of James O. Pattie of Kentucky: During an expedition of
Kentucky: During an expedition from St. Louis, through the vast regions between that place and
the Pacific Ocean, and thence back through the City of Mexico to Vera Crus, during journeyings
of six years, etc. Edited by Timothy Flint (1833). Ed., Reuben Gold Thwaites. Cleveland: Arthur
H. Clark Co., 1905.
_____. The Personal Narrative of James O. Pattie of Kentucky. Ed., Milo Milton Quaife.
Chicago: The Lakeside Press, 1930.
Poston, Charles D. Charles Debrille Poston Papers, Arizona Historical Foundation.
Hayden Library, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
Pourade, Richard F. The Colorful Butterfield Overland Stage. Palm Desert, California:
Best-West Publications, 1966.
Powell, H.M.T. The Santa Fe Trail to California, 1849-1852, the Journal and Drawings of
H.M.T. Powell. Ed., Douglas S. Watson. San Francisco: Book Club of California, 1931.
Preuss, Charles. Exploring with Fremont. Ed., Erwin G. and Elisabeth K. Gudde.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1958.
Pumpelly, Raphael. My Reminiscences. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1918.
_____. Pumpelly’s Arizona, and Excerpt from Across America and Asia. Ed., Andrew
Wallace. Tucson: Palo Verde Press, 1965.
Quinn, Charles Russell. The Story of St. Thomas Indian Mission and the Forgotten
Colorado River Missions at the Historic Yuma Crossing. Downey, California: Elena Quinn, 1968.
Appendix C
Robert, Henry Martin. Henry Martin Robert Collection, Arizona Historical Foundation.
Hayden Library, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
Roberts, Virginia Culin. “Heroines on the Arizona Frontier: The First Anglo-American
Women.” Journal of Arizona History 23 (spring 1982): 11-34.
Robinson, R.E.L. “Yuma, Arizona.” The Californian. N.p., 1893.
Rose, Diane M.T. “The Maps, Plans and Sketches of Herman Ehrenberg.” 7th InterNational Conference on the History of Cartography. August 7-11, 1977, Washington, D.C.
Shelton, Charles E., comp. Photo Album of Yesterday’s Southwest. Palm Desert,
California: Desert Magazine, 1961.
Sitgreaves, L[orenzo]. Report of an Expedition down the Zuni and Colorado Rivers. 33rd
Congress, 1st Session, Senate Ex. Doc. 59. Washington, Beverley Tucker, Senate Printer, 1854.
Southern Pacific Company Historical Outline. Arizona Department of Library, Archives,
And Public Records, Phoenix, Arizona.
Spicer, Edward H. Cycles of Conquest: The Impact of Spain, Mexico, and the United
States on the Indians of the Southwest, 1533-1960. Tucson: University of Arizona Press,
1962.
Stephens, B.A. “A Biographical Sketch of L.J.F. Iaeger.” Historical Society of Southern
California Quarterly 1 (1888-1889): 36-40.
Stacey, May Humphreys. Uncle Sam’s Camels: The Journal of May Humphreys Stacey
Supplemented by the Report of Edward Fitzgerald Beale. Ed., Lewis Burt Lesley. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1929; reprint ed. Glorieta, New Mexico: The Rio Grande Press, Inc.,
1970.
Summerhayes, Martha. Vanished Arizona: Recollections of the Army Life of a New
England Woman. Salem, Massachusetts: Salem Press Company, 1911; reprint ed.
Glorieta, New Mexico: Rio Grande Press, Inc., 1970.
Sweeny, Thomas William. Journal of Lt. Thomas W. Sweeny, 1849-1853. Ed., Arthur
Woodward. Los Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1956.
Sykes, Glenton. Glenton Sykes Papers. Arizona Historical Society Library, Tucson,
Arizona.
Appendix C
Sykes, Godfrey. The Colorado Delta. Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1970.
Thomas, George Henry. Biographical File. Arizona Historical Society Library, Tucson,
Arizona.
_____. George Henry Thomas Papers. Arizona Historical Society Library, Tucson,
Arizona.
Trafzer, Cliff. Anza, Garcés, and the Yuma Frontier During the Era of the American
Revolution. Yuma: Yuma County Historical Society, 1974.
_____. Yuma: A Short History of a Southwestern Crossing. Yuma: Yuma County
Historical Society, 1974.
Turner, Henry Smith. The Original Journals of Henry Smith turner, with Stephen Watts
Kearny to New Mexico and California, 1846-1847. Ed., Dwight L. Clarke. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press, 1966.
Tuttle, Edward D. Papers. 1862-1928. Special Collections, University of Arizona
Library, Tucson, Arizona.
_____. “The River Colorado.” Arizona Historical Review 1 (July 1928): 50-68.
Twaites, Reuben Gold, ed. Early Western Travels, 1748-1846: A Series of Annotated
Reprints of some of the best and rarest contemporary volumes of travel, descriptive of the
Aborigines and Social and Economic Conditions in the Middle and Far West, during the Period of
Early American Settlement Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark Co., 1905.
Tyler, Daniel. A Concise History of the Mormon Battalion in the Mexican War, 1846
N.P., 1881.
Tyler, R.O. Revised Outline Descriptions of the Posts and Stations of Troops in the
Military Division of the Pacific. N.p., 1872.
U.S. Department of Economic Security. Newsletter. Phoenix Public Library, Phoenix,
Arizona.
U.S. Department of the Interior. Federal Reclamation Projects. 1935.
Appendix C
_____. Office of Indian Affairs. “Individual Building Reports, Fort Yuma Indian Agency.”
1932. Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma.
U.S. House of Representatives. Message from the President of the United States to the
Two Houses of Congress. 30th Congress, 2nd Session, House Ex. Doc. 1. Washington: Wendell
and Van Benthuysen, Printers, 1848.
U.S. Senate. Report of the Secretary of the Interior in Answer to a Resolution of the
Senate Calling for Information in Relation to the Operations of the Commission Appointed to Run
and Mark the Boundary Between the United States and Mexico, 1850. Part 1, 31st Congress, 1st
Session, Senate Ex. Doc 34. N.p., 1850.
Veeder, Charles H. “Yuma Indian Depredation on the Coloado in 1850.” Annual
Publications of the Historical Society of Southern California 7 (1907-1908), 202-203.
Wagner, Henry R. The Plains and the Rockies: A Bibliography of Original Narratives of
Travel and Adventure, 1800-1865. Rev., Charles L. Camp. San Francisco: Grabhorn Press,
1937.
Walker, Henry P. and Don Bufkin. Historical Atlas of Arizona. Norman, Oklahoma:
University of Oklahoma Press, 1979.
Wallace, Andrew. The Image of Arizona: Pictures from the Past. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press, 1971.
Wallace, Edward S. The Great Reconnaissance: Soldiers, Artists, and Scientists on the
Frontier, 1848-1861. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1955.
Wallace, William Swilling. Antoine Robidoux, 1794-1860: A Biography of a Western
Venturer. Los Angeles: Glen Dawson, 1953.
Watkins, Frances E. “When Camels Came to the Desert.” Desert Magazine 8 March
1945): 10-12.
Weaver, Pauline. Hayden File. Arizona Historical Society Library, Tucson, Arizona.
Weaver, Raymond D. Biographical File. Arizona Historical Society Library, Tucson,
Arizona.
Westover, William H. Yuma Footprints. Tucson: Arizona Pioneers’ Historical Society,
1966.
Appendix C
Wharfield, Harold B. Fort Yuma on the Colorado River. El Cajon: Privately printed, 1968.
[Wheeler, George M.]. Report of the Secretary of War, 1876-77. 445h Congress, 2nd
Session. Corps of Engineers, vol. 2., part 3.
Whipple, Amiel Weeks. Report of Lieutenant Whipple’s Expedition from San Diego to the
Colorado. 31st Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Ex. Doc. 19. N.p., 1851.
_____. Report of the Explorations for a Railway Route near the Thirty-fifth Parallel of
North Latitude from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean by Lieutenant A.W. Whipple, 18531854. 33rd Congress, 2nd Session, House Ex. Doc. 91. Washington: A.O.P Nicholson, Printer,
1856.
_____. The Whipple Report: Journal of an Expedition from San Diego, California, to the
Rio Colorado, from Sept. 11 to Dec. 11, 1849. Ed., E.I. Edwards. Los Angeles: Westernlore
Press, 1961.
Winsor, Mulford. José Maria Redondo. Phoenix: State Library, 1932.
Wood, Harvey. Personal Recollections of Harvey Wood. Ed., John B. Goodman, III.
Pasadena: Privately printed, 1955.
Woodward, Arthur. Feud on the Colorado. Los Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1955.
_____. “The Garra Revolt of 1851.” Westerners Brand Book. Los Angeles: Corral of
Westerners, 1947.
Woznicki, Robert. The History of Yuma and the Territorial Prison. N.p., 1968.
Yates, Richard. “Locating the Colorado River Mission San Pedro y San Pablo Bicuñer.”
Journal of Arizona History 13 (Summer 1972): 123-130.
Yount, George G. George C. Yount and His Chronicales of the West: Comprising
Extracts from his “Memoirs” and from the Orange Clark “Narrative.” Ed., Charles L. Camp.
Denver: The Old West Publishing Co., 1966.
Yuma Project Annual Project History and O. & M. Report. 1925, 1926, 1928. Bureau of
Reclamation, Yuma.
Yuma Territorial Prison State Historic Park. Preliminary Master Plan for the Development
of the Quartermaster Depot State Historic Park. Gerald A. Doyle & Associates, P.C., Phoenix,
Arizona.
.
Appendix D
Appendix D. Management Plan and EA–Summary of
Review Process
THE REVIEW PROCESS IN GENERAL:
In an attempt to draw responses from a greater cross section of the community, Yuma
Crossing National Heritage Area Corporation staff (staff) chose three distinct approaches to
distribution and community outreach:
1.
A formal review through the City, County and Tribal entities including citizen
commissions.
2.
Focus group reviews on specific interests in the plan.
3.
An advertised series of public open houses and the use of staff at a variety of
community events to present and give out information to the Public and receive
their comments in a much more informal way.
Throughout the process staff has kept the media involved and has encouraged
newspaper articles and television coverage of the events and the planning efforts.
Comment methods:
In addition to verbal comment on the plans and note taking at a variety of meetings,
written comments were encouraged and received in the following ways:
1. Mailing comments to:
Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area
Yuma, AZ 85364
2. FAXing comments to (928)782-5040.
3. E-mailing comments to charles.flynn@ci.yuma.az.us
4. Logging on to the Yuma Crossing Heritage Area web site,
www.yumaheritage.com, and using the comment submittal form on the website.
DISTRIBUTION:
The draft Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Yuma Crossing National Heritage
Area was issued on April 8, 2002. Fifty printed copies and two hundred CD versions were mailed
to numerous stakeholders who had been identified over the last two years. (A stakeholder list is
attached.)
To facilitate greater public access to the plan and to generate comments, printed copies
were provided for public display at the following locations:
Department of Community Development (City of Yuma)
Yuma Public Library
Appendix D
Yuma County Development Services
Yuma County Administration offices
Yuma City Hall
Yuma Main Street
Yuma Convention and Visitor’s Bureau’s Information Office
US Bureau of Land Management, Yuma Headquarters
Electronic copies on CD ROM were made available free to the public at the Yuma
Crossing National Heritage Area Corporation Offices, the Department of Community
Development and the City Clerk’s Office. In addition to hard copies of the plan, the Yuma Public
Library was also provided with two CD ROMS for review on their public computers.
Method 1: Formal Local Review:
CITY COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS:
Each commission member was provided with a CD ROM of the Plan and a letter
requesting their review. If the commission member did not have the means to review the plan on
CD ROM, they were encouraged to review one of the printed copies on display at the public
offices listed above. Formal presentations were given to the following City commissions at their
regularly scheduled meetings:
Yuma Parks and Recreation Commission
April 15, 2002 5:00PM
Yuma Arts and Culture Commission
April 18, 2002 4:00PM
Yuma Planning and Zoning Commission April 23, 2002 5:30PM
April 24, 2002 4:00PM
QUECHAN TRIBAL COUNCIL:
On April 4, 2002, a briefing was provided to the Quechan Indian Tribal Council, with
particular emphasis on the East Wetlands project. Continued Tribal review and involvement will
revolve primarily around the East Wetlands project where the Tribe owns 40-50% of the land in
the project area and where the Tribal Council has already passed a Resolution of Support for the
project. The Heritage Area will continue to encourage the Tribe’s active involvement in the
revitalization of Yuma’s historic downtown, including the implementation of the Heritage Plan.
YUMA CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL:
A preliminary briefing was provided at a work session of the Yuma City Council on
February 12 at 4:30 PM. Many of the various City commissions were involved in the formation of
the plan and staff received many favorable responses and commitments from the City toward the
implementation of plan. In order to confirm the commitment of the City’s partnership in the plan,
Appendix D
Heritage Area staff will request formal recommendations from the four City Commissions who
have reviewed the plan. With the formal recommendation of the City Commissions, staff will seek
City Council approval through a Resolution of Support and adoption of the plan. City Council has
already passed a Resolution of Support and adopted the East Wetlands plan in a separate action.
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Staff gave a formal presentation to the Yuma County Board of Supervisors on Heritage
Plan on May 20 at 9:00 AM. The County received the plan favorably and the East Wetlands,
which is primarily in the County and on Quechan land, was of particular interest to the Board.
Once the City has passed a Resolution of Support and adopted the plan, Staff will pursue a
similar Resolution from the County. The County Board of Supervisors has already passed a
Resolution of Support and adopted the East Wetlands plan in a separate action.
Method 2: Focus Groups
FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS:
A series of “stakeholder” focus group meetings were held on April 25th and 26th on areas
of specific interest within the Heritage Area Plan as follows:
a. Water – 9:00 AM - 10:30 AM April 25
b. Arizona Welcome/Visitor Center – 10:30 AM – 12:00 April 25
c. Military – 1:30 PM – 3:00 PM April 25
d. Yuma Main Street/Downtown – 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM April 26
e. Molina Block – 10:30 AM – 12:00 April 26
f. General/make-up session – 1:30 PM – 3:00 PM April 26
These focus groups used the same thematic emphasis as was used in developing the
plan, however the groups were expanded as to include additional parties that have shown interest
over the last year. The minutes of those meetings are attached.
Method 3: Informal Public Outreach
OPEN HOUSES:
Three “Open Houses” were set up on April 25, 26, and 27 at different locations
throughout the community. The first was held at the Riverfront Offices (200 W. 1st Street), the
second at Clymer Park (Century Heights neighborhood adjacent Orange Avenue), and the third at
West Wetlands Park at the Wetlands Tree Nursery. Heritage Area Board, Staff, and volunteers
assisted in the presentations. Advertisements in the newspaper concerning the Open house ran
throughout the week of April 22. (See attached)
Appendix D
PRESENTATIONS TO NON-PROFIT/ CIVIC/COMMUNITY GROUPS:
Staff offered briefings to civic organizations throughout the region, many of which
responded:
Soroptimist Club
Neighborhood Leadership Academy
Fort Yuma Rotary Club
Yuma Convention and Visitors Bureau
Board of Directors
April 12, 2002
May 1, 2002
May 2, 2002
May 9, 2002
April 25, 2002
5:00PM
Noon
6:00PM
Noon
8:00AM
CINCO DE MAYO BILINGUAL EVENT:
Of particular importance was the involvement of the Hispanic community during the plan
process. The Heritage Area worked with the Cultural Council of Yuma to gain direct access to
the Hispanic community. The Cultural Council provided booth space during the Cinco de Mayo
celebration (which attracts upwards to 20,000 people, many of whom primarily or only speak
Spanish) on the Main Street Mall on Saturday, May 4. Bi-lingual staff volunteered their time
throughout the day on Saturday to discuss the Heritage Area Plan and take comments. (See
attached article) Staff explained the Plan in detail to over 250 persons attending the festival. The
overwhelming response from those attending the festival was to continue the focus on river
access and recreational amenities along the river. As one person described it: “We cannot afford
to travel away from Yuma for fun and entertainment. The Colorado River is our San Diego.”
Summary of Comments Received:
In all, there was direct communication and interaction with over 1,000 people during the
comment period. With significant input from such a wide variety of interests and perspectives it is
difficult to address each comment fully. While many comments were instructive and have aided
the revision of this document, some comments will be more appropriately addressed during
implementation of the plan where technical precision and pinpoint accuracy will be needed during
design of specific projects. Most importantly this document has renewed interest in a decades
old plan for the Crossing and Staff expects and encourages a dynamic and evolving effort to
capture additional resources and stories as the Heritage Area progresses, grows and matures.
Given the catalytic nature of this undertaking, there will always be more resources to identify,
more partners to include and more research to be done. What the comments have shown is that
this document provides solid basis for that evolving conversation in the community for many
years to come.
VERBAL COMMENT SUMMATION:
While we must be careful to avoid broad generalizations, there were several themes that
emerged from the general public:
Appendix D
1) Better access to and enjoyment of the Colorado River remains the highest priority for
people from all walks of life.
2) For many of those community members active in planning efforts in recent years,
there was a feeling of frustration that we were still in the planning stages. More than
once, people said: “ The Plan is fine, but let’s get started with projects”. It has
become clear to Staff that implementation of early action projects is important to
maintain momentum and public support.
WRITTEN COMMENT SUMMATION:
The following are the general trends of the comments received by Staff in writing from
citizens and agencies:
1.
Interpretation: All of the responses directed toward the interpretive elements were
positive. In some cases some tightening of the interpretation will be needed prior to
concept design and installation. As per the plan, Staff will seek additional technical
input and will pursue additional consultation with those partners directly involved in
the interpretation. One appropriate addition will be the inclusion of bilingual
interpretive displays given Yuma’s large Hispanic population.
2.
Additional areas that the YCNHAC should strongly pursue for expansion of the
Heritage Area are Agriculture and the Military, both of which have played important
roles in Yuma. As the Heritage Area matures and expands along and out from the
Colorado River, both of these themes should be addressed in a later phase.
3.
A constant theme was the need to reestablish Yuma’s connection to the Colorado
River. However that connection is reestablished, be it through park development,
ecological restoration or programming, all of the comments regarding the River
expressed that the appreciation of the life and the history of Yuma cannot be told,
preserved or appreciated without the Colorado River at the center.
4.
The community again has overwhelming stated that “the plan is great, but now its
time to get on with it.” Making real, visible, tangible progress on projects that the
community can take ownership of is the top priority that has been voiced.
5.
Many agencies voiced a concern that the Heritage Area should grow and continue to
inventory the local historic, cultural and natural resources of the area. The Heritage
Corporation is dedicated to achieving this through its evolving and expanding
partnerships and will continue to add projects over time as funding and capacity
permit in the coming years.
Partial Listing of People and Organizations Participating in Review Process
Tom Dyson, C.E.O.
Sam Pepper
Mark McDermott, Director
Yuma Education Consortium
Caballeros de Yuma
596 S. 4 Avenue
377 S. Main Street, Suite 204
2702 N. 3 Street, Suite 4015
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 83564
Phoenix, AZ 85004
th
rd
Appendix D
Col. James M. Althouse
Sherry Cordova, Chairperson
John Gross
U.S. Army Proving Ground
Cocopah Tribe
YMPO
Commander Bldg. 2105
th
502 S. Orange Avenue
Avenue G & Co. 15
Yuma, AZ 85365
Somerton, AZ 85350
Yuma, AZ 85364
Don Pope
Southwest Gas
Larry Voyles, Regional Supervisor
Chriss Hixon
Arizona Game & Fish
th
th
P.O. Box 5775
630 E. 18 Place
9140 E. 28 Street
Yuma, AZ 85366
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85365
Gail Acheson, Field Supervisor
Ralph Ogden, President
YUHS District #70
Bureau of Land Management
AZ Historical Soc., Rio Colorado
Kenneth Galer
2555 E. Gila Ridge Road
Chapter
3150 S. Avenue A
Yuma, AZ 85365
240 S. Madison Avenue
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma Elementary School Dist #1
Crane School District #13
Arizona Dept of Transportation
Vivian Egbert
Mike Wicks
Paul Patane
th
th
450 W. 6 Street
4250 W. 16 Street
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85364
Roger Beadle
Ken Rosevear, Director
Steve Binkley
Yuma Visitors & Con. Bureau
Chamber of Commerce
Arizona Public Service
202 S. 1 Avenue, Suite 202
377S. Main, Suite 101
190 W. 14th Street
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85364
Rick Ploski, Director
Tom Rushin, Chairman
Tom Manfredi
Yuma Main Street
H.D.R.C.
Marine Corps Air Station
377 S. Main, Suite 203
710 E. Hacienda Drive
Box 99106
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85365
Yuma, AZ 85369-9106
GYEDC
Arizona Depart. Of Commerce
Yuma Association of Realtor’s
Paige Webster
Linda Edwards
President
377 Main Street, Suite 202
3800 N. Central, Suite 1400
74 W. 2
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma County Contractor’s Assoc.
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Yuma, AZ 85364
Kevin Burge, ASCE President
AZ Dept. of Water Resources
% Nicklaus Engineering
Herb Dishlip
st
Judy Gren
st
202 S. 1 Avenue
th
nd
Street
1851 W. 24 Street
500 N. Third Street
Society of Military Engineers
School Superintendent
Marjorie Blaine
Jim Adler % JOL
Judith Badgley
5205 E. Comanche Street
st
st
1700 S. 1 Avenue, Suite 200B
210 S. 1 Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85707
John & Wanda Cameron
Philbrick Emerson
Gail Gallagher
7766 Balboa Avenue
P.O. Box 1899
2703 S. Avenue B
San Diego, CA 91211-2298
Yuma, AZ 85366-1899
Yuma, AZ 85364
Chris Harris
770 Fairmont Ave., Suite 100
Glendale, CA 91203-1035
Love Headstream
C/o Wayne Benesch
230 W. Morrison St.
Yuma, AZ 85364
Bill Hirt
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ 85366-1899
Appendix D
Brad Jacobson
Pauline Jose
John King
9140 E. Co. 10 ½ Street
P.O. Box 1899
1159 Hacienda Drive
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85366-1899
Yuma, AZ 85365
Virginia McVey
Bobbi McDermott
John Ott
th
th
th
1455 S. 8 Street
2450 S. 4 Ave., Suite 402
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85364-8573
Yuma, AZ 85365
William Ogram
John & Yvonne Peach
Arlene Pingree
233 Fourth Avenue
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ 85365
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85366
Habib Rathle
Sam Spiller
Steve Irr, CEP
2321 W. Royal Palm Rd., #103
298 W. 4 Street
Yuma, AZ 85364
Phoenix, AZ 85021-4951
Yuma, AZ 85364-2239
Chris Summer
Greg Taylor
Ray Varney
Route 1, Box 40M
18824 Dylan Street
356 W. 1 Street
Somerton, AZ 85350
Northridge, CA 91326-2143
Yuma, AZ 85364
Reba Wells
Senator Jon Kyl
Senator John McCain
2322 E. Cholla Street
730 Hart Senate Building
241 Russell Senate Off. Bldg.
Phoenix, AZ 85028
Washington, DC 20510
661 E. 32
317 S. 22
nd
St., #B
nd
Avenue
Art Everett
837 Orange Avenue
Yuma, AZ 85364
4260 E. County 8 Street
th
st
Ian Watkinson
Steve Bell
Monarch’s Rest
th
4380 E. County 15 St.
130 S. Main
Yuma, AZ 85365
Yuma, AZ 85364
Mayor & Council
Kari Reily
Ron Hamm
City of Yuma
Yuma Community Bank
The Ferguson Group
180 W. 1 Street
454 W. Catalina Drive
1130 Connecticut Ave. NW, #300
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85364
Bill Wellman, Superintendent
Col. Richard Thompson, Cmdr.
Jacqueline E. Schafer, Director
National Park Service, Organ Pipe
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ADEQ
Cactus Natl. Monument
Los Angeles District
3033 N. Central Avenue
10 Organ Pipe Drive
911 Wilshire Blvd.
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Jim Garrison, State Historic
Ken Travous
Preservation Officer
Executive Director
Arizona State Parks
Arizona State Parks
1300 W. Washington
1300 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phoenix Az 85007
Michael Jackson, Sr.
Roger Beadle
Wayne Nastri
Quechan Tribal President
Yuma Visitors & Conv. Bureau
Regional Administrator
Qeuchan Indian Tribe
202 S. 1 Ave., Suite 202
E.P.A.
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ 85365
75 Hawthorne Street
st
st
Jim Cherry, Area Manager
Bureau of Reclamation
7301 Calle Agua Salada
Yuma, AZ 85364
Appendix D
Victor Mendez, Director
Wally Hill, Administrator
ADOT Roadside Development
Yuma County
th
Craig W. Clark
4180 La Jolla Village Dr., #405
206 S. 17 Avenue
198 S. Main Street
Yuma, AZ 85364
Jeff Rogers
Virginia Reyes
Ken Rosevear
Rogers & Ucker, Inc.
Cultural Council of Yuma, Inc.
Chamber of Commerce
2150 First Avenue
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85364
La Jolla, CA 92037
Table 3 - Partial List of Review Participants
Appendix E
Appendix E. Heritage Resources
The History
EARLY PEOPLES
W
hen the first Europeans arrived at what became known as the Yuma Crossing in
1540 they found native peoples who had been living at this important place for
centuries. By the 1700’s the Spanish were calling these people the Yumas. The origin of the
name Yuma is unclear, but may have been borrowed from the neighboring Ootams (Pima and
Papago) of central Arizona. Today, while the term Yuma survives as the name of a place, a city,
and a county, the descendents of these early peoples are known as the Quechan.
Ancestors of the Quechan may have lived in southern California as long as 2,000 years
ago. According to anthropologists they moved eastward into the Colorado Desert and may have
arrived at the Yuma Crossing as early as 800 AD. They found fertile lands along the river valleys
and were able to successfully adapt to the desert environment. They were very effective farmers
and took advantage of the natural irrigation provided by the annual flooding of the rivers. Their
crops included maize, several kinds of beans, cantaloupes, pumpkins, watermelons, calabashes,
and grass seeds. Juan de Anza, traveling through the area in 1774, admired the productivity of
the Quechan farming methods:
At intervals there are fields sown with wheat without irrigation, but so good and well
sprouted that the best-irrigated wheat in our country does not equal it. One sees also the places
where they plant maize, beans, calabashes, melons, and muskmelons, all in such abundance
that we have marveled . . . This fertility of the land . . . is greatly aided by the annual overflow
which the meadows receive after the coming of spring.
The Quechan’s proximity to the river made them not only good farmers but excellent
swimmers as well. William Chamberlain, a gold seeker passing through the area in 1849, made
note of their skill. He observed them regularly swimming the river carrying bundles on their heads
with the lariats of three mules in their hands. The women were as adept – or perhaps more so –
than the men. In the late 1770’s, Father Thomas Eixarch observed Quechan women swimming
across the river loaded with children and other possessions and goods.
The physical appearance of the Quechan made an impression on travelers to the region.
They were tall (often over six feet) and muscular, particularly compared with their Spanish and
Anglo-American observers and with their neighbors to the east, the Ootams. Father Kino noted
“the principal one [of the Quechans] was of gigantic size and the largest Indian we had over
seen.” Father Pedro Font described the Quechan as tall, well formed and robust and generally
six feet tall – some approaching seven feet in height.
Many who came into contact with the Quechan people in the early years thought highly of
them. They were variously described as friendly, carefree, affectionate, generous, and goodhumored. But the Quechans were also known as effective fighters, and war was an important
aspect of Quechan life.
Appendix E
The Quechan people have a long and rich history at the Yuma Crossing. Today they
remain on their ancestral lands and their story and their culture are critical elements of the Yuma
Certain events over the span of centuries have had special significance in the history of
the Yuma Crossing, and will serve as markers delineating the major historical periods interpreted
within the Heritage Area. The first of these critical events was the arrival on the Colorado of the
Spanish explorers, soldiers, and missionaries.
THE SPANISH EXPLORERS
By the early 1500’s the Spanish were consolidating their hold on New Spain, had
established a capital at Mexico City, and were beginning to explore new territories in search of
riches. Acting on rumors of great wealth to the north, Viceroy Antonio Mendoza organized a
great expedition and placed it under the command of Francisco Vasquez de Coronado. Since it
was thought that the wealthy cities to the north were near the sea, a fleet was also assembled to
carry supplies for Coronado up the west coast of Mexico. This fleet, under the command of
Hernando de Alarcon, failed to rendezvous with Coronado, but did discover the mouth of the
Colorado River (which Alarcon named El Rio do Buena Guia (River of Good Guidance).
Leaving his ships anchored off the river’s mouth, Alarcon took small boats and, in August
and September of 1540, made two trips up the River. On the second, Alarcon came to “. . . came
to some high mountains among which the river flowed in a narrow canyon.” Thus, the first
Europeans had arrived at the Yuma Crossing seventy years before settlements on America’s east
coast and at the very place – three hundred years later – where an American fort would be
erected.
THE MILITARY AT THE CROSSING
While the Spanish explorations had included a military component, and a military base
had been briefly established, a permanent military presence occurred only when the American
Army arrived at the strategic Yuma Crossing.
THE TRANSPORTATION HUB OF THE SOUTHWEST
THE RISE OF MODERN AGRICULTURE
The quality of the soils in the bottomlands and floodplains of the Colorado River had long
been known, and raising crops had been part of human activity at the Yuma Crossing for
centuries. Early peoples used the waters of the Colorado for irrigation long before Europeans
arrived in 1540, but the Quechan farmers used the natural cycle of the river, with planting
occurring as the spring floods receded. The food harvested in late summer and fall then had to
be eaten fairly quickly or stored for use over the long, dry winter months. The Colorado’s mighty
floods discouraged the type of sophisticated canal building seen in other parts of early Arizona.
Late in the 19th Century interest in utilizing the waters of the Colorado for
agricultural purposes was on the rise. One of the interesting – but not widely known – stories of
the Yuma Crossing is the development of facilities to divert water for farming in California’s
Appendix E
Imperial Valley. A private firm, the California Development Company, was organized to construct
a canal from a point on the Colorado below the international border and bring water to the arid
deserts to the west of Yuma. Their scheme included only the most primitive of diversion facilities;
nothing more that a cut in the riverbank to allow water to flow into a canal and then into a natural
channel know as the Alamo River. The scheme actually worked for several years as the
Company marketed farmland in the Valley.
One major problem for the company was the amount of silt in the river, which tended to
clog up the canal and necessitate the use of expensive dredging operations. A more serious
problem was the lack of a workable scheme to actually control the flow of the water through the
breach in the riverbank; particularly since high summer water demand for farming operations was
at a time of low river flows.
In 1904, a series of unfortunate flooding events on both the Colorado and Gila Rivers
created a crisis. The California Development Company lost control of the River as more and
more of the natural flows diverted through their canal system. The flowing waters quickly
enlarged the breach in the riverbank until – within a few days – the entire flow of the Colorado
was diverted to the west and north. Incredibly, the river continued its uncontrolled rush toward
the Salton Sink – 278 feet below sea level – for a period of over two years, thus forming the
largest body on water on earth ever created by accident!
After several unsuccessful attempts to close the breach and restore the river to its normal
course, the California Development Company was bankrupted and turned to the federal
government for help. President Roosevelt contacted the then-president of the Southern Pacific
Railroad, E. H. Harriman, with the request that the railroad close the breach and return the
Colorado to its customary course. When Harriman objected to the expense of such a major effort
and declined to help, Roosevelt insisted, noting that the Southern Pacific was a major property
owner in the Imperial Valley and Mexico and stood to gain from the development of agriculture in
the region. Harriman finally agreed to use the resources of the railroad in the effort to stop the
flooding and, after almost a year of effort, the Colorado returned to the sea.
The Yuma Project
At the time the California Development Company was bringing water to the developing
farmlands of the Imperial Valley, the Congress was considering the potential of systematic
utilization of the waters of many rivers in the western United States. The passage of the
Reclamation Act of 1902 created the United States Reclamation Service and paved the way for a
series of projects throughout the west that would ultimately harness the flows of dozens of rivers,
create scores of dams and reservoirs, and bring water to hundreds of thousands of acres of
agricultural land. Officially, the first project undertaken by the fledgling Reclamation Service was
the Salt River Project in central Arizona, but the first major project on the Colorado River,
authorized in 1904, was the Yuma Project.
Surveys in and around the Yuma Crossing had determined that large-scale irrigation
projects were feasible with proper engineering and substantial investment in a diversion structure,
canals, and levees. In 1903, President Roosevelt turned the abandoned Fort Yuma
Quartermasters Depot over to the Reclamation Service for use as a headquarters, and design
work on the Yuma Project began.
Appendix E
In the 1890's and early 1900's, three private ditch companies were organized for the
purpose of developing and irrigating the bottomlands of Yuma Valley. These gravity systems
proved unsatisfactory because, as was the case with the California Development Company, the
silt carried by the waters of the Colorado quickly filled the headings and other facilities and
reduced flows. These problems, along with periodic flooding, prevented any consistent and
satisfactory results from the farming operations in the Yuma Valley.
The Yuma County Water Users' Association was founded in 1903 by the property owners
in the Yuma Valley, and contracted with the United States for the construction of Laguna Dam,
the Yuma Main Canal in California, an invert siphon under the Colorado River, and a distribution
system. Following the authorization of the Yuma Project in 1904, the United States purchased
the properties of the original ditch companies and serious work on the project began.
LAGUNA DAM
The first task facing the engineers was to design the diversion structure, which was to be
named the Laguna Dam. The site is located on the Colorado River 13 miles northeast of Yuma
and about 5 miles downstream from today’s Imperial Dam. The design was made more difficult
be the geology at the site, and the need to remove silt from the water delivered to the
downstream irrigation facilities. After much study, the designers decided on a structure patterned
somewhat after the Okla Weir across the Jumna River in India; hence the term “Indian Weir” as a
description of the dam’s design.
The Laguna Dam was the first diversion structure on the Colorado River and, although
the Roosevelt Dam in central Arizona was authorized earlier, was the first dam completed by the
Reclamation Service. The contract was awarded in July of 1905 and the contractor started his
work that month. Unfortunately, conditions at the site along with the difficulty of delivering
supplies and equipment by riverboat and wagon soon created serious problems for the
construction effort and by 1907 the Reclamation Service had taken over the construction. To
solve the supply problems, Reclamation built a levee along the California side of the River from
Fort Yuma north to the construction site and on the levee constructed a railroad. Southern Pacific
crews operated supply trains over this line until abandonment in the 1920’s. Construction
proceeded on Laguna Dam until completion in March of 1909.
A great celebration was held in Yuma when the dam was completed. Throngs of people
lined both sides of Main Street, watching floats pass through a great archway proclaiming “YumaGateway of the Great S. West,” and that evening an enormous barbecue was held. However,
much remained to be done before water could actually be delivered to the agricultural lands of the
Yuma Valley. Construction of the Yuma Main Canal, connecting the headworks of the Laguna
Dam with a point opposite Yuma, commenced in 1909 and continued until 1912. On the Arizona
side of the Colorado, Reclamation designed and constructed the East and West Main Canals,
eventually extending them all the way to the Mexican border by 1915.
The most complex element of the Yuma Project, next to Laguna Dam itself, was
undoubtedly the Yuma Siphon; a concrete lined tunnel under the Colorado designed to allow the
Yuma Main Canal to flow into the Yuma Valley. The siphon is comprised of two vertical shafts
extending around 75 below ground, connected with a 955-foot long concrete tunnel 14 feet in
diameter. Originally, the Reclamation Service intended to use the vertical shafts as “open
Appendix E
caissons,” but the porous nature of the bedrock made the use of a pneumatic process, using
pressurized work compartments, necessary. Engineers were brought to the site who had
previous experience with such construction techniques on the Pennsylvania Railroad tunnels
under the East River in New York. Construction proceeded smoothly and the first Colorado River
water was delivered through the siphon to the Arizona side of the river on June 29, 1912.
A month before water began flowing, 200 citizens of Yuma were allowed to look inside
the tunnel. The Arizona Sentinel recorded the novel occasion:
“For the first time in history human beings went from Yuma . . . to the California side of
the Colorado River through a 900 foot tunnel forty feet beneath the river bed . . .
“Early in the day not much water was in evidence in the tunnel, but the continual seepage
of small leaks covered the floor of the tunnel as the day wore on, and at night visitors had to
wade and quite a few ladies were seen going home last evening holding their dresses above
their ankles . . .”
When the siphon was opened on June 28, 1912, crowds gathered to watch the beginning
of what was lauded as the “greatest achievement in the history of Arizona.” According to the
Arizona Sentinel for July 4, 1912:
“ . . Miss Anna C. Egan, superintendent of the Fort Yuma Indian School, pressed the
button connecting the big motor at exactly 8:25 this morning and the great throng of people
who had assembled from all over the Southwest witnessed the water rushing madly into the
big Siphon for the first time.”
Within a few minutes water had filled the tunnel and was carried through a series of
irrigation canals to fields of cotton, alfalfa, lettuce, and melons. As the cornucopia of Yuma’s rich
lands prospered, like those along the Nile of Africa, the Yuma Crossing had come of age.
Since 1948, irrigation water for the project has been diverted at Imperial Dam. Laguna
Dam now serves as a regulating structure for sluicing flows and for downstream toe protection for
Imperial Dam. It has a structural height of 43 feet and contains 486,800 cubic yards of material.
The Yuma Valley
THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE RIVER
Then in 1922, the Colorado River Compact was hammered out to apportion the beneficial
consumptive use of the river's water between the upper and lower basins.
The dividing point between the two basins was set at Lee Ferry near Page, Arizona. The
upper basin states are Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico, and the lower basin, Arizona,
Nevada and California.
Agreement on the compact was necessary before legislation to harness the river could
be introduced. After considerable maneuvering in Congress, legislation that cleared the way for
building Boulder (now Hoover) Dam and its reservoir, Lake Mead, was passed in 1928.
Completed in 1935, the dam was the first big step toward harnessing the wild, often violent river.
In 1956, passage of the multi-provision Colorado River Storage Project Act, allowing the upper
Appendix E
basin states to develop use of their share of the river's water, resulted in construction of a number
of facilities, including Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell, the second of the two major dams on
the main stem of the Colorado.
Today the benefits of the Colorado River are numerous and impressive, though some go
unrecognized by most. It not only meets the water and power needs of the nearly 25 million
people within the basin states and adjoining areas, but of many more when you include those
south of the border in Mexico.
The Colorado’s reservoirs also provide water for nourishing fruits and vegetables on the
farms and for growing hay to feed cattle on the ranches. More than 1.4 million acres of irrigated
land throughout the Colorado River Basin produce about 15 percent of the nation's crops, 13
percent of its livestock, and agricultural benefits of more than $1.5 billion a year. The water
provides a means of livelihood for the people who work the water, for the many hands who raise
premium beef and for those who till the soil. Whether Imperial Valley or Coachella, Yuma or Palo
Verde Valley, once touched by the waters of the Colorado, fertile soil and lots of sunshine result
in a year-round array of healthful foods.
Imperial Dam
The All-American Canal
The Yuma area enjoys a large of number of unique and significant resources of a natural,
cultural or historic nature. Many of these structures, facilities, and locations whose historical,
cultural, or environmental significance contribute materially to the Heritage Area exist outside the
Area boundaries but within the Yuma region. These resources include significant structures and
locations that play a part in the area’s history and also thousands of acres of sensitive natural
habitat set aside for the protection of the unique settings and rare species of wildlife found here.
FORT YUMA
Established to protect emigrants at the Crossing, Camp Yuma was moved to its present
location atop the bluff in 1851 and designated a Fort in 1852. During the Civil War, the Fort
served for a time as base for the California Column volunteers, replacing the army soldiers who
were recalled to the East. The Fort continued as a major supply depot until 1883, when it was
transferred to the Department of Interior and used as part of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation.
Later the Fort buildings were used as boarding school for the Quechan Indians until 1938.
Today, the Quechan Indian Nation owns and controls the property.
THE FT. YUMA INDIAN RESERVATION
The Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, located across the Colorado from the Yuma Crossing
National Heritage Area, was established by executive order on January 9, 1884.
Appendix E
THE YUMA VALLEY
The historic Colorado River bottomlands west and south of the City of Yuma are
the product of annual flooding and silt deposit over many millennia. This area extends
for about 18 miles south to the international border and encompasses over 53,000 acres
of extremely high quality farmland.
THE YUMA PROJECT
The Yuma Project provides water to irrigate 68,091 acres in the vicinity of the towns of
Yuma, Somerton, and Gadsden in Arizona, and Bard and Winterhaven in California. The project
is divided into the Reservation Division, which consists of 14,676 acres in California, and the
Valley Division, which consists of 53,415 acres in Arizona. The Reservation Division is further
subdivided into the 7,120-acre Bard Unit and the 7,556-acre Indian Unit. The original features of
the project include Laguna Dam on the Colorado River, the Yuma Siphon, the Boundary Pumping
Plant, one Power plant, and a system of canals, laterals, and drains. Laguna Dam has not been
used as a diversion structure since 1948
In the 1890's and early 1900's, three private ditch companies were organized for the
purpose of developing and irrigating the bottomlands of Yuma Valley. The Yuma County Water
Users' Association was founded in 1903, and contracted with the United States for the
construction of Laguna Dam, the Yuma Main Canal in California, an invert siphon under the
Colorado River, and a distribution system.
Following the authorization of the Yuma Project in 1904, the United States purchased the
properties of the original ditch companies. The first Colorado River water was delivered through
the siphon to the Arizona side of the river on June 29, 1912.
LAGUNA DAM
Laguna Dam, an original feature of the Yuma Project, is located on the Colorado River 13
miles northeast of Yuma, Arizona, and about 5 miles downstream from Imperial Dam. The original
purpose of this dam was to divert Colorado River water to the project area. Since 1948, irrigation
water for the project has been diverted at Imperial Dam. Laguna Dam now serves as a regulating
structure for sluicing flows and for downstream toe protection for Imperial Dam. It has a structural
height of 43 feet and contains 486,800 cubic yards of material.
THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE YUMA AREA
With the desert climate and riparian areas by the rivers, the Yuma area is host to a
variety of unique plants and animals. The rivers are host to a number of migratory birds traveling
between winter and summer habitats.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department monitors the status of the animals and their
habitats and works with federal, state and local agencies to promote wildlife development. To
help accomplish this, the Game and Fish Department maintains a list of Species of Concern. The
species listed are either listed as a result of the Endangered Species Act or have been identified
by another agency as a species of “concern”. The animals listed with special designation that
reside in or follow migratory patterns through the Yuma area include:
Appendix E
Birds
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl
California Black Rail
Yuma Clapper Rail
Peregrine Falcon
Bald Eagle
California Brown Pelican
American White Pelican
Clarks Grebe
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Spotted Bat
Great Western Mastiff Bat
California Leaf-Nosed Bat
Yuma Myotis
Pale Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat
Yuma Hispid Cotton Rat
Sonoran Pronghorn
Yuma Puma
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard
Desert Rosy Boa
Sonoran Desert Tortoise
Gila Monster
Mexican Garter Snake
Cowels Fringe-toed Lizard
•
•
Parish Onion
Dune Spurge
Mammals
Reptiles
Plants
IMPERIAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
The Imperial National Wildlife Refuge protects wildlife habitat along 30 miles of the lower
Colorado River in Arizona and California, including the last unchannelized section before the river
enters Mexico. Riverine, wetland and upland riparian habitats on the refuge provide important
wintering and migrational habitats for several migratory bird species, including the endangered
Yuma clapper rail, bald eagle and Southwestern willow flycatcher. That portion of the Colorado
River and associated wetlands on the Refuge are part of designated Critical Habitat for the
endangered razorback sucker. Over 15,000 acres of the Refuge's desert upland habitats are
Appendix E
federally designated Wilderness and represents an irreplaceable venue for representing the
natural environment of the Yuma Crossing before the construction of the dams and levee
systems.
KOFA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
The 665,400-acre Kofa National Wildlife Refuge was established in the Lower Sonoran
Desert ecosystem primarily to preserve desert bighorn sheep and unique Sonoran Desert
vegetation. Vegetation is relatively sparse throughout, with the exception of tree and shrub
corridors along dry washes that descend to alluvial fans and basins from the nearby mountains.
Creosote, ironwood, palo verde, ocotillo and mesquite comprise much of the vegetation of the
region, along with many types of cacti, most notably the saguaro and cholla species. Major
wildlife species include desert bighorn sheep, mule deer, kit fox, 188 species of birds (87
Neotropical), desert tortoise, several species of bats, 5 species of rattlesnakes, and numerous
other reptiles. The refuge contains 516,300 acres of official wilderness spread over 3 major
mountain ranges.
SALTON SEA
This large lake, located 75 miles northwest of Yuma, was the product of a failed diversion
of Colorado River water to the Imperial Valley of California. The lake was created when the
Colorado River changed its course, and ran uncontrolled into the Salton Sink for more than two
years. Today, the lake adds to the diversity of the Colorado Desert, but presents significant
environmental challenges.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
for the
MANAGEMENT PLAN
June, 2002
Prepared by:
The Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Corporation
Yuma, Arizona 85364
APPENDIX F
YUMA CROSSING NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA CORPORATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
YUMA, ARIZONA
Summary
The Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area
seeks to develop and implement programs,
projects, and policies that will preserve the
natural, cultural, historical, and recreational
legacy of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage
Area and to interpret the role that the Colorado
River has played in that legacy.
on a case-by-case basis at the time of project
planning. Adverse construction related impacts
to visitor use and experience would be shortterm and minor in intensity. Beneficial impacts
to visitor use, experience, and historical
interpretation would be long-term and
moderate.
This environmental assessment examines
three alternatives:
Public Review and Comment
Alternative 1: No Action Plan
Alternative 2: Colorado Riverway Approach
Alternative 3: Preferred Alternative—To
Enhance Both the Natural and Built
Environments.
If you wish to comment on the Environmental
Assessment, you may mail comments to the
name and address below. Our practice is to
make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public
review. Individual respondents may request
that we withhold their home address from the
record, which we will honor to the extent
allowable by law. If you wish to withhold
your name and/or address, you must state
this prominently at the beginning of your
comment. We will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, available for public inspection in
their entirety.
The Colorado Riverway Approach would work
to restore, enhance, and interpret key
designated areas along the Colorado River.
The Preferred Alternative would do this, as well
as include restoration, preservation,
enhancement, and interpretation of important
historical areas and designated buildings within
the Yuma downtown Heritage Area.
Neither the Preferred Alternative, nor the
Riverway Approach would adversely impact
ethnographic resources; cultural landscapes;
prime and unique farmlands; air quality; water
resources (including wetlands and floodplains);
threatened, endangered, and candidate
species of special concern; the socioeconomic
environment; or environmental justice. Impacts
to soils would be adverse, but minor and short
term. Any soil impacts would be addressed
and amended during implementation. Issues
concerning Impacts to archeological resources
and the historic structure would be addressed
Questions or comments on the Environmental
Assessment for the Yuma Crossing National
Heritage Area Management Action Plan may
be sent in writing to:
Corporation
Yuma, Arizona 85364
APPENDIX F
CONTENTS
PURPOSE and NEED
Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 129A
Need............................................................................................................................ 1 2 9 A
Background and History .............................................................................................. 129A
Public Scoping............................................................................................................. 130A
Impact Topics .............................................................................................................. 132A
Archeological Fieldwork Reports ............................................................................... 141A
Properties Listed on the Historic Register.................................................................. 144A
ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................... 149A
Potential Environmental Impacts ............................................................................... 151A
Alternative No. 1: N oAction ......................................................................................153A
Alternative No. 2: The Colorado Riverway Approach ................................................ 158A
Alternative No. 3: Preferred Alternative –
Enhance both Natural and Built Environments........................... 162A
Environmentally Preferred Alternative........................................................................ 166A
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................... 168A
Methodology for Assessing Impacts .......................................................................... 168A
Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................... 168A
Impacts to Cultural Resources and Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act........................................................................ 169A
Regulations and Policy .............................................................................................. 170A
APPENDIX F
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................ 1 7 9 A
Preparers and Consultants.......................................................................................... 182A
BIBLOGRAPHY
............................................. 183A
SUB APPENDICES
SUB APPENDIX A....................................................................................................... 190A
SUB APPENDIX B....................................................................................................... 197A
SUB APPENDIX C ...................................................................................................... 205A
SUB APPENDIX D ...................................................................................................... 207A
SUB APPENDIX E....................................................................................................... 211A
TABLES
Table 1: Population...................................................................................................... 138A
Table 2: Comparison of Management Plan Alternatives .............................................. 171A
Table 3: Partial List of Review Participants .................................................................. 194A
GRAPHICS
Alternative 1—No Build................................................................................................ 152A
Alternative 2—The Colorado Riverway Approach ........................................................ 157A
Alternative 3—Preferred Alternative............................................................................. 161A
APPENDIX F
Purpose and Need
Purpose
seeks to develop and implement programs,
projects, and policies that will preserve the
natural, cultural, historical, and recreational
legacy of the Yuma Crossing area and to
interpret the role that the Colorado River has
played in that legacy. The Management Action
Plan will provide a structured, yet flexible,
program for ensuring their enhancement,
preservation, and conservation.
Need
A Management Action Plan is needed for the
Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area to
ensure that the revitalization of key elements of
our cultural, historical and natural history are
allowed to continue and expand. Decay,
fragility, and vandalism are the main concerns.
Without a concerted and multi-faceted
approach to preservation, conservation,
interpretation, recreation, and education, this
important legacy of our past might be lost
forever. The role of the Colorado River in the
shaping of Yuma and of Yuma’s place in the
development of the Colorado River-- past,
present, and future-- are crucial stories that
need to be told through a coordinated effort by
local, state, and federal agencies, as well as
the private and non-profit sector. The prospect
for success is greatly increased through
development of such a broad-based
partnership.
Background and History
Since the beginning of the twentieth century
Yuma has gone through a number of attempts
to preserve its natural and historic resources.
PURPOSE and NEED
Some have been successful and some not so,
but the continued interest for the last century
shows a resolve to preserve and enhance the
wealth of resources in the area. Some key
successes include the preservation of the
Yuma Territorial Prison, which eventually
became a State Park, and the preservation of
the Quartermaster’s Depot, which eventually
became Yuma Crossing State Historic Park.
A Master Plan for the Yuma Crossing National
Historic Landmark was completed in 1984.
Although it was not implemented in its entirety,
it did set some of the basic principles and goals
that apply to current concerns and interests in
the Yuma region. These include:
• to better inform the public about the area’s
•
•
•
•
historic resources
to preserve the Quechan Indian Tribe
heritage
to unify public / private planning measures in
the area
to revitalize downtown
to provide cultural and recreational
opportunities in the region.
In 1989, the City of Yuma instituted the “Yuma
Strategic Planning Project.” It involved over
350 citizens and business leaders who were
concerned with the ramifications of growth
occurring in the area. A series of seven task
forces were established to focus on a general
area of concern. Through extensive
discussions they arrived at a series of
recommendations for the area that echoed the
elements in the previous Master Plan.
Primarily, these themes were concern for the
environment, economic viability year-round,
and broader recreation opportunities than
currently existed.
A follow-up Strategic Planning Project task
force of 31 civic and business leaders was
organized in 1992 to formulate a vision and a
conceptual master plan specifically for the river
corridor that was sensitive to both development
and environmental concerns. Their
APPENDIX F
recommendations were to develop greater
recreational opportunities within and along the
river, designate wildlife protection areas,
develop riverwalk linkages, create a lake area
and increase marshlands, and promote
compatible public and private uses in the
adjacent areas, among other things.
In 1996, another broad based planning effort
called Vision 2020 was begun. This downtown
planning effort involved a community wide
representation of 550 citizens and business
and civic leaders. A key lesson learned through
the various attempts at preservation and
rejuvenation was the importance of moving
beyond sole reliance on public funding and
promoting private investment through public/
private partnerships.
A 30 member Riverfront Task Force was
formed the next year. This task force went
directly to the citizens. It conducted interest
surveys on a variety of topics that addressed
and expanded earlier ideas. The community
showed a high interest in redevelopment of the
old downtown, in environmental renewal of the
Colorado River, and in expansion of
recreational opportunities along the river.
From this, a Heritage Task Force was formed
to inventory the natural and historic resources
of the area, and to evaluate the feasibility of a
National Heritage Area designation for Yuma
Crossing. After bill introduction testimony, and
debate, Congress enacted the legislation in
October of 2000.
Prior to this designation, the City of Yuma
organized a Riverfront Development Team and
engaged consultants to develop conceptual
plans for key projects both downtown and
along the river. Community input has been
solicited at various stages throughout this
process.
After designation, the City of Yuma provided
local matching funds and, in concert with the
Heritage Area task Force, retained consultants
to begin work on the Plan and Environmental
Assessment.
PURPOSE and NEED
Public Scoping
The review process in general:
In an attempt to draw responses from a greater
cross section of the community, Yuma
Crossing National Heritage Area Corporation
staff chose three distinct approaches to
1. A formal review through the City,
County and Tribal entities including
citizen commissions.
2. Focus group reviews on specific
interests in the plan.
3. An advertised series of public open
houses and the use of staff at a variety
of community events to present and
give out information to the Public and
receive their comments in a much more
informal way.
Throughout the process staff has kept the
media involved and has encouraged
newspaper articles and television coverage of
the events and the planning efforts.
Comment methods:
In addition to verbal comment on the plans and
note taking at a variety of meetings, written
comments were encouraged and received in
the following ways:
Yuma, AZ 85364
3. E-mailing comments to
charles.flynn@ci.yuma.az.us
4. Logging on to the Yuma Crossing
Heritage Area web site,
www.yumaheritage.com, and using the
APPENDIX F
comment submittal form on the website.
Distribution:
The draft Plan and Environmental Assessment
for the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area
was issued on April 8, 2002. Fifty printed
copies and two hundred CD versions were
mailed to numerous stakeholders who had
been identified over the last two years. (A
stakeholder list is attached.)
To facilitate greater public access to the plan
and to generate comments, printed copies
were provided for public display at the following
locations:
Department of Community Development (City
of Yuma)
Yuma Public Library
Yuma City Hall
Yuma Main Street
Yuma Convention and Visitor’s Bureau’s
Information Office
US Bureau of Land Management, Yuma
Headquarters
PURPOSE and NEED
Relationship of Proposed Action to
Previous and Current Planning Efforts
General Management Plan – The Yuma
Crossing National Heritage Area Corporation is
in the process of preparing a General
Management Plan for the Yuma Heritage Area.
This plan will provide a vision and policy
guidance for the preservation of the National
Heritage Area resources, visitor experience,
use and interpretation, the types and general
intensities of development, and partnership
opportunities to address management issues
concerning the various proposed and potential
projects and venues within the Heritage Area.
This Environmental Assessment seeks to
examine the environmental benefits and
consequences of proposed restoration,
enhancement, and development within the
Heritage Area.
Electronic copies on CD ROM were made
available free to the public at the Yuma
Offices, the Department of Community
Development and the City Clerk’s Office. In
addition to hard copies of the plan, the Yuma
Public Library was also provided with two CD
ROMS for review on their public computers.
APPENDIX F
Impact Topics
Impact Topics Analyzed in this Environmental
Assessment
Physiography and Soils
The geology of the Yuma area has been
determined by the actions of the rivers and
historic geologic activity.
Soils – The soils in the Yuma region fall within
two soil orders: Aridisols and Entisols. There
are three major soil associations in the
Planning Area, which are made up of specific
soil series. The first is primarily found in the
Yuma Valley. This is the Holtville-GadsdenKofa Association. These soils are deep,
relatively level, drain well, contain clay and
form in flood plains and low terraces. These
soils also have low permeability and the clay
layers and deposits have the potential to shrink
and swell in periods of inundation. In the Gila
Valley the primary soil associations are the
Indio-Ripley-Lagunita Association. These soils
are typically deep and well drained. They form
on flood plains, low terraces, alluvial fans and
drainage ways. The Mesa is primarily made up
of the Rositas-Superstition Association. The
soils of this association are deep, sandy, nearly
level to undulating and somewhat excessively
drained. There are areas, found in small
depressions, with a surface cover of varnished
desert pavement. The ositas-Superstition
Association is typically formed from old
terraces, sand dunes and alluvial fans. Also on
the Mesa, can be found a number of granite
outcroppings. Most notable are Black Hill and
the Yuma Crossing. Black Hill, at an elevation
of approximately 300 feet, has been a historic
guide marker for explorers of the southwest
and currently hosts the community’s
emergency communications towers. A private
company for sand and gravel operations is
currently excavating the south portion of the
hill. The Yuma Crossing outcropping, which
PURPOSE and NEED
provides the narrowest point across the
Colorado River, has been the historic crossing
point for travelers headed west.
The National Environmental Policy Act (1969)
calls for an examination of the impact on all
components of affected ecosystems. The
implementation of specific future projects could
have an impact on physiography and soils in
the study area. Planning would then consider
in detail those effects through additional
environmental analysis.
Air Quality
Section 118 of the 1963 Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) requires a project to meet
all federal, state, and local air pollution
standards. The Clean Air Act also provides
that the federal land manager has an
affirmative responsibility to protect air quality
related values (including visibility, plants,
animals, soils, water quality, cultural resources,
and visitor health) from adverse pollution
impacts.
“The 2000 Air Quality Conformity Analyses
concluded that there are no measured
violations of the PM-10 standard in the Yuma
nonattainment area during the past seven
years. In addition, PM-10 emissions continue to
be less than 1990 values, and less then the
budget permitted by the 1994 Yuma PM-10
Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Revision.”
From Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Each proposed project, during implementation,
will temporarily affect local air quality with
construction-caused air pollution such as dust
and vehicle emissions. Such pollution would
be localized and would cease once
construction is complete. Any impacts to air
APPENDIX F
quality would be negligible.
Surface and Ground Water
Resources
Water Resources, Including Wetlands
and Floodplains
The protection of water quality will be
consistent with the Clean Water Act (1977), a
national policy to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
the nation’s waters and to prevent, control, and
abate water pollution. Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to prohibit or regulate, through a
permitting process; discharge of dredged or fill
material into U.S. waters. A Statement of
Findings will be prepared for any proposed
project to determine potential impact, and any
actions will remain consistent with the Clean
Water Act.
Executive Order 11990, Protection of
Wetlands, requires federal agencies to avoid,
where possible, impacts on wetlands.
Proposed actions that have the potential to
adversely impact wetlands must be addressed
in a Statement of Findings. A Statement of
Findings will be prepared for any proposed
project to determine potential impact, and any
actions will remain consistent with this order.
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain
Management, requires all federal agencies to
avoid construction within the 100-year
floodplain unless no other practical alternative
exists. Certain construction within a 100-year
floodplain requires preparation of a Statement
of Findings. A Statement of Findings will be
prepared for any proposed project to determine
potential impact, and any actions will remain
consistent with this order.
Surface water
The Colorado River is the major source of
water for the southwest. The waters meet
urban, recreational and agricultural needs for
communities all across Arizona and Southern
PURPOSE and NEED
California. Starting in the Rocky Mountains of
Colorado, the river flows south to the Pacific
Ocean through the Sea of Cortez in Mexico.
Construction of dams for water and
hydroelectric plants for electricity and the
construction of levees for flood control have
contained the high water flows of the Colorado.
The Colorado was a wild river that typically
overflowed into the Gila and Yuma Valleys
every season. These overflows into the alluvial
plains deposited soils rich in nutrients. As a
result of dam and levee construction, the
nature of the Colorado changed. Flows have
slowed and soils previously dropped in the
plains now build up in the riverbed. Plants and
wildlife dependent on fast river flows, periodic
flooding and clear water were gradually
replaced by non-native vegetation and wildlife
species. The major dams in the Yuma area re:
the Laguna Dam, the first dam built for the
Yuma Project; the Imperial Dam, which
provides a point for agricultural and urban
diversions to California and Yuma County; and
the Morales Dam, which provides a point for
Mexican diversions for agricultural uses. The
width of the Colorado River Levees spans a
distance ranging from 400 feet to over a mile
through the General Plan area. The differing
ground levels, which typically gradually rise
from the river channel to the edge of the levee,
provide a variety of habitats and land use
activities. These are primarily under the
authority of the Army Corps of Engineers.
Other agencies involved in management of
wildlife habitats include: the Bureau of
Reclamation, the US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Land Management, the Arizona
Game and Fish Department, the City of Yuma,
Yuma County, the Yuma County Flood Control
District, the Quechan Indian Tribe, the
Cocopah Indian Tribe as well as a number of
private land owners.
The Gila River, crossing through mid-Arizona,
collects mountain and agricultural runoff before
joining the Colorado River at the confluence.
The historic confluence of the Gila and
Colorado Rivers was right below the Yuma
Territorial Prison State Park, but a rechanneling of the Gila pushed the confluence
APPENDIX F
east to approximately the Avenue 4 ½E
alignment. The distance between the river
levees and from the Prison to the confluence is
nearly ¾ miles wide and 3 miles long.
Groundwater
With surface water resources available from
the Colorado River, the availability of
groundwater for urban uses has not been an
issue in the development of Yuma. What is a
concern are the seasonal high levels of
groundwater in the Yuma and Gila Valleys that
can impact the operations of septic systems
and farming operations. The inundation of
groundwater into clay soils can result in
shrinking and swelling. This activity could destabilize building foundations and crack utility
pipelines and pavement if mitigation measures
have not been undertaken. Groundwater levels
in the planning area typically range from 6 to 8
feet in the Yuma Valley, 8 to 10 feet in the Gila
Valley and 80 feet on the mesa. In order to
maintain these groundwater levels, the US
Government operates a number of
groundwater pumping wells with discharge to
the Colorado River. This program was put in
place to increase water deliveries to Mexico
and alleviate rising groundwater concerns.
Increased agricultural operations in the Yuma
area and seasonal high Colorado River flows
contribute to a rise in groundwater levels.
Biotic Communities
Vegetation
Yuma is in a region of the Sonoran Desert.
The region is famous for sunny days and clear
skies. The average annual rainfall is less then
3 inches. Typical daytime temperatures in the
winter are in the seventies and in the summer
the low hundreds. The area has two rainy
seasons. In the winter, storms originating in
the Pacific Ocean cross the mountains and
deserts of California and Mexico bringing
cooler, wetter days. In the summer, monsoon
storms originating in southern Arizona and
Mexico bring intense brief periods of rainfall.
PURPOSE and NEED
The warm climate and the river corridors have
created unique habitats in the region.
There is a mix of native and non-native
adapted vegetation in the region.
Native trees include California Fan Palm
(Washingtonia filifera), Mexican Jumping Bean
(Sapium biloclare), Elephant Tree (Bursera
microphylla), Crucifiction Thorn (Canotia
holacantha), Kearney Sumac (Rhus Kearney),
Bitter Condalia (Condalia globosa), Western
Hackberry (Celtis laevigate var. reiculata),
Saguaro, Giant Cactus (Cereus giganteus),
Tree Tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), Western
Desert Willow (Chilopsis linearis var. arcuata),
Cat-Claw (Acacia constricta), Lysiloma, Fernof-the-Desert (Lysiloma microphylla var.
Thornberi), Velvet Mesquite, Honey Mesquite
(Prosopis juliflora var. velutina; var. articulata;
var. Toreyana), Screwbean Mesquite (Prosopis
pubescens), Horse-Bean, Mexican Palo Verde
(Parkinsonia aculeata), Blue Palo Verde
(Cercidium floridum), Foothill Palo Verde
(Cercidium microphyllum), Desert Ironwood
(Olnea tesota), Smoke Tree (Dalea spinosa),
Desert Almond (Prunus fasciculata), Western
Black Willow (Salix nigra var. vallicola), Coyote
Willow, Sandbar Willow (Salix exigua), Fremont
Cottonwood (Populus Fremontii), Desert Scrub
Oak (Quercus turbinella).
Introduced non-native trees that have
naturalized to the region include Tamarisk
Tree, Athel Tree (Tamarix aphylla), Salt Cedar
(Tamarix ramosissima), Tamarisk Tree
(Tamarix chilensis), Tamarisk (Tamarix
parviflora), Bird-of-Paradise (Caesalpinia
Gilliesii), Castor Bean (Ricinus communis).
Trees native to Arizona, but not native to Yuma
County include Arizona Ash, Fresno, Velvet
Ash (Fraxinus velutina), Arizona Yellow Bells,
Yellow Trumpet Flower (Tecoma Stans)
Fish and Wildlife
Fish
Bluegill, Channel Catfish, Large Mouth Bass,
Flathead, Striped Bass, Tilapia
APPENDIX F
Birds
Warblers
Wilson's Warbler
Yellow Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
Orange-crowned Warbler
Hermit Warbler
Black-throated Gray Warbler
Yellow-breasted Chat
Flycatchers
Western Kingbird
Western Wood Pewee
Western-type Flycatchers
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Ash-throated Flycatcher
Vermilion Flycatcher
Black & Say's Phoebes
Other Passerines
Western swifts & swallows
Swainson's Thrush
Blue Grosbeak
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Lesser Goldfinch
Bullock's Oriole
Hooded Oriole
Bronzed Cowbird
White-crowned Sparrow Lincoln's Sparrow
Sage Sparrow
Common Permanent Birds
Pied-billed Grebe
American Coot
Western Grebe
Virginia Rail
Sora
Common Moorhen
Common Roadrunner
Turkey Vulture
Red-tailed Hawk
Osprey
Gambel's Quail
Ladder-backed Woodpecker
Loggerhead Shrike
Great-tailed Grackle
Black Phoebe
PURPOSE and NEED
Verdin
Black-tailed Gnatcatcher
Common Yellowthroat
Abert's Towhee
Song Sparrow
Mammals
Leaf Nosed Bat
Kit Fox
Sonoran Pronghorn
Reptiles
Chuckwalla
Western Diamondback Rattlesnake
Arachnids & Insects
Tarantula
Giant Desert Hairy Scorpion
Swallowtail Butterfly
Threatened and
Endangered Species,
Candidate Species
and Species of Special
Concern
The Endangered Species Act (1973) requires
an examination of impacts on all federally listed
threatened or endangered species
State Listings
The Arizona Game and Fish Department
monitors the status of the animals and their
habitats and works with federal, state and local
agencies to promote wildlife development. To
help accomplish this, the Game and Fish
Department maintains a list of Species of
Concern. The species included are either listed
as a result of the Endangered Species Act or
have been identified by another agency as a
APPENDIX F
species of “concern”. The animals identified
with special designation that reside in the
Yuma area or follow migratory patterns through
Yuma County include:
Plants
Parish Onion
Dune Spurge
Sand Food
Wildlife
Birds
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
California Black Rail
Yuma Clapper Rail
Peregrine Falcon
Bald Eagle
California Brown Pelican
American White Pelican
Clarks Grebe
Mammals
Spotted Bat
Great Western Mastiff Bat
California Leaf-Nosed Bat
Yuma Myotis
Pale Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat
Yuma Hispid Cotton Rat
Sonoran Pronghorn
Yuma Puma
PURPOSE and NEED
located primarily to the south and east of the
Yuma planning area, although the western
boundary crosses into the City limits through
the Barry M. Goldwater Range. Mitigation
measures must be considered when
developing in this area in order to reduce the
impact on this habitat. The range of the desert
Bighorn Sheep includes the southern Gila
Mountains and sites within the Goldwater
Range and the range of the Sonoran
Pronghorn includes sites within the range.
Impacts on these habitats should be
considered as development occurs. The
Colorado River provides a major rest point for
migratory birds. Over 300 species of birds have
been documented in the Yuma area.
Maintaining and promoting the biological health
of this prime wildlife resource is of utmost
importance to the Yuma community. Currently
underway are plans to develop the West and
East Wetlands District of the Colorado. These
projects will promote recreation opportunities
on the rive, improve water quality and enhance
wildlife habitats.
The National Environmental Policy Act (1969)
calls for an examination of the impact on all
components of affected ecosystems. There will
be vegetative disturbance on sites developed
along the river, particularly along proposed
Gateway Park and in the East Wetlands
District.
Reptiles
Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard
Desert Rosy Boa
Sonoran Desert Tortoise
Gila Monster
Mexican Garter Snake
Cowels Fringe-toed Lizard
Fish
Razorback Sucker
Of particular note in this list are the Flat-Tailed
Horned Lizard, the desert Bighorn Sheep, the
Sonoran Pronghorn and birds that inhabit the
Colorado River wetlands. The Management
Area for the Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard is
Land Use
Yuma is surrounded by agricultural land use,
recreation areas, Native American reservation
land, and military bases. The incorporated area
of Yuma is approximately 108 square miles and
houses over 77,500 full-time residents.
The environmental assessment area is
primarily private commercial, residential, public
parkland, Native American reservation, and
river corridor. To the east, beginning at the
Gila / Colorado River confluence, is the
designated East Wetlands District which is
composed of river and marshland that is
partially in the Quechan Indian Nation. The
central area of the Heritage Area is a mix of
APPENDIX F
historic parklands and public undeveloped park
along the river; and the core of Yuma
downtown, which is primarily private
commercial business area along with some
governmental complexes. To the west is West
Wetlands, a vacant publicly-owned parcel
along the river surrounded by high-density
residential uses.
Recreation
Boating
Within the assessment area there are currently
no boat launches. The City of Yuma is
proceeding with a boat launch within West
Wetlands park. The river itself, however, is
used for pleasure boating and for boat tours.
Trails
There are bike, walking, and horseback riding
trails connecting to the assessment area. The
City of Yuma has adopted a “Bicycle Element”
of the General Plan, and has aggressively
expanded paved trails and landscaping. No
interpretive signage exists along these trails.
Parks
There are two state parks within the study area:
Yuma Crossing State Park and Yuma
Territorial Prison State Park. In addition,
Yuma’s oldest City Park, Joe Henry Park,
located at Colorado Street and 23rd Avenue, is
adjacent to West Wetlands park.
When boat launch areas are identified, further
assessments will be done to determine the
impacts and the proper mitigation procedures.
Socio-Economic Considerations
Information source:
PURPOSE and NEED
The major contributors to the economy of the
area are agriculture, tourism and government.
Tourism brings more than 50,000 winter
residents from northern states and Canada to
Yuma each year that impacts both services in
the community generally and the housing
market. The majority of the winter visitors stay
in RV parks outside the City limits. However,
some Winter Visitors do rent apartments each
year, making the rental market extremely tight
during the winter months. Agriculture also
contributes to the tight rental market as lettuce
and citrus harvest seasons bring many farm
workers to the area from September to April.
The total population of the City of Yuma grew
from 42,433 in 1980 to 54,923 in 1990--a 29%
increase in population, and to 77,515 in 2000—
an increase of 41.1%. The number of
households grew even more -- by 37% from
14,045 in 1980 to 19,282 in 1990. The 1995
Special Census showed a population of
60,457, with 24,057 households.
There was a shift in proportions of ethnic and
racial groups between 1980 and 2000. The
proportion of whites in the population fell from
67% of total population in 1980 to just over
58% in 1990, and fell again to 47.5% in 2000.
Proportions of all minorities rose, with the
largest increase being in the proportion of
Hispanics going from 27% in 1980 to 35.6% in
1990, and up again in 2000 to 45.7%.
Yuma is experiencing rapid growth, with the
metropolitan area being the fourth fastest
growing metropolitan area in the country. The
seasonal nature of the economy from both
agriculture and tourism, and stubborn doubledigit unemployment, remain issues in providing
affordable housing. There have been a number
of major commercial projects in the last several
years including Target, Dillards, Toys R Us,
Super K Mart, however most of these
businesses provide jobs minimum wages and
seasonal employment. Several new industrial
projects are being developed to provide higher
paying year-round jobs.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
Consolidated Plan for 1995 Executive Summary
APPENDIX F
PURPOSE and NEED
Population Trends − Table 1
Source: Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization
Location
1990 Census
2000 Census
% Difference
City of Yuma
54,923
77,515
41.1
Population by Race 2000
RACE
CITY OF YUMA
%
Hispanic or Latino
35,400
45.7
White
36,784
47.5
Black
2220
2.9
American Indian or Alaska Native
747
1.0
Asian
1086
1.4
Pacific Islander
105
0.1
Other Race
100
0.1
Two or more Races
1073
1.4
TOTAL
77,515
100
Cultural Resources
The National Park Service defines a “cultural
landscape” in its Cultural Resource
Management Guideline (DO-28). A cultural
landscape is
“…a reflection of human adaptation and use of
natural resources and is often expressed in the
way land is organized and divided, patterns of
settlement, land use, systems of circulation,
and the types of structures that are built. The
character of a cultural landscape is defined
both by physical materials, such as roads,
buildings, walls, and vegetation, and by use
reflecting cultural values and traditions.”
was shaped by the Colorado River, the
Crossing and the diverse cultures that passed
through the area over the centuries. Though it
was primarily a pass through point, many
stayed long enough to leave a lasting imprint
on the area. Disparate cultures crossed paths,
traded, and built commercial enterprises.
Archeological Resources
The National Historic Preservation Act, as
amended in 1992 (16 USC 470 et seq.) and the
National Environmental Policy Act require the
consideration of effects on cultural resources,
including those listed on or eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places.
The undertakings described in this document-when implemented--are subject to Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act, under
APPENDIX F
the terms of the 1995 programmatic agreement
among the National Park Service, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, and the
National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers. This document will be
submitted to the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) for review and comment.
Adoption of the management plan for the Yuma
Crossing National Heritage Area would not
require specific archeological survey
information as it is a policy document.
Projects, programs and structures
recommended in the management plan might
require an archeological survey. These
projects would undergo review and impact
evaluation as they are developed. Appropriate
survey information would be proposed,
discussed, and open for public comment at that
time. There is a commitment to survey the
negative impacts of any project proposed in the
plan. The long-term nature of the plan and the
various options for implementation requires that
specific archeological requirements cannot
currently be determined. When such an
evaluation takes place, resources such as Lyle
Stone’s archeological survey work, as well as
further survey work as necessary, will be
consulted.
Because of the long history in Yuma, there are
many historic sites, nationally recognized
buildings and districts, and pre-historic Indian
sites, as well as trails followed by early
explorers.
Sensitive sites and petroglyphs are protected
by the Bureau of Land Management, and a
state-sponsored Site Stewards program assists
in preservation and interpretation efforts.
PURPOSE and NEED
Yuma is rich in archaeological resources. The
common denominator with all of the sites is the
relationship and proximity to the Colorado and
Gila Rivers. The junction of the Colorado and
Gila had geographical qualities that made it a
destination for travelers in prehistoric and
historic times. The granite buttes on each side
of the narrows below the junction were
important because they created a stable
shoreline in flood, the narrowest span of what
in other places was a meandering, wide river,
and a protective overlook to enhance security.
The epicenter of the Heritage Area, at the
intersection of Old Town and the Colorado
River, is the Yuma Crossing. Understandably,
the predominant focus of archeological study
has been in the National Historic Landmark.
Three primary cultural-geographical
components of the landmark were examined
through archaeological and historical research
procedures (from January 1983 to June 2002),
including the 1864-1883 Yuma Quartermaster
Depot, the 1876-1909 Arizona Territorial
Prison, and an area between the prison and
quartermaster Depot which was the site of an
early ferry crossing, the Colorado Steam
Navigation Company steamboat ways, repair
shops and storage sheds, the 1877 Southern
Pacific Railroad bridge and station, and the late
1880’s City of Yuma water and power
generating facility. The objectives of these
studies were to identify, inventory, and evaluate
archaeological resources within the Arizona
portion of the Landmark, and to provide
recommendations for the preservation
treatment of these resources. These objectives
have been met through the application of
archaeological survey and test excavation
procedures, and a review of documentary
sources pertaining to the history of the study
area.
A total of 27 excavation units within the
Landmark have been completed. These
excavations resulted in the definition of important archaeological features including: a
doorway and foundation for the east wall of the
Quartermaster Depot storehouse; a basement
APPENDIX F
located along the east wall of the storehouse;
foundations for the east and west walls of the
1881 Southern Pacific Railroad Station, and an
adobe wall-charred wood floor feature which
would appear to be the remains of a gate
house located on the east side of the
Quartermaster Depot. All of these
archaeological remains are in excellent
condition and are amenable to further
archaeological examination and interpretive
development.
Archaeological field investigations also resulted
in the identification and recording of several
structural and building features located on the
ground surface, including large concrete
structures associated with the 1895 railroad
bridge and the Quartermaster Depot pumphouse location.
Outside of the Landmark perhaps the most
significant resource is the Juan Bautista de
Anza National Historic Trail. Juan Bautista de
Anza was the first European to establish an
overland route from Mexico, through the
Sonoran Desert, to the Pacific coast of
California. On January 9, 1743, Captain Anza
reached the Yuma Indian villages at the
junction of the Colorado and Gila Rivers. Here
Anza courted the favor of the Yuma chief,
Salvador Palma, fording the Colorado and
forming a bond with the tribe that would ensure
future safe passage at this crucial point in the
journey. The Gila River section of the trail
would be the basis for the Mormon Battalion
route, the Butterfield Overland Mail route, and
the "southern route" many Americans followed
to settle California. In 1990, the U.S. Congress
created the Juan Bautista de Anza National
Historic Trail, comprising the overland route of
the colonizing expedition from Tubac to San
Francisco. The 1996 Management Plan by the
National Park Service is an importance
reerence and guide in this regard.
PURPOSE and NEED
San Ysidro Ranch, 10 miles east of Yuma on
the Gila River, was established as an
agricultural working ranch in 1871 and became
extraordinarily productive though 1878.
Founded by brothers Jose Maria and Jesus
Redondo, the ranch was a prototype for
agricultural experimentation and high yield in
southwester Arizona. Irrigated by the Redondo
Ditch off the Gila River, the ranch supplied
Yuma, nearby Fort Yuma, and Los Angeles
with a wide variety of staple and experimental
crops. In 1975, the ranch was listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, in
recognition of its architectural qualities and
historical significance.
Archaeological surveys of the 1980’s
recommended stabilization, preservation, and
interpretation of the ruins. The studies pointed
out the intrinsic value of the ruins as the
remains of one of the most exciting agricultural
projects to have occurred in Arizona.
The northeast corner of Madison and Third
Street is the site of the first Courthouse build
for Yuma County. Erected in 1873, the single
story adobe structure contained a courtroom
and offices in the front portion, and a jail with
stockade and a gallows sit in the rear. Recent
City of Yuma construction activity near the site
has prompted archaeological test excavations.
The site is currently encapsulated.
Archaeological investigations have also been
conducted outside of the landmark at San
Ysidro Ranch and at the original courthouse
site at Madison Avenue and 3rd Street.
APPENDIX F
PURPOSE and NEED
Archaeological Field Work Reports
1982
1983
1983
1984
1988
1989
1990
1990
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2002
Office of the Depot Quartermaster at the Yuma Quartermaster Depot, Doyle, Gerald A. and
Associates
San Ysidro Ranch Archaeological Project, Myers, Cindy L & James W.
Garrison
Yuma Crossing and Associated Sites National Historic Landmark: an Archaeological
Perspective, Stone, Lyle M.
A Master Plan for the Yuma Crossing National Historic Landmark, Doyle, Gerald A. and
Associates.
Archaeological Investigations within Yuma Crossing National Historic
Landmark: The Southern Pacific Railroad Station/Hotel Site in Yuma,
Yuma County, Arizona, Stone, Lyle M.
Work Plan: Cultural Resources Investigations of the Proposed Parking
Lot, Service Roads, and Walkways, Yuma Quartermaster Depot, Yuma, Arizona, Swanson,
Mark T. and Jeffrey H. Altschul
A Proposed Management Plan for Archaeological Resources Within Yuma
Crossing National Historic Landmark in Yuma, Yuma County, Arizona,
Stone, Lyle M.
Yuma Crossing Buffer Area Preservation Master Plan, Ryden, Don W.
Cultural Resources Investigations of the Yuma Quartermaster Depot, Swanson, Mart T.
and Jeffrey H. Altschul
Archaeological Monitoring or the Yuma Crossing Park Waterline at Fourth and the Yuma
Valley Railroad, Yuma, Arizona, White, William G.
The Historic Yuma Project-History, Resource Overview, and Assessment, Report prepared
for the Lower Colorado Region, Boulder City, Nevada, and Yuma Projects office, Yuma,
Arizona, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. Pfaff, Christine, Rolla L. Queen, and
David Clark
Revised Core Research Document: Yuma Quartermaster Depot 1850-1884, Wells, Reba N.
Archaeological Discovery/Test Excavations at the Historic Yuma Waterworks and Power
Plant in Yuma; A Summary Report, Stone Lyle M. and Scott Kwiatkowski
An Historic building analysis of the Corral House at the Yuma Quartermaster Depot. Yuma
Crossing National Historic Landmark. Ryden Architects
Archaeological Moinitoring of a Flagpole Posthole Excavation, Yuma Quartermaster Depot,
Yuma, Kwiatkowski, Scott
Comprehensive Management and Use Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement Juan
Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail Arizona -California U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service
Cultural Resources Survey for the Riverside Park Sediment DisposalSsite.
Bureau of Reclamatio., Telles, Carol.
Class III Cultural Resources Survey for the Yuma West Wetlands .
Mitigation Project, Yuma County, Arizona. Bureau of Reclamation.
Telles, Carol.
Historic American engineering Record: Southern Pacific Railroad Water Settling Reservoir,
Draft, Doyle, Gerald A.
APPENDIX F
PURPOSE and NEED
Historic Industrial Resources
Cultural Institutions
Water has had a strong impact on the industrial
development of Yuma. It was an early and
prominent commercial inland port for a short
period of time in the 19th century. At the turn of
the 20th century, the control of water rights
helped Yuma build its agricultural industry. It is
currently one of America’s largest vegetable
producers, ranking fourth in the nation.
The cultural heritage of the Yuma area is rich
with museums, educational institutions, cultural
organizations, and historical venues. Among
these--though not limited to these--are the
Yuma Territorial Prison State Park, the Yuma
Crossing State Historic Park, the Century
House Museum (a regional museum of the
Arizona State Historical Society), the St.
Thomas Mission on the Fort Yuma Indian
Reservation, the Yuma Civic and Convention
Center (numerous events throughout the year),
the Arizona Western College, the Northern
Arizona University—Yuma Campus, Arizona
Western College Theatre Arts, Cultural Council
of Yuma, Ballet Yuma, Native American
Organization, Quechan Cultural Committee,
Yuma Ballet Theatre/Dancer's Workshop,
Yuma Chamber Orchestra, Yuma Community
Theatre, Yuma Fine Arts, Association Yuma
Theatre Organ Society.
The Yuma Project, including Laguna Dam and
the Yuma Siphon, which brought irrigation
water to the Yuma Valley, is a visible and
important resource of the area, both in terms of
its historic importance and of its continuing role
in the life of Yuma. Active canals, managed
and operated by the Yuma County Water Users
Association, are also an important resource
within the Heritage Area.
The military has also played a key role in the
area. It was first drawn to the Crossing
because of its strategic importance in supplying
missions and military outposts and in defending
exploration and expansion. Fort Yuma was
established in 1849 on California side of the
Crossing and the Quartermaster Depot (1864)
collected and moved supplies for the region.
The strong military presence also made it a
convenient location for a territorial prison
(1875). World War II brought renewed interest
to the area, due to the open desert areas for
use as training grounds for the battles in North
Africa, as well as for the potential as airfields.
The station began as the Army Airfield in 1941,
later became an Air Force facility in the early
‘50s, and is now the U. S. Marine Air Station.
The Yuma Proving Ground, related to the
presence during WWII, is still an important
aspect of Yuma’s commerce.
APPENDIX F
PURPOSE and NEED
Historic Structures / Districts
The Secretary of the Interior has a set of
specific standards for the treatment of Historic
Properties. These “apply to all proposed
development grant-in-aid projects assisted
through the National Historic Preservation
Fund, and are intended to be applied to a wide
variety of resource types, including buildings,
sites, structures, objects, and
districts.” (Revised in 1992; codified as 36
CFR Part 68, July 12, 1995 Federal Register
vol. 60, No. 133). These standards identify four
individual, though interrelated, treatment
approaches:
Preservation
Maintenance and repair of existing historic
materials and retention of property’s form.
Rehabilitation
Allows alteration or addition to historic property
to meet changing uses while retaining
property’s historic character.
Restoration
Depicts a property at a particular period in
history and removes evidence of other periods.
Reconstruction
Recreates lost portions of a property for
interpretive purposes.
There are numerous residential and
commercial properties listed on the National
Register of Historic Places within the Heritage
Area. There is the Yuma Crossing National
Historic Landmark and Associated Sites.
There are also three Historic Districts on the
National Register: Yuma Main Street Historic
District, Brinley Avenue Historic District, and
Century Heights Conservancy Residential
Historic District.
APPENDIX F
PURPOSE and NEED
Properties Listed on the National Historic Register
Commercial - In Chronological Order
Historic Name
Address
Year
Yuma Crossing
San Ysidro Hacienda
Yuma Territorial Prison
Blaisdell Slow Sand Filter
Methodist Parsonage
Stofella Store
Methodist/Episcopal Church
St. Paul's Episcopal Church
S. Pacific Freight Depot
Ocean to Ocean Bridge
Hotel Lee
Gandolfo Theater
Cactus Press-Plaza Paint
Fourth Avenue Junior High
Yuma City Hall
Roosevelt School
Hotel Del Ming (del Sol)
Yuma County Courthouse
San Carlos Hotel
Masonic Temple
Yuma Post Office
4th Ave. & Jones
8 mi. E. of Yuma/U.S. 95
Riverside Park
North Jones Street
248 S. 1st Avenue
447 S. Main Street
256 S. 1st Avenue
637 2nd Avenue
430 S. Main Street
Penitentiary Avenue
390 S. Main Street
200 S. 1st Avenue
30-54 E. 3rd Street
450 S. 4th Avenue
180 W. 1st Street
550 5th Street
300 Gila Street
168 S. 2nd Avenue
106 E. 1st Street
153 S. 2nd Avenue
370 S. Main Street
1848
1860
1883
1892
1893
1899
1905
1909
Pre-1911
1914
1917
1917
1920
1920
1921
1926
1926
1928
1930
1931
1933
Historic Districts
Yuma Main Street Historic District
24 contributing structures
170-400 Main St.
Brinley Avenue Historic District
23 contributing structures
Madison Ave. & 2nd St.
Century Heights Conservancy
105 contributing buildings
4th Ave., 8th St., 1st Ave.
Residential Historic District
Riverside Park
(Includes 17 contributing resources previously listed in the National Register)
APPENDIX F
PURPOSE and NEED
Properties Listed on the National Historic Register
Residential - Chronological
Historic Name
Address
Year
Mexican Consulate
C.L. Brown House
George W. Norton House
Caruthers House
Luz Balsz House
G.A. Ortiz House
Peter T. Robertson House
Jenny Kent House
Pancrazi House
Peter B. Hodge House
A.B. Ming House
George Marable House
E.B. Jackson House/Duplex
Ruth Ewing House
Russell/Williamson House
Alfred Griffin House
Carmelita Mayhew House
Harry Brownsetter House
Clara Smith Hiloy House
Fredley Apartments
Double Roof House
Dressing Apartments
Power Apartments
Henry Levy House
J. Homer Smith House
Pauley Apartments
129 W. 4th Street
268 S. 1st Avenue
226 S. 1st Avenue
441 2nd Avenue
473 2nd Avenue
206 S. 1st Avenue
837 2nd Avenue
450 3rd Avenue
432 Madison Avenue
209 Orange Avenue
468 Orange Avenue
482 Orange Avenue
472 S. 1st Avenue
712 2nd Avenue
652 2nd Avenue
641 S. 1st Avenue
660 S. 1st Avenue
627 Orange Avenue
734 2nd Avenue
406 2nd Avenue
408 2nd Avenue
148 S. 1st Avenue
20 W. 3rd Street
608 2nd Avenue
600 5th Avenue
497 W. 1st Street
c. 1892
1893
c.1894
1895
1899
1901
1905
1905
1905
1905
1906
1906
1906
1906
1907
1908
1909
1909
1909
1910
c.1911
1915
1915
1916
c. 1917
1926
APPENDIX F
PURPOSE and NEED
Brinley Avenue (National Register) Historic District
List of Historic and Contributing Structures
Historic Name
Address
Year
Yuma National Bank
Sanguinetti General
Merchandise Store
Drake Hotel
Yuma Title Abstract Building
Wupperman Office
Dorrington Block
Gandolfo Annex
Venegas House
Venegas Store
Ghiotto House
Jagoda House
Napoleon House
Popular Drug Store
Martinez House
Mary Neahr Pancrazi House
Bill Neahr House
Trautman Building
Polhamus House
Fitzgerald/Godfrey House
Sanguinetti House/Century House
Captain Jack Mellon House
Molina Block
Historic Courthouse Site
198 S. Main Street
1924
200 S. Main Street
29-39 W. 2nd Street
38 W. 2nd Street
40 W. 2nd Street
41-45 W. 2nd Street
44-60 W. 2nd Street
70 W. 2nd Street
78 W. 2nd Street
90 W. 2nd Street
94 W. 2nd Street
96 W. 2nd Street
102 Madison Avenue
106 Madison Avenue
118 Madison Avenue
124 Madison Avenue
190 Madison Avenue
224 Madison Avenue
228 Madison Avenue
240 Madison Avenue
248 Madison Avenue
272 Madison Avenue
Madison & 3rd Street
1900
1921
1908
1908
1908
1905
1906
1924
1915
1909
1901
1891
1875
1899
1896-1901
1908
1869
c. 1873
1870
1873
1891
1873
APPENDIX F
PURPOSE and NEED
Transportation Resources
Ethnic Resources
Yuma has been the hub of many forms of
transportation. Beginning with the trails
sketched out by early explorers to the region,
including those blazed by Father Kino, Juan
Bautista de Anza, Ewing Young, and Kit
Carson. The Quechan Indians used the
Crossing to transport goods across the river by
swimming while pushing large baskets filled
with goods. In the mid-nineteenth century,
supplies and commercial goods were brought
up from the mouth of the Colorado River via
river streamers. The Gold Rush of 1849
brought all kinds of travelers seeking their
fortune. They came by stagecoach, horseback,
and down the Gila River to Yuma on flatboats.
The Crossing has brought a wide range of
ethnic groups to the area for many reasons.
Native Americans such as Quechans,
Cocopahs, and Mohaves were the first to
occupy the region. The 16th, 17th and 18th
centuries brought Spanish explorers in search
of riches and priests such as Father Kino to the
area to establish missions.
Today, Yuma is still an important crossing for
the railroad. The Ocean-to-Ocean Bridge was
built in the 20th century to allow automobiles to
traverse the Narrows. Later, the 4th Avenue
Bridge and Interstate 8 were built carrying even
greater volumes of traffic.
At the beginning of the 19th century, after the
Louisiana Purchase opened up the west to the
U. S., explorers and traders from the east
began excursions into the uncharted territories.
The meetings between the Native Indian
population and the traders were sometimes
friendly, sometimes tense, depending on the
nature of the interaction. The presence of the
American military became prominent in order to
protect the increasing numbers of settlers
moving west and to defend American interests
during the Mexican War. Part of this military
included a Mormon Battalion that camped in
and around Yuma. Shortly after the Mexican
War was won, the Gold Rush began. This
brought a mass influx of travelers to and
through the area. Though there were initially
good relations between the Native American
population and the 49ers, as they were called,
the lack of sensitivity to the Indian’s lifestyle
and land, and the sheer numbers of new
immigrants, brought conflict
The various military forces have made Yuma a
key hub for air traffic and transport since World
War II. In 1949, when the interest in a military
presence began to wane, a local group
performed a sustained flight of nearly 47
nonstop days and nights to show the military
that the climate and location were ideal for a
long term military base. The City of Yuma
“Endurance Flight” plane has been restored
and is available for exhibit and interpretation.
Major stagecoach and rail lines through the
area brought more travelers west. Most were
passing through to the West Coast, but some
stayed. The census of 1860 listed 85
residents. By 1870 that had increased to 1144,
the second largest in the territory. Yuma’s
early settlers were of German and Italian
decent. Chinese immigrants also settled in the
area and built businesses. More recent
immigrants come from Mexico.
After the Gadsden Treaty of 1853, the U. S.
opened a commercial ferry at the Crossing. In
1877, the Southern Pacific Railroad built a
wood railroad bridge, bringing the first train into
Arizona. This important connection brought
more than just diehard wanderers. It’s relative
comfort brought tourists and immigrants from
the east.
In the 20th Century, the opportunity for irrigated
agriculture brought farmers to Yuma. In
addition, migration from the Depression “Dust
APPENDIX F
Bowl” brought mid-westerners west. Some
stayed in Yuma, either by choice or by
exclusion from California.
Today, 52% of Yuma’s population is Hispanic.
The close proximity of Yuma to Mexico plays
an important part in Yuma’s development.
Descendents of Native American tribes still live
and own large tracts of land in the area.
The development of the military bases in the
area since World War II have brought an influx
of soldiers from all over the country. And
during the war there were Japanese internment
camps nearby, as well as German prisoners of
war.
Ethnographic Resources
The National Park Service defines
ethnographic resources as any “site, structure,
object, landscape, or natural resource feature
assigned traditional legendary, religious,
subsistence, or other significance in the cultural
system of a group traditionally associated with
it.” (Cultural Resource Management Guideline,
DO-28:191).The Heritage area is owned by a
number of entities, including the City of Yuma,
the Quechan tribe, private individuals and a
variety of federal, state, and local agencies.
PURPOSE and NEED
Public informational seminars and workshops
have been given regarding the Yuma Crossing
Heritage Area Plan. Representatives of the
Yuma Crossing Heritage Area Plan Committee
are working with groups and individuals to
develop consensus on the project and address
any concerns or issues regarding
implementation of any aspects of the plan.
Environmental Justice
According to the guidance issued by the
Council on Environmental Quality,
environmental justice is the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people,
regardless of race, color, national origin, or
income, with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations and policies.
Fair treatment means that no group of people,
including a racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic
group, should bear a disproportionate share of
the negative environmental consequences
resulting from industrial, municipal, and
commercial operations or the execution of
federal, state, local, and tribal programs and
policies.
Some major landowners within the Heritage
Area include the following:
Quechan Indian Nation
Cocopah Indian Nation
US Bureau of Land Management
US Bureau of Reclamation
Arizona State Land Department
Arizona State Parks
City of Yuma
Along with these, there are literally thousands
of landowners within the boundaries of the
Heritage Area. Involvement with the Heritage
Area designation is strictly voluntary.
APPENDIX F
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives
Two Action Alternatives and one No Action
Alternative were developed during the planning
process. They were evaluated on the basis of
their ability to meet the goals of promoting,
interpreting, and preserving the resources of
the community.
What makes Yuma an anomaly among current
Heritage Areas is that it is a very fast-growing
community. The “No Action” alternative
involves much growth and development. Most
other current Heritage Areas are in stable,
mature communities, in which the Heritage
Area Plan promotes development through
conservation and preservation activities.
In Yuma, growth and development is already
taking place at a quick pace. The challenge for
the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area is to
promote the integration of Yuma’s history and
“sense of place” into the growth that is taking
place. Programming, education, technical
assistance and partnerships will be its most
effective tools.
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative
This alternative would continue with existing
policies and practices that involve city funding
or that emphasize partnerships between the
city and the private sector. In this alternative,
no management plan would be implemented.
No federal heritage area funding, interpretive
programming, or technical assistance would be
provided, and Yuma Heritage Area resources
would not be coordinated. Any projects would
be funded by either the City of Yuma or by
private sector funds.
Some limited environmental restoration pilot
projects would go forward, primarily in the 30
acres along the Colorado River at West
Wetlands Park. Most significantly, because of
its vast area, complicated land-ownership and
vast number of stakeholders, East Wetlands
District restoration, involving 1400 acres of
riparian land, would not be implemented.
Potential loss and degradation of natural,
cultural and historic riparian resources that
formed the character of the region would
potentially intensify due to limited funding
opportunities, lack of coordination, and
continuing infestation of non-native vegetation.
Currently, the City of Yuma has adopted plans
to develop multi-use facilities—hotels,
restaurants, offices, retail space,, and a
conference center—between First Street and
the River in the downtown on land primarily
owned by the City of Yuma. Some of this Cityowned land is in the National Historic
Landmark. These plans are currently being
marketed to the private sector. A visitor
contact center is also contemplated on the west
side of 4th Avenue. The City of Yuma is also
working with the Yuma Metropolitan Planning
Organization on the development of a multimodal facility in the Hotel Del Sol, a National
Historic Register property.
The City of Yuma is proceeding with new
recreational park development. West Wetlands
Park, which has undergone its own
Environmental Assessment with a Finding of
No Significant Impact, is under construction
with federal, state, and local funding, along with
volunteer efforts. The city plans to expand
recreational opportunities and improve
vehicular and handicapped access to Madison
beach park (called Gateway Park). It has
received local and state funding, and design is
about to begin.
Alternative 2: The Colorado
Riverway Approach
Alternative 2 would focus sole attention along
the river. The Colorado River-- and its historic
APPENDIX F
relevance to the area-- is of prime importance.
There would be three main venues: East
Wetlands District, West Wetlands Park and
Gateway Park.
East Wetlands--involving wetlands restoration,
reforestation, cultural conservation,
environmental education and low impact
recreation—would be undertaken directly by
the Heritage Area management entity, in
conjunction with the 28 stakeholders in the
East Wetlands. (93-95% of the East Wetlands
is located outside of the jurisdictional limits of
the City of Yuma.) Construction will be
undertaken with funds from sources other than
the National Park Service. Specific compliance
will be dealt with through the Bureau of
Reclamation or the Army Corps of Engineers.
Federal Heritage Area funds will only be used
for environmental education and programming.
The Heritage Area approach to West Wetlands
and Gateway Parks is to focus its efforts on
expanding historic interpretation, cultural
conservation, and environmental education
within these new City of Yuma parks. The
basic infrastructure of the park as well as
recreational opportunities are being provided
by the City of Yuma. The Heritage Area has
the opportunity to provide crucial historic
context, especially in the case of Gateway
Park, which sits within the National Historic
Landmark. In West Wetlands Park, the
Heritage Area can tell the story of the
environmental rebirth of a former landfill and of
how the river is being restored. Environmental
education is a main feature. Finally, the plan
for West Wetlands Park provides for the
opportunity to feature statuary celebrating the
many historic trails of the old West. It would
emphasize the opportunities presented by the
river and those historic aspects of the river.
Along with the existing Yuma Crossing State
Park and Yuma Territorial Prison State Park,
the added parks would showcase the river in
the Yuma area. Key to this emphasis are
interpretative venues within the parks that
explain the influence of the Colorado River on
Yuma, and on Yuma’s influence on the history
of the Colorado River.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 3: Preferred
Alternative—To Enhance
Both Natural and Built
Environments
Alternative 3 would focus on the Colorado
River and its influences, as well as on the
influences of the surrounding community. The
added component is the preservation and
enhancement of the historic downtown and its
adjacent neighborhoods. Weaving together
these venues into a coherent story—and
making it easily “readable” to residents and
visitors alike—is the focus of this alternative.
To accomplish these objectives of this
alternative, there would be established a series
of venues, along with an enhanced Visitor’s
Center and a Heritage Center (in historic City
Hall) that would be staffed and designed to
help guide visitors and residents to interpret the
rich resources of the area and on the Colorado
River. Along with the three river venues noted
in Alternative 2 there would also be the old
downtown, the Century Heights historic
neighborhood, the old Southern Pacific
Railroad Yard, the Brinley Historic District, and
the Main Street Historic District. Heritage
resources and technical assistance would be a
great asset in coordinating interpretation and
promoting preservation of these areas.
The Preferred Alternative ties together the
cultural, historic, economic, and natural
resources of Yuma and of the Colorado River
with the intent of highlighting their
interdependency. This alternative also
recognizes the need for a broad-based
partnership in order for the parts to succeed
and the whole to be revealed. This approach
emphasizes the need for the local management
entity, with technical and financial assistance
from the National Park Service, to help interpret
the most important influence on the area, the
Colorado River. The Heritage Area will help to
APPENDIX F
tell the greater story of the river and its
influences on the west, efforts at environmental
renewal and ultimately the Colorado river’s
impact on the entire country.
The long and varied history of Yuma is one of
confluence in all of its meanings: cultural,
natural, ethnic, historic, commercial, and
environmental. As Yuma experiences rapid
growth, maintaining a sense of its history will
serve as a “compass” in its maturation as a
community. The methods of maintaining that
sense of history are many. These include a
conservation of its history, both through its
physical buildings and neighborhoods, as well
as its broad cultural diversity. Programming
will be a crucial component, including historic
interpretation at key sites, educational outreach
programs for schools, and environmental
education. Revitalization of the downtown,
based on its history, brings potential economic
vitality. Along with this are the recreational
opportunities associated with the river, as well
as restoration of natural habitat for the benefit
of wildlife and the ecosystem.
ALTERNATIVES
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action scenario, no
management plan would be in place and the
existing local plans and policies would
continue. Rapid population and economic
growth will potentially exert pressures on
natural and historic resources. The No Action
Alternative would depend primarily on city and
private funding to support and formalize
existing policies, the result of which could be
the failure to adequately protect or interpret
resources. In addition, the opportunity for
present and future generations to learn about
and enjoy the resources would be potentially
diminished.
Action Alternatives
The two Action Alternatives would help focus
attention on the conservation and interpretation
of resources involving Yuma’s role within the
larger context of the history and development
of the Colorado River.
There would be no substantial adverse impact
on current land use. The primary effect will be
restoration of the river and its wildlife habitat.
Potential Environmental Impacts
The Environmental Assessment for the Yuma
Crossing National Heritage Area describes a
set of policies and programs, not projects, at
this time. Therefore, the potential
environmental impacts and benefits are more
strategic than specific. Individual federally
assisted projects that will be undertaken in the
Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area will
require separate, more detailed, environmental
assessments.
APPENDIX F
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO
ACTION
Cumulative Impacts
Existing soils in many of the project areas
along the river are in need of vegetation for
stabilization. Current use of these areas is
causing detrimental compaction due to lack of
a formalized path system.
Conclusion
Due to the sporadic character of funding for
future projects in this alternative, there is some
concern about continued long-term erosion and
compaction. There could be moderate impacts
if left unchecked.
Surface Water Resources
In the No Action Alternative there would be
marginal improvement in surface water.
Cumulative Impacts
The implementation of a boat launch in the
West Wetlands will allow access to the river.
There will also be a marginal improvement
through the 30-acre pilot project in the West
Wetlands by replacing invasive existing
vegetation with native plants and species.
There will be riverbank stabilization along
Gateway Park.
Conclusion
Alternative 1 would result in the same
practices and actions that currently exist.
Impacts would be short-term and minor.
Air Quality
ALTERNATIVES
Cumulative Impacts
This alternative promotes alternative
transportation modes of various kinds that
would have a positive impact on air quality.
There is the potential, however, of increased
vehicular traffic into the area with the addition
of any improvements, increasing the possibility
of vehicular pollutants into the area. Some of
these pollutants would be lessened by the
vegetation increases provided by the park and
wetlands improvements. The No Action
Alternative would continue existing policies to
promote alternative transportation modes.
These include a trail system along the River
and MODE, trail connections at West
Wetlands, and connections to proposed
Gateway Park. The Hotel Del Sol’s proposed
multi-modal center would promote “park’n’ride”
and the use of bus and train travel into the
area. East Wetlands District, unrestored in the
No Action Alternative, is a fire hazard and
presents an issue. On its own, with current
projections for development of a multi-use
project located north of First Street in
downtown Yuma, the No Action Alternative
would increase traffic congestion in the
downtown area and correspondingly increase
exhaust emissions.
Conclusion
There would be short-term air quality
disturbance during construction of any project
but long-term effects would be negligible.
Vegetation
Cumulative Impacts
The No Action Alternative would marginally
increase the vegetation opportunities in West
Wetlands and in Gateway Park, but not in the
extensive East Wetlands District. It would
increase the number of trees in West Wetlands
through the efforts of student volunteers and
local Parks and Recreation programs that
emphasize tree plantings. A 30-acre pilot
revegetation project in the West Wetlands will
APPENDIX F
replace invasive plant species in the flood plain
along the river with native plant species.
Gateway Park will also enhance existing
plantings in the park as well as use vegetation
to help stabilize the riverbank.
Conclusion
There would be short-term moderate impacts to
existing invasive vegetation during removal, as
well as moderate short-term impacts and
disturbance during revegetation efforts. Longterm, there would be moderate beneficial
effects for the entire region.
Fish and Wildlife
Cumulative Impacts
There would be no change to existing invasive
habitat in the East Wetlands District in the No
Action Alternative. The No Action
Alternative would follow current practices
implemented by the City of Yuma with the
removal of invasive species and introduction of
native habitat in the West Wetlands pilot
project. Such an environment would encourage
natural wildlife habitats as well as natural water
filtration systems. However, given the current
condition of the East Wetlands, it can expect
that, without action, further degradation of this
riparian area will occur as a matter of course.
Conclusion
ALTERNATIVES
Cumulative Impacts
There are a number applicable plants and
animals in the region that fall under one of
these categories. Of particular attention along
the Colorado River are the Southwestern
Willow Flycatcher and the Yuma Hispid Cotton
Rat. Attention needs to be given to these and
other important wildlife habitats, particularly
during breeding / nesting seasons when
removing invasive species and replacing with
native plant species. Of note is the importance
of native willow / cottonwood habitat for the
survival of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher.
Conclusion
If plants are removed and replaced at
seasonally appropriate times and with a
thorough inventory of existing habitats in a
given area, there is negligible impact to wildlife
in the short-term and the benefits will be longterm. Lack of attention to replacement of
invasive habitats with native species could
have moderate long-term detrimental impacts.
Land Use
Cumulative Impacts
The No Action Alternative would follow
current practices for existing land uses in the
area by the development of West Wetlands and
Gateway Park. The City of Yuma and the
private sector are promoting commercial
redevelopment along the downtown riverfront.
Conclusion
The impact would be negligible and short-term.
Recreation
Threatened and Endangered
Species, Candidate Species, &
Species of Special Concern
Cumulative Impacts
The No Action Alternative would follow
current city practices to promote the addition of
trails and linkages in the area, and to promote
recreational opportunities on the river with
APPENDIX F
West Wetlands (including a boat launch) and
Gateway Park.
Conclusion
ALTERNATIVES
Conclusion
The impact would be negligible and shortterm.
Socio-Economic
Considerations
Cumulative Impacts
By necessity, this alternative offers a piecemeal
approach to planning since it is dependent on
project funding as it arises. The actual
realization of benefits may be long coming, due
to the lack of ability to implement a unified plan.
It would continue existing policies and have
some impact on current socio-economic
conditions due to the proposed downtown
commercial redevelopment project. In addition,
the creation of West Wetlands Park and
proposed Gateway Park--both of which are in
low to moderate income census tracts---is a
potential benefit. The restoration and
improvements at Del Sol with the multi-modal
center will potentially facilitate public transit and
bring more tourists to the area, helping to
bolster the economy.
Conclusion
Cumulative Impacts
This Alternative tends to promote the creation
of jobs through new investment and a potential
increase in tourists visiting the area, though, by
necessity, it offers a piecemeal approach to
planning since it is dependent on project
funding as it arises. The actual realization of
benefits may be long coming, due to the lack of
ability to implement a unified plan.
Historic and Cultural Resources
Cumulative Impacts
Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative
continues current policies and programs. The
City of Yuma supports preservation through
CDBG grants (such as the Gandolpho
Theater) and lends staff assistance to the
Historic District Review Commission.
However, resources are limited to develop a
comprehensive and coordinated approach.
Conclusion
Community Resources
Cumulative Impacts
The No Action Alternative would continue
with current policies and actions. The City of
Yuma is transforming a former landfill at West
Wetlands into parkland for day use, events,
and walking, biking, and horseback riding.
There will be a boat launch at West Wetlands
for river access and recreation. Improvement
to the downtown Gateway Park will provide
improved public access to the river. Currently,
there is ongoing interaction between the City
of Yuma and the private sector to undertake
economic development through commercial
projects in the downtown near the Colorado
River.
Conclusion
APPENDIX F
ALTERNATIVES
Ethnic Resources
Cumulative Impacts
Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative,
relies on city, private, and volunteer resources
to develop the interpretive information in its
approaches to inform the public about the
ethnic influences on the history of Yuma. The
Heritage Area would not formulate
coordination.
Conclusion
APPENDIX F
ALTERNATIVE 2:
THE COLORADO
RIVERWAY
APPROACH
Cumulative Impacts
formalized paths at numerous points.
Conclusion
Planning in these areas include path networks
that will have a minor impact on soils for the
short-term, but which will reduce foot and bike
traffic over extensive areas and have a positive
negligible long-term effect. Stabilization with
further vegetation will have a short term minor
impact, and a long-term positive effect.
ALTERNATIVES
Conclusion
Revegetation efforts would have minor shortterm impacts at a local level. Long-term
impacts would be positive.
Air Quality
Cumulative Impacts
There is the potential of increased vehicular
traffic into the area with the addition of any
improvements, increasing the possibility of
vehicular pollutants into the area. Some of
wetlands improvements. Alternative 2 would
strengthen the use of paths, bikeways, and
equestrian trails as transportation alternatives
by providing linkages along the river from West
Wetlands through East Wetlands District,
including Gateway Park. It also provides for
educational opportunities that promote
environmentally sound practices in the area
Conclusion
Vegetation
Cumulative Impacts
Alternative 2 would have a substantial positive
impact in the East Wetlands through extensive
restoration of habitat and replacement of
invasive species vegetation with native species
plants. (Construction to be implemented with
non-Heritage Area funds.) Such an
environment would encourage natural wildlife
habitats as well as natural water filtration
systems. This alternative also encourages and
provides opportunities for environmental
education along the river. Interpretive venues
along the river featuring the natural
environment would be more fully developed in
this alternative than in the No Action plan.
Cumulative Impacts
Alternative 2 would add another level of
funding and technical assistance to continue
and increase the existing projects and
proposals for West Wetlands and Gateway
Park. Environmental education will be greatly
strengthened. Most importantly, the 1400 acre
revegetation of the East Wetlands within the
floodplain will restore native cottonwoods and
willows to this riparian area. (Construction to
be implemented with non-Heritage Area funds.)
Conclusion
APPENDIX F
ALTERNATIVES
Conclusion
Fish and Wildlife
Cumulative Impacts
Alternative 2 would promote the conservation
and protection of plants and wildlife in Gateway
and West Wetlands Parks, as well as in the
East Wetlands District. Opportunities for
natural habitat would be greatly enhanced with
the reduction of invasive plant species and the
reintroduction of native species. Such an
systems. (Construction to be implemented with
non-Heritage Area funds.) This alternative also
promotes and provides opportunities for
environmental education.
Conclusion
wildlife during invasive vegetation removal, as
in the short-term and the benefits will be longterm.
Land Use
Cumulative Impacts
Alternative 2 would retain much of the existing
land uses along with the rejuvenation and
restoration of existing riparian areas and open
space in East Wetlands District.
Conclusion
Short-term land use impacts would be moderate and beneficial. They would include
restoration of biotic communities, visitor
interpretation, and focused circulation systems
that would have negligible impacts on the land
areas as a whole.
Recreation
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Impacts
Alternative 2 would create additional linkages
throughout the Yuma Crossing National
Heritage Area from West Wetlands, through
Gateway Park and into East Wetlands District
in order to promote the use of paths for
walking, biking, and horseback riding. In so
doing, greenway links would be created along
the river, including the addition of boat
launches at strategic locations on the Colorado
River. This would allow for boating, fishing,
transportation, touring, and greater
APPENDIX F
ALTERNATIVES
opportunities to use interpretive materials to
explain and educate about the influence of the
river on the area and on the country.
Historic and Cultural
Resources
Conclusion
Cumulative Impacts
Short-term impacts during construction of
pathways and boat launch areas would be
minor. Long-term impacts would offer a moderate series of benefits along the river.
Alternative 2 focuses considerable attention
within the East Wetlands on conservation of the
Quechan Indian Nation culture.
Conclusion
Short and long-term benefits are moderate.
Socio-Economic
Considerations
Cumulative Impacts
Alternative 2 would have potential impact on
the area due to the enhancement along the
river and potential beneficial impacts to
adjacent properties. There is potential benefit
from proposed investment in physical
infrastructure adjacent to the Heritage Area
properties along the river.
Conclusion
There may be short-term moderate impacts to
properties and businesses adjacent to
construction zones. These would become a
moderate benefit over the long-term due to
aesthetic and functional improvements.
Cumulative Impacts
The collaboration among stakeholders,
including the Quechan Indian Nation, in the
East Wetlands in Alternative 2 greatly
improves the quality of life and relations among
all ethnic groups in Yuma. The Quechan
Cultural Center is an important new proposed
asset for Yuma.
Conclusion
Community Resources
Cumulative Impacts
Alternative 2 would benefit the area’s historic,
cultural, environmental and recreational
resources by restoring the East Wetlands and
by adding environmental education and historic
programming at West Wetlands and Gateway
Park. In effect, it would place the Colorado
River in its historic context as the guiding
natural force that shaped the area’s history.
Alternative 2, since it focuses attention along
the river, is primarily geared toward
environmental restoration, enhancement,
recreation, and education. East Wetlands
District will be an ambitious effort at restoration
of the existing marshland as well as an
interpretive area for the Quechan Indian Tribe.
There will be habitat restoration with native
plants and removal of invasive species that
have long dominated the river’s edge.
Conclusion
Ethnic Resources
Cumulative Impacts
Alternative 2 highlights the Colorado River and
its impact on and by various ethnic groups
throughout its history. The key element in this
alternative is the leadership-of the Quechan
Indian Nation with other stakeholders to
implement the East Wetlands in the Heritage
Area.
Conclusion
APPENDIX F
ALTERNATIVE 3:
PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE—TO
ENHANCE BOTH
NATURAL AND
BUILT
ENVIRONMENTS
ALTERNATIVES
natural wildlife habitats as well as natural water
filtration systems. This alternative also
encourages and provides opportunities for
environmental education along the river.
Interpretive venues along the river featuring the
natural environment would be more fully
developed in this alternative than in the No
Action plan.
Conclusion
Revegetation efforts would have minor shortterm impacts at a local level. Long-term
Air Quality
Cumulative Impacts
formalized paths at numerous points.
Conclusion
Planning in these areas include path networks
that will have a minor impact on soils for the
short-term, but which will reduce foot and bike
traffic over extensive areas and have a positive
negligible long-term effect. Stabilization with
further vegetation will have a short term minor
impact, and a long-term positive negligible
effect. Historic District improvements would
have varied levels of intensity, depending on
the project. These would be short-term.
Cumulative Impacts
There is the potential of increased vehicular
traffic into the area with the addition of any
improvements, increasing the possibility of
vehicular pollutants into the area. Some of
wetlands improvements. Alternative 3 would
strengthen the use of paths, bikeways, and
equestrian trails as transportation alternatives
by providing linkages along the river from West
Wetlands through East Wetlands District,
including Gateway Park. It also provides for
educational opportunities that promote
environmentally sound practices in the area
Conclusion
Vegetation
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Impacts
Alternative 3 would have a substantial positive
impact in the East Wetlands through extensive
restoration of habitat and replacement of
invasive species vegetation with native species
plants. Such an environment would encourage
Alternative 3 would add another level of
funding and technical assistance to continue
and increase the existing projects and
proposals for West Wetlands and Gateway
APPENDIX F
Park, as well as vegetative streetscape
improvements in Historic Districts.
Environmental education will be greatly
strengthened. Most importantly, the 1400-acre
revegetation of the East Wetlands within the
floodplain will restore native cottonwoods and
willows to this riparian area.
Conclusion
Fish and Wildlife
Cumulative Impacts
Alternative 3 would promote the conservation
and protection of plants and wildlife in Gateway
and West Wetlands Parks, as well as in the
East Wetlands District. Opportunities for
natural habitat would be greatly enhanced with
the reduction of invasive plant species and the
reintroduction of native species. Such an
systems. This alternative also promotes and
provides opportunities for environmental
education.
Conclusion
wildlife during invasive vegetation removal, as
ALTERNATIVES
Cumulative Impacts
Conclusion
in the short-term and the benefits will be longterm.
Land Use
Cumulative Impacts
Alternative 3 would upgrade and restore many
of the land uses within the Heritage Area. The
Historic Districts would include streetscape
improvements, façade, and building restoration.
The parks along the river would also be
upgraded and restored, including extensive
rejuvenation and restoration of existing riparian
areas and open space in the East Wetlands
District.
Conclusion
Short-term land use impacts would vary with
each project, particularly in the Historic
Districts. Along the river, the impacts would be
moderate in the short-term and offer moderate
benefits in the long-term. This would include
restoration of biotic communities, visitor
interpretation, and focused circulation systems.
APPENDIX F
ALTERNATIVES
Recreation
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Impacts
Alternative 3 would create additional linkages
throughout the Yuma Crossing National
Heritage Area from West Wetlands, through
Gateway Park and into East Wetlands District
in order to promote the use of paths for
walking, biking, and horseback riding. In so
doing, greenway links would be created along
the river, including the addition of boat
launches at strategic locations on the Colorado
River. This would allow for boating, fishing,
transportation, touring, and greater
opportunities to use interpretive materials to
explain and educate about the influence of the
river on the area and on the country.
The collaboration among stakeholders,
including the Quechan Indian Nation, in the
East Wetlands in Alternative 3 greatly
improves the quality of life and relations among
all ethnic groups in Yuma. The Quechan
Cultural Center is an important new proposed
asset for Yuma. The Heritage Center,
proposed in Alternative 3, would increase
awareness of the importance of the diverse
ethnic makeup that has shaped Yuma over the
years. With a large and increasingly multiethnic population in Yuma, the Heritage Area’s
focus on this issue is important.
Conclusion
Short-term impacts during construction of
pathways and boat launch areas would be
minor. Long-term impacts would offer a moderate series of benefits along the river.
Socio-Economic
Considerations
Cumulative Impacts
Alternative 3 would have potential impact on
the area due to the enhancement along the
river and in the downtown historic areas and
potential beneficial impacts to adjacent
properties. There is potential benefit from
proposed investment in physical infrastructure
adjacent to the Heritage Area properties.
Conclusion
There may be short-term moderate impacts to
properties and businesses adjacent to
construction zones. These would become a
moderate benefit over the long-term due to
aesthetic, functional, interpretive and historic
improvements.
Conclusion
Resources
Cumulative Impacts
Alternative 3 focuses considerable attention
within the East Wetlands on conservation of the
Quechan Indian Nation culture. In addition to
the riverway efforts, Alternative 3 emphasizes
the importance of educating the public about
the diverse cultures that have formed the
underlying fabric of Yuma. The proposed
Visitor’s Center would act as a first stop to
introduce the sweep of historical, recreational,
and cultural opportunities that the region has to
offer. The Heritage Center would introduce a
more detailed series of exhibits that would help
interpret the multi-cultural and historical
features that abound in and around Yuma.
This alternative also expands on the wide array
of assets in the area--not solely the river, or
solely the downtown--but the importance and
interdependence of both, as well as all the
cultures that have shaped or have been
shaped by them. Greater attention is proposed
for historic preservation efforts in this
APPENDIX F
Alternative.
Conclusion
ALTERNATIVES
Ethnic Resources
Community Resources
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Impacts
Alternative 3 would benefit the area’s historic,
cultural, environmental and recreational
resources by restoring the East Wetlands and
by adding environmental education and historic
programming at West Wetlands and Gateway
Park. In effect, it would place the Colorado
River in its historic context as the guiding
natural force that shaped the area’s history.
Alternative 3, since it focuses attention along
the river, is primarily geared toward
environmental restoration, enhancement,
recreation, and education. East Wetlands
District will be an ambitious effort at restoration
of the existing marshland as well as an
interpretive area for the Quechan Indian Tribe.
There will be habitat restoration with native
plants and removal of invasive species that
have long dominated the river’s edge.
Alternative 3 will pay considerable attention to
the downtown historic areas. The key
resources that would come into play in this
alternative are the inclusion of an interpretive
component and a coordinated approach to
conservation. Historic interpretation at West
Wetlands will add a new dimension to this new
City Park. In particular, Gateway Park, within
the National Historic Landmark, will become
more than simply a riverfront recreational area
adjacent to the downtown. Instead, it will
include a special emphasis on interpretive
areas due to its historic proximity to the early
railroad, ferry, and other historic crossings.. In
Alternative 3, there would also be an
enhanced Visitor’s Center and a Heritage
Center to help identify and interpret the vast
local and regional resources.
A major goal of the Management Plan is to
promote collaboration among and highlight
awareness of its diverse ethnic heritage.
Yuma’s historical development and its impact
on the nation as a whole are due to the
contributions of diverse populations crossing
paths at various points throughout history.
Alternative 3, highlights the Colorado River
and its impact on and by various ethnic groups
throughout its history. The key element in this
alternative is the leadership-of the Quechan
Indian Nation with other stakeholders to
implement the East Wetlands in the Heritage
Area.
Alternative 3 combines the Riverway
Approach with the interrelated influence of the
town itself. . From the Quechan and Cocopah
Indians, to the Spanish missionaries and
explorers, the mountaineers, the military, the
49ers, the uprooted families headed to the
coast, and the current snowbirds and
immigrants from south of the border, there has
been a lively mix of cultures and ethnic
backgrounds that have left their mark on Yuma.
The importance of explaining and unfolding this
story to the public is a major component in this
alternative. Certainly, collaboration among
Quechans, Cocopahs, Hispanics and Anglos in
order to tell the entire “Yuma story” is an
important feature in this alternative. Added to
this is the intention of enhancing Visitor’s
Center and preserving old City Hall as a
Heritage Center that help visitors and residents
understand and appreciate the historical and
cultural context of an area rich in ethnic history.
Conclusion
Conclusion
APPENDIX F
Environmentally Preferred
Alternative
The environmentally preferred alternative is
determined by applying the criteria suggested
in the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA), which is guided by the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The CEQ
provides direction that “[t]he environmentally
preferable alternative is the alternative that will
promote the national environmental policy as
expressed in NEPA’s Section 101:
1.Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation
as trustee of the environment for succeeding
generations;
2.Assure for all generations safe, healthful,
productive, and esthetically and culturally
pleasing surroundings;
3.Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of
the environment without degradation, risk of
health or safety, or other undesirable and
unintended consequences;
4.Preserve important historic, cultural and
natural aspects of our national heritage and
maintain, whenever possible, an environment
that supports diversity and variety of individual
choice;
5.Achieve a balance between population and
resource use that will permit high standards of
living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities;
and
6.Enhance the quality of renewable resources
and approach the maximum attainable
recycling of depletable resources.
The Management Action Plan alternatives
represent a set of policies and programs rather
than specific projects. The associated
environmental impacts and benefits are more
policy-oriented than physical.
The two Action Alternatives would have
positive impacts to varying degrees on most of
the key environmental, cultural, historic, and
social resources in the Yuma Crossing National
Heritage Area. Alternative 3, the Preferred
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative includes Alternative 2, the Riverway
Approach, and adds the downtown area,
including historical buildings and districts
important to the development of Yuma.
Alternative 3 represents the greatest potential
to create positive impacts of the three proposed
alternatives. Both Action Alternatives would
improve the Colorado River’s eco-systems. In
addition, both Action Alternatives explain and
interpret the story of the Colorado River and its
influence on the area and on the west as a
whole.
The No Action Alternative continues with
existing policies and projects, with more
emphasis on recreational park development
and economic redevelopment in the downtown.
A pilot project for revegetation and habitat
restoration takes place, but coordination and
collaboration through the Heritage Area for
extensive environmental renewal of the river
would not take place.
Additional Mitigation
Measures of the Preferred
Alternative
If previously undiscovered archeological
resources are discovered during construction,
all work in the immediate vicinity of the
discovery will be halted until the resources are
identified and documented and an appropriate
mitigation strategy developed in consultation
with the Arizona State Historic Preservation
Office.
Fueling of all construction equipment will be
conducted only in acceptable equipment
staging areas. Some petrochemicals could
seep into the soil during the operation of
equipment. Equipment will be checked
frequently to identify and repair any leaks to
minimize this possibility.
The construction official and the contractor will
jointly review and agree on a Storm Water
APPENDIX F
ALTERNATIVES
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The plan
will include descriptions and details of erosion
controls--including dust control, controls for
potential onsite storm water pollutants, and
description of potential non-storm water
discharges at the site—, contractor and
subcontractor certification forms, and “good
housekeeping” practices and requirements.
The construction official and the contractor will
sign a Notice of Intent and Notice of
Termination form to begin and end the plan.
A traffic control plan will provide parameters to
construction officials to safely guide visitors and
local citizens through construction zones.
Construction-caused delays to public traffic will
be determined by the scope of each project, to
be mutually agreed upon among relevant
parties prior to construction.
In each project implemented, a source of weedfree topsoil will be approved by the contracting
officer in conjunction with the guidelines set
forth by the Yuma County Weed Extension
Specialist. A contract with the topsoil supplier
to minimize the potential for introduction of
state listed exotic species may be required.
APPENDIX F
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES
Methodology for Assessing
Impacts
Impacts are described in terms of context (are
the effects site-specific, local, or even
regional?), duration (short-term or long-term?),
and intensity (negligible, minor, moderate, or
major?). The thresholds of change for the
duration and intensity of an impact are defined
as follows:
Short-term:
Long-term:
the impact lasts one year or less.
the impact lasts more than one
year.
Negligible:
the impact is at the lowest levels
of detection.
the impact is slight, but detectable.
the impact is readily apparent.
the impact is a severe or adverse
impact or of exceptional benefit.
Minor:
Moderate:
Major:
Cumulative Impacts
The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations, which implement the National
Environmental Quality Act (NEPA), require
assessment of cumulative impacts in the
decision-making process for federal projects.
Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact
on the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to
other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of what
agency (federal or non-federal) or person
undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR
1508.7).
alternative—Alternative 3—with other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions within the Yuma Crossing National
Heritage Area and, if applicable, the
surrounding region.
The Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area is
currently in the initial stages of preparing a
General Management Plan. The following
identifies proposals associated with
implementing the Heritage Area’s General
Management Plan or implementing actions
approved through other Heritage Area planning
that are still considered to be reasonably
foreseeable actions. In any case, development
will go forward. However, projects not involved
with the Heritage Area will probably not have
the resources or interest to include the
interpretive aspect, the result of which could be
the failure to adequately protect or interpret
resources. In addition, the opportunity for
present and future generations to learn about
and enjoy the resources would be potentially
diminished.
Cumulative impacts are determined by
combining the impacts of the preferred
APPENDIX F
Impacts to Cultural
Resources and Section 106 of
the National Historic
Preservation Act
In this environmental assessment, impacts to
the potentially eligible cultural resources are
described in terms of type, context, duration,
and intensity, as described above, which is
consistent with the regulations of the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that
implement the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). These impact analyses are
intended, however, to comply with the
requirements of both NEPA and Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
In accordance with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation’s regulations
implementing Section 106 of the NHPA (36
CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic
Properties), Impacts to archeological resources
and the cultural landscape were identified in
areas where projects are pending. In other
areas of the Heritage area specific projects
would undergo review and impact evaluation as
they are developed. Appropriate resource
impacts would be proposed, discussed, and
open for public comment at that time. All
projects are, were, or will be evaluated by (1)
determining the area of potential effects; (2)
identifying cultural resources present in the
area of potential effects that were either listed
in or eligible to be listed in the National
Register of Historic Places; (3) applying the
criteria of adverse effect to affected cultural
resources either listed in or eligible to be listed
in the National Register; and (4) considering
ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse
effects.
an characteristic of a cultural resource that
qualify it for inclusion in the National Register,
e.g. diminishing the integrity of the resource’s
location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse
effects also include reasonably foreseeable
effects caused by the preferred alternative that
would occur later in time, be farther removed in
distance or be cumulative (36 CFR Part 800.5,
Assessment of Adverse Effects). A
determination of no adverse effect means there
is an effect, but the effect would not diminish in
any way the characteristics of the cultural
resource that qualify it for inclusion in the
National Register.
CEQ regulations and the National Park
Service’s Conservation Planning,
Environmental Impact Analysis and Decisionmaking (DO-12) also call for a discussion of the
appropriateness of mitigation, as well as an
analysis of how effective the mitigation would
be in reducing the intensity of a potential
impact, e.g. reducing the intensity of an impact
from major to moderate or minor. Any resultant
reduction in intensity of impact due to
mitigation, however, is an estimate of the
effectiveness of mitigation under NEPA only. It
does not suggest that the level of effect as
defined by Section 106 is similarly reduced.
Although adverse effects under Section 106
may be mitigated, the effect remains adverse.
Under the Advisory Council’s regulations a
determination of either adverse effect or no
adverse effect must also be made for affected
cultural resources. An adverse effect occurs
whenever an impact alters, directly or indirectly,
APPENDIX F
Regulations and Policy
United States Public Law 106-319, the Yuma
Crossing National Heritage Act of 2000,
authorized the Heritage Area Task Force to
develop a long-range plan. This legislation
requires a Plan for the Yuma Crossing National
Heritage Area, as well as its submission,
review, and approval by the Secretary of
Interior within three years of the law’s
enactment. The plan will weave together the
historical legacy and future vision of Yuma over
ten years, and also address financing,
organization, logistics, and programming.
Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable
opportunity to comment on undertakings that
affect properties included in or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places before the agency's approval of such an
action.
NPS Director's Order 2: Park Planning
(1998) describes the decision-making process
that results in the goals and actions for the
National Park System and those units of the
national trails system administered by the
National Park Service.
The original concept plan, completed in 1999,
envisioned three major venues for the Heritage
Area: East Wetlands District, West Wetlands,
and downtown / Old Town, as well as
surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, the
plan would feature secondary interpretive
venues and linkages to historical trails of the
West. Enhancement of the venues is
contemplated.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969:
This law requires large-scale environmental
protection and a balance between uses and
preservation of natural and cultural resources
in the federal decision-making process. All
federal agencies are required to prepare
detailed studies of impacts and alternatives to
major actions by the federal government.
NEPA also requires that the interested and
affected public be involved in the study process
before decisions are made. This
Environmental Assessment has been prepared
under NEPA guidelines to determine if the
proposal has the potential for significant
impacts. If no significant impacts are projected,
a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will
be prepared.
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 requires that federal
agencies with direct or indirect jurisdiction over
a federal, federally assisted, or federally
licensed undertaking afford the Advisory
APPENDIX F
Table 2: Comparison of Management Plan
Alternatives
Criteria
Soils
Surface Water
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative
Alternative 2:
Riverway
Alternative 3:
Preferred
Existing soils in many of
the project areas along the
river are in need of
vegetation for stabilization.
Current use of these areas
is causing detrimental
compaction due to lack of a
formalized path system.
Due to the sporadic
character of funding for
future projects in this
alternative, there is some
concern about continued
long-term erosion and
compaction. The intensity
over time, if left unchecked,
could be moderate.
the project areas along
the river are in need of
vegetation for
stabilization. Current use
of these areas is causing
detrimental compaction
due to lack of formalized
paths at numerous points.
Planning in these areas
include path networks that
will have a minor impact
on soils for the short-term,
but which will reduce foot
and bike traffic over
extensive areas and have
a positive negligible longterm effect. Stabilization
with further vegetation will
have a short term minor
impact, and a long-term
positive effect.
the project areas along
the river are in need of
vegetation for
stabilization. Current use
of these areas is causing
detrimental compaction
due to lack of formalized
paths at numerous points.
Planning in these areas
include path networks that
will have a minor impact
on soils for the short-term,
but which will reduce foot
and bike traffic over
extensive areas and have
a positive negligible longterm effect. Stabilization
with further vegetation will
have a short term minor
impact, and a long-term
positive effect.
The implementation of a
boat launch in the West
Wetlands will allow access
to the river. There will also
be a marginal improvement
through the 30-acre pilot
project in the West
Wetlands by replacing
invasive existing vegetation
with native plants and
species. There will be
riverbank stabilization
along Gateway Park. This
would result in the same
practices and actions that
currently exist. Impacts
would be short-term and
minor.
Alternative 2 would have a
substantial positive impact
in the East Wetlands
through extensive
restoration of habitat and
replacement of invasive
species vegetation with
native species plants.
(Construction to be
implemented with nonHeritage Area funds.)
Such an environment
would encourage natural
wildlife habitats as well as
natural water filtration
systems. This alternative
also encourages and
provides opportunities for
environmental education
along the river.
Interpretive venues along
the river featuring the
natural environment would
be developed in this
alternative. Revegetation
efforts would have minor
short-term impacts at a
local level. Long-term
Alternative 3 would have a
substantial positive impact
through extensive
restoration of habitat and
replacement of invasive
species vegetation with
native species plants.
(Construction to be
Such an environment
also encourages and
environmental education
along the river. Interpretive
venues along the river
featuring the natural
environment would be
developed in this
alternative. Revegetation
efforts would have minor
short-term impacts at a
local level. Long-term
APPENDIX F
Criteria
Air Quality
Vegetation
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative
Alternative 2:
Riverway
Alternative 3:
Preferred
There would be short-term
air quality disturbance
during construction of any
project but long-term
effects would be negligible.
There is the potential of
increased vehicular traffic
into the area with the
addition of any
improvements, increasing
the possibility of vehicular
pollutants into the area.
Some of these pollutants
would be lessened by the
vegetation increases
provided by the park and
wetlands improvements.
Alternative 2 would
strengthen the use of
paths, bikeways, and
equestrian trails as
transportation alternatives
by providing linkages
along the river from West
Wetlands through East
Wetlands District,
including Gateway Park.
air quality disturbance
during construction of any
project but long-term
effects would be negligible
There is the potential of
increased vehicular traffic
into the area with the
addition of any
improvements, increasing
the possibility of vehicular
pollutants into the area.
Some of these pollutants
would be lessened by the
vegetation increases
provided by the park and
wetlands improvements.
Alternative 3 would
strengthen the use of
paths, bikeways, and
equestrian trails as
transportation alternatives
by providing linkages along
the river from West
Wetlands through East
Wetlands District, including
Gateway Park. There
would be short-term air
quality disturbance during
construction of any project
but long-term effects would
be negligible
This would marginally
increase the vegetation
opportunities in West
Wetlands and in Gateway
Park, but not in the
extensive East Wetlands
District. There would be
short-term moderate
impacts to existing invasive
vegetation during removal,
as well as moderate shortterm impacts and
disturbance during
revegetation efforts. Longterm, there would be
moderate beneficial effects
for the entire region.
Alternative 2 would add
another level of funding
and technical assistance
to continue and increase
the existing projects and
proposals for West
Wetlands and Gateway
Park. Environmental
education will be greatly
strengthened. Most
importantly, the 1400 acre
revegetation of the East
Wetlands within the
floodplain will restore
native cottonwoods and
willows to this riparian
area. (Construction to be
moderate impacts to
existing invasive
vegetation during
removal, as well as
moderate short-term
impacts and disturbance
during revegetation
efforts. Long-term, there
would be moderate
beneficial effects for the
entire region.
Alternative 3 would add
another level of funding
and technical assistance to
continue and increase the
existing projects and
proposals for West
Park, as well as vegetative
streetscape improvements
in Historic Districts.
Environmental education
will be greatly
strengthened. Most
importantly, the 1400 acre
revegetation of the East
Wetlands within the
floodplain will restore
native cottonwoods and
willows to this riparian
area. (Construction to be
moderate impacts to
existing invasive vegetation
during removal, as well as
moderate short-term
during revegetation efforts.
Long-term, there would be
APPENDIX F
Criteria
Fish and Wildlife
Species
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative
Alternative 2:
Riverway
Alternative 3:
Preferred
There would be no change
to existing invasive habitat
District. This would follow
current practices
implemented by the City of
Yuma with the removal of
invasive species and
introduction of native
habitat in the West
Wetlands pilot project.
Such an environment
systems. However, given
the current condition of the
East Wetlands, it can
expect that, without action,
further degradation of this
riparian area will occur as a
matter of There would be
short-term moderate
impacts to existing invasive
vegetation during removal,
as well as moderate shortterm impacts and
disturbance during
revegetation efforts. Longterm, there would be
.
Alternative 2 would
promote the conservation
and protection of plants
and wildlife in Gateway
and West Wetlands
Parks, as well as in the
East Wetlands District.
Opportunities for natural
habitat would be greatly
enhanced with the
reduction of invasive plant
species and the
reintroduction of native
species. (Construction to
be implemented with nonHeritage Area funds.)
Such an environment
also promotes and
moderate impacts to
wildlife during invasive
vegetation removal, as
well as moderate shortterm impacts and
disturbance during
revegetation efforts.
moderate beneficial
effects for the entire
region.
Alternative 3 would
promote the conservation
and protection of plants
and wildlife in Gateway and
West Wetlands Parks, as
well as in the East
Wetlands District.
Opportunities for natural
habitat would be greatly
enhanced with the
reduction of invasive plant
species and the
reintroduction of native
species. (Construction to
be implemented with nonHeritage Area funds.)
Such an environment
also promotes and
moderate impacts to
wildlife during invasive
vegetation removal, as well
as moderate short-term
during revegetation efforts.
There are a number
applicable plants and
animals in the region that
fall under one of these
categories. If plants are
removed and replaced at
seasonally appropriate
times and with a thorough
inventory of existing
habitats in a given area,
there is negligible impact to
wildlife in the short-term
and the benefits will be
long-term. Lack of
attention to replacement of
invasive habitats with
native species could have
moderate long-term
detrimental impacts.
There are a number
there is negligible impact
to wildlife in the short-term
long-term. Lack of
attention to replacement
of invasive habitats with
moderate long-term
There are a number
there is negligible impact to
wildlife in the short-term
long-term. Lack of
attention to replacement of
invasive habitats with
moderate long-term
APPENDIX F
Criteria
Land Use
Recreation
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative
Alternative 2:
Riverway
The No Action Alternative
would follow current
practices for existing land
uses in the area by the
development of West
Park. The City of Yuma
and the private sector are
promoting commercial
redevelopment along the
downtown riverfront. The
impact would be negligible
and short-term.
Alternative 2 would retain
much of the existing land
uses along with the
rejuvenation and
restoration of existing
riparian areas and open
space in East Wetlands
District. Short-term land
use impacts would be
moderate and beneficial.
They would include
restoration of biotic
communities, visitor
interpretation, and
focused circulation
systems that would have
negligible impacts on the
land areas as a whole.
The No Action Alternative
would follow current city
practices to promote the
addition of trails and
linkages in the area, and to
promote recreational
opportunities on the river
with West Wetlands
(including a boat launch)
and Gateway Park The
impact would be negligible
and short-term.
Alternative 2 would create
additional linkages
throughout the Yuma
Crossing National
Heritage Area from West
Wetlands, through
Gateway Park and into
East Wetlands District in
order to promote the use
of paths for walking,
biking, and horseback
riding. In so doing,
greenway links would be
created along the river,
including the addition of
boat launches at strategic
locations on the Colorado
River. This would allow
for boating, fishing,
transportation, touring,
and greater opportunities
to use interpretive
materials to explain and
educate about the
influence of the river on
the area and on the
country. Short-term
impacts during
construction of pathways
and boat launch areas
would be minor. Longterm impacts would offer a
moderate series of
benefits along the river.
Alternative 3:
Preferred
Alternative 3 would
upgrade and restore many
of the land uses within the
Heritage Area. The
Historic Districts would
include streetscape
improvements, façade, and
building restoration. The
parks along the river would
also be upgraded and
restored, including
extensive rejuvenation and
restoration of existing
riparian areas and open
space in the East Wetlands
District. Short-term land
use impacts would vary
with each project,
particularly in the Historic
Districts. Along the river,
the impacts would be
moderate in the short-term
and offer moderate benefits
in the long-term. This
would include restoration of
biotic communities, visitor
interpretation, and focused
circulation systems.
Alternative 3 would create
additional linkages
throughout the Yuma
Crossing National Heritage
Area from West Wetlands,
through Gateway Park and
into East Wetlands District
in order to promote the use
of paths for walking, biking,
and horseback riding. In
so doing, greenway links
would be created along the
river, including the addition
of boat launches at
strategic locations on the
Colorado River. This
would allow for boating,
fishing, transportation,
touring, and greater
opportunities to use
interpretive materials to
explain and educate about
the influence of the river on
the area and on the
country. Short-term
impacts during construction
of pathways and boat
launch areas would be
minor. Long-term impacts
would offer a moderate
series of benefits along the
river.
APPENDIX F
Criteria
Socio-Economic Environment
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative
Alternative 2:
Riverway
By necessity, this
alternative offers a
piecemeal approach to
planning since it is
dependent on project
funding as it arises. The
actual realization of
benefits may be long
coming, due to the lack of
ability to implement a
unified plan. It would
continue existing policies
and have some impact on
current socio-economic
conditions due to the
proposed downtown
commercial redevelopment
project. The impact would
be negligible and shortterm.
Alternative 2 would have
potential impact on the
area due to the
enhancement along the
river and potential
beneficial impacts to
adjacent properties.
There is potential benefit
from proposed investment
in physical infrastructure
adjacent to the Heritage
Area properties along the
river. There may be
short-term moderate
impacts to properties and
businesses adjacent to
construction zones.
These would become a
moderate benefit over the
long-term due to aesthetic
and functional
improvements.
This Alternative tends to
promote the creation of jobs
through new investment and
a potential increase in
tourists visiting the area,
though, by necessity, it
offers a piecemeal approach
to planning since it is
dependent on project
funding as it arises. The
actual realization of benefits
may be long coming, due to
the lack of ability to
implement a unified plan.
The impacts would be
negligible and short-term.
The collaboration among
stakeholders, including
the Quechan Indian
Nation, in the East
Wetlands in Alternative 2
greatly improves the
quality of life and relations
among all ethnic groups in
Yuma. The Quechan
Cultural Center is an
important new proposed
asset for Yuma. Short
and long-term benefits are
moderate.
Alternative 3:
Preferred
Alternative 3 focuses
considerable attention
within the East Wetlands
on conservation of the
culture. In addition to the
riverway efforts, Alternative
3 emphasizes the
importance of educating
the public about the diverse
cultures that have formed
the underlying fabric of
Yuma. The proposed
Visitor’s Center would act
as a first stop to introduce
the sweep of historical,
recreational, and cultural
opportunities that the
region has to offer. The
Heritage Center would
introduce a more detailed
series of exhibits that
would help interpret the
multi-cultural and historical
features that abound in and
around Yuma. This
alternative also expands on
the wide array of assets in
the area--not solely the
river, or solely the
downtown--but the
importance and
interdependence of both,
as well as all the cultures
that have shaped or have
been shaped by them.
Greater attention is
proposed for historic
preservation efforts in this
Alternative. Short and
long-term benefits are
moderate.
The collaboration among
stakeholders, including the
Quechan Indian Nation, in
the East Wetlands in
Alternative 3 greatly
improves the quality of life
and relations among all
ethnic groups in Yuma. The
Quechan Cultural Center is
an important new proposed
asset for Yuma. The
Heritage Center, proposed
in Alternative 3, would
increase awareness of the
importance of the diverse
ethnic makeup that has
shaped Yuma over the
years. With a large and
increasingly multi-ethnic
population in Yuma, the
Heritage Area’s focus on
this issue is important.
Short and long-term
benefits are moderate.
APPENDIX F
Criteria
Resources
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative
This continues current
policies and programs. The
City of Yuma supports
preservation through CDBG
grants (such as the
Gandolpho Theater) and
lends staff assistance to the
Historic District Review
Commission. However,
resources are limited to
develop a comprehensive
and coordinated approach.
The impacts would be
negligible and short-term.
Alternative 2:
Riverway
culture. It also
emphasizes historical and
cultural interpretation-highlighting the influence
on the region of various
groups--at select points
within Gateway Park,
West Wetlands and East
Wetlands District. Short
and long-term benefits are
moderate.
Alternative 3:
Preferred
culture, along with other
cultural influences
elsewhere along the river.
In addition to the riverway
efforts, Alternative 3
emphasizes the importance
of educating the public
about the diverse cultures
that have formed the
underlying fabric of Yuma.
The proposed Visitor’s
Center would act as a first
stop to introduce the sweep
of historical, recreational,
and cultural opportunities
that the region has to offer.
The Heritage Center would
introduce a more detailed
series of exhibits that
would help interpret the
multi-cultural and historical
features that abound in and
around Yuma. This
alternative also expands on
the wide array of assets in
the area--not solely the
river, or solely the
downtown--but the
importance and
interdependence of both,
as well as all the cultures
that have shaped or have
been shaped by them.
Greater attention is
proposed for historic
preservation efforts in this
Alternative. Short and
long-term benefits are
moderate.
APPENDIX F
Criteria
Ethnic Resources
Resources
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative
This relies on city, private,
and volunteer resources to
develop the interpretive
information in its
approaches to inform the
public about the ethnic
influences on the history of
Yuma. The Heritage Area
would not formulate
coordination. The impact
would be negligible and
short-term.
Alternative 2:
Riverway
Alternative 2 highlights the
Colorado River and its
impact on and by various
ethnic groups throughout
its history. The key
element in this alternative
is the leadership-of the
with other stakeholders to
implement the East
Wetlands in the Heritage
Area.
Short and long-term
Alternative 3:
Preferred
A major goal of the
Management Plan is to
promote collaboration
among and highlight
awareness of its diverse
ethnic heritage. Yuma’s
historical development and
its impact on the nation as
a whole are due to the
contributions of diverse
populations crossing paths
at various points
throughout history.
Alternative 3, highlights
the Colorado River and its
implement the East
Area.
Alternative 3 combines the
Riverway Approach with
the interrelated influence of
the town itself. . From the
Quechan and Cocopah
Indians, to the Spanish
missionaries and explorers,
the mountaineers, the
military, the 49ers, the
uprooted families headed
to the coast, and the
current snowbirds and
immigrants from south of
the border, there has been
a lively mix of cultures and
ethnic backgrounds that
have left their mark on
Yuma. The importance of
explaining and unfolding
this story to the public is a
major component in this
alternative. Certainly,
collaboration among
Quechans, Cocopahs,
Hispanics and Anglos in
order to tell the entire
“Yuma story” is an
important feature in this
alternative. Added to this
is the intention of
enhancing Visitor’s Center
and preserving old City Hall
as a Heritage Center that
help visitors and residents
understand and appreciate
the historical and cultural
context of an area rich in
ethnic history.
Short and long-term
APPENDIX F
Criteria
Ethnic Resources
Resources
Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative
This relies on city, private,
and volunteer resources to
develop the interpretive
information in its
approaches to inform the
public about the ethnic
influences on the history of
Yuma. The Heritage Area
would not formulate
coordination. The impact
would be negligible and
short-term.
Alternative 2:
Riverway
Alternative 2 highlights the
Colorado River and its
implement the East
Area.
Short and long-term
Alternative 3:
Preferred
A major goal of the
Management Plan is to
promote collaboration
among and highlight
awareness of its diverse
ethnic heritage. Yuma’s
historical development and
its impact on the nation as
a whole are due to the
contributions of diverse
populations crossing paths
at various points
throughout history.
Alternative 3, highlights
the Colorado River and its
implement the East
Area.
Alternative 3 combines the
Riverway Approach with
the interrelated influence of
the town itself. . From the
Quechan and Cocopah
Indians, to the Spanish
missionaries and explorers,
the mountaineers, the
military, the 49ers, the
uprooted families headed
to the coast, and the
current snowbirds and
immigrants from south of
the border, there has been
a lively mix of cultures and
ethnic backgrounds that
have left their mark on
Yuma. The importance of
explaining and unfolding
this story to the public is a
major component in this
alternative. Certainly,
collaboration among
Quechans, Cocopahs,
Hispanics and Anglos in
order to tell the entire
“Yuma story” is an
important feature in this
alternative. Added to this
is the intention of
enhancing Visitor’s Center
and preserving old City Hall
as a Heritage Center that
help visitors and residents
understand and appreciate
the historical and cultural
context of an area rich in
ethnic history.
Short and long-term
APPENDIX F
Consultation and
Coordination
Coordination and cooperation among the city,
regional, state, military, and federal agencies
as well as private entities has been critical to
the planning for the Yuma Crossing National
Heritage Area.
In addition to communication and cooperation
among public and private agencies, extensive
outreach has been undertaken to include and
listen to affected individuals, groups, and
businesspeople. See Sub Appendices A
through E.
Multi-Venue Partners
Certain agencies, due to the depth of their
interest and responsibility, will be critical
partners in many areas of the Heritage Area.
The City of Yuma
The City of Yuma has been the primary partner
of the Yuma Crossing Heritage Area, providing
staff and other resources throughout the early
planning stages and animating the process that
ultimately resulted in the successful
designation by Congress in 2000. The City of
Yuma is undertaking a series of construction
projects, including Gateway Park and the West
Wetlands, which will provide the Heritage Area
with the opportunity to add historical, cultural,
and environmental interpretative programs and
educational opportunities. The City has also
entered into a long-term partnership with a
private developer to bring significant
investment to Yuma’s riverfront.
This
development will involve an investment of
approximately $50 million and will ultimately
include a major hotel and conference center,
and a significant retail center. The Heritage
Area will provide technical assistance,
expertise, and advocacy to encourage
culturally, environmentally, and historically
sensitive redevelopment within this important
area.
CONSULTATION and COORDINATION
The Quechan Nation
The Quechan Nation have lived at the Yuma
Crossing for possible 1500 years and are
among the few Native American tribes to
remain on their ancestral homes. Tribal lands
make up a significant portion of the East
Wetlands Development Area, a major
environmental rehabilitation project of the
Heritage Area. Other key cultural sites are also
controlled by the Quechan such as Fort Yuma,
which today serves as the administrative
headquarters for the Tribal government.
The Cocopah Nation
United States Bureau of Reclamation
The Bureau of Reclamation, as the agency with
the responsibility of operating the system of
dams and reservoirs on the Colorado River, is
involved with the Heritage Area in the East and
West Wetlands projects, and Gateway Park.
The Bureau will review all proposed land uses
within the floodplain and are a major partner in
telling the story of the Colorado River, the uses
of the water and the major reclamation projects
of the last century.
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
The EPA has been a critical review agency in
the environmental rehabilitation efforts to date,
and will be involved in future efforts – as a
reviewed and a funding partner – in the East
and West Wetlands, the Hotel Del Sol adaptive
reuse, and the reuse of the historic railroad
property in Yuma.
Army Corps of Engineers
The Corps of Engineers is a regulatory and
permitting partner of the City of Yuma and the
Heritage Area in both the West and East
Wetlands Development Areas.
Arizona State Parks
Arizona State Parks operates two critical
venues with the Heritage Area and the National
Historic Landmark: The Yuma Crossing Park
APPENDIX F
and the Yuma Territorial Prison State Park.
They have been a funding partner with the City
of Yuma within the West Wetlands
development area, Gateway Park, and the
Molina Block rehabilitation.
Arizona State Historic Preservation
Office
The SHPO will provide valuable technical
assistance and expertise to the Yuma Crossing
Heritage Area and to other Heritage Partners to
facilitate the Heritage Planning Process.
The statewide and local organizations who
oversee valuable historical venues and
resources within the Heritage Area and who
provide funding and expertise on a variety of
historical issues and programs.
Yuma County Educational
Consortium
As representatives of local school districts and
educational institutions, the Consortium will
provide assistance in developing programming
and materials and will facilitate the
incorporation of Heritage Area historical
interpretative programming into local
educational programs.
City of Yuma Historic District
Review Commission
The HDRC, a body appointed by the Yuma City
Council, serves as the historic review arm of
the Certified Local Government. In partnership
with the Heritage Area, they will provide
technical assistance to property owners and
administer preservation grants. They will also
work toward expanding the historic resources
of the Yuma Area with the identification of
additional historic sites and districts.
Specific-Venue Partners
agencies
will
be
involved
United States Bureau of Land
Management
As stewards of federally owned land, the BLM
is involved with the Heritage Area is several
locations including the East Wetlands and the
Gila Trail.
They will provide technical
assistance as the Heritage Area considers
future expansion.
United States Department of
Transportation
Arizona State Historical Society
Other
development of certain specific venues within
the Heritage Area:
in
the
The Department of Transportation is both a
planning and a funding partner of the Heritage
Area and its partners as efforts proceed to
create venues and exhibits to tell the story of
transportation at the Yuma Crossing and to
develop connecting trails with the region.
United States Fish and Wildlife
Service
The Fish and Wildlife Service is a planning and
regulatory partner all along the Colorado as the
Heritage Area seeks to further the
environmental rehabilitation of the area.
Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality
ADEQ, with the EPA, is a planning and funding
partner on the environmental and wetlands
renewal within the Heritage Area.
Arizona Fish and Game
Fish and game will provide expertise and
funding for wildlife management programming
and educational programs.
Arizona Department of
Transportation
ADOT has been a major funding partner with
the City of Yuma on the rehabilitation of the
Ocean-to-Ocean Bridge, and will work with the
City and the Heritage Area on the development
of a multi-modal transportation center and
Transportation Heritage Museum.
APPENDIX F
The Chamber of Commerce, through their
Military Affairs Committee, will be a future
partner of the Heritage Area in the
development of a Military Heritage Center.
development of some important resources
including organizational structure, funding,
staff, and expertise, for the purpose of
promoting the Main Street District and
marketing the businesses and activities within
the area.
With the advent of the Yuma
Crossing National Heritage Area, the Main
Street organization – Main Street, Inc. – has
broadened and redefined its scope and,
through a partnership arrangement, has
expressed interest in becoming the marketing
and promotional arm of the Heritage Area.
Certain former responsibilities of the
organization have been shifted to other
agencies, including the City of Yuma, so that its
future focus can be the promotion of major
events and festivals – not only within the Main
Street venue but also throughout the Heritage
Area as other venues are developed.
Yuma County
Caballeros de Yuma
The Office of Tourism will partner with ADOT,
the City of Yuma, and other Heritage Partners
in the development of the Arizona Visitors’
Center.
Yuma Visitors and Convention Bureau
The YVCV will participate in the development
and operation of the Visitors Center and will
assist in the general promotion of the Yuma
Yuma Chamber of Commerce
Yuma County will play a critical role in the East
Wetlands project, particularly as most of the
non-tribal lands included in the development
district lie outside of any municipal jurisdiction.
Association
As the oldest local water management
organization on the Lower Colorado River, the
Yuma County Water Users Association will
partner with the Heritage Area in telling the
story of the Colorado and its impact on
Agriculture.
Arizona Public Service Corporation
APS is the electric utility serving the Yuma area
and is a funding partner at the Gateway Park
and West Wetlands locations.
This local environmental interest group has
partnered with the City of Yuma in supplying
funding and volunteer labor in support of the
West Wetlands project.
Yuma Main Street Inc.
Main Street has been a focus area for
redevelopment and revitalization efforts for
some time.
This has resulted in the
The Caballeros de Yuma is a local civic
organization, which will partner with the
Heritage Area in the development of the
Gateway Park venue.
Yuma Metropolitan Planning
Organization
The YMPO is the local transportation-planning
agency and will partner with the City of Yuma
and the Heritage Area on the development of a
multi-modal transportation facility and
Transportation Heritage Center.
Marine Corp Air Station Yuma
Yuma Proving Grounds
These local military bases will partner with the
Heritage Area in telling the long history of the
United States Military at the Yuma Crossing.
Union Pacific Railroad
Successor to the Southern Pacific, the Union
Pacific Railroad is a major property owner
within the downtown area of Yuma and will
partner with the City of Yuma on the
redevelopment and reuse of the historic
railroad yard.
APPENDIX F
Preparers
Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Task
Force
Staff Support from City of Yuma Riverfront
Development Team
Deardorff Design Resources / inc.
Howard Deardorff, Principal
Rob Pulcipher, Landscape Architect
List of Environmental
Assessment Recipients
See Sub Appendix A, Table 3
APPENDIX F
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bibliography
Anderson, Bertin W. 1998. “Intensive Soil Analysis, Section A, Mile 31 Reveg., Contract 98-PG-3400138”. May. Revegetation and Wildlife Management Center, Blythe, CA.
Anderson, Bertin W. 1995. “Salt Cedar, Revegetation Ecosystems in the Southwest.” October.
Revegetation and Wildlife Management Center, Blythe, CA.
Anderson, Bertin W., and Robert D. Ohmart. 1985. “Habitat Use by Clapper Rails in the Lower
Colorado River Valley.” Condor 87:116-126.
Anderson, Bertin W. and R. Ohmart. “Vegetation,” Chapter 31. Center for Environmental Studies,
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
Anderson, B. W. and P. Russell. 1999. “First Annual Monitoring Report Gila River Confluence
Revegetation Site.” December. Prepared by the Revegetation and Wildlife Management Center,
Blythe, CA. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma, AZ.
Anderson, B. W. and P. Russell. 1999. “Revegetation and Wildlife Management, Report for CRIT 16”. June. Prepared for the Colorado River Indian Tribes in Parker, AZ. Prepared by the
Revegetation and Wildlife Management Center, Blythe, CA.49pp.
Anderson, B. W. and P. Russell. 2000. “River Mile 31 Revegetation Project: 2000”. December.
Prepared by the Revegetation and Wildlife Management Center, Blythe, CA. Prepared for the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma, AZ.
Anderson, Bertin W., Victor R. Vasquez, and Jesse S. Vasquez. 1993. “Revegetation Plan for
Cottonwood Creek in the Cottonwood Hills Development,” Lake Elsinore, California.
Unpublished correspondence.
Anderson, Dr. Stanley H. 1983. “Yuma clapper rail Recovery Plan.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 51 pp.
Andrews, E.D., 1980. “Effective and bankfull discharges of streams in the Yampa River Basin,
Colorado and Wyoming.” J. Hydrol., 46.
Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1995. “Rallus longirostris yumanensis.” Unpublished
abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish
Department, Phoenix, AZ, 8 pp.
Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1995. “Xyrauchen texanus.” Unpublished abstract compiled
and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department,
Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp.
Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 1997e. “Non game field notes - southwestern willow
flycatcher”. (http://www.gf.state.az.us/fishwild/ngame_b.htm
Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch (AGFD 2001) with Allen, Stephenson and
Associates and Westwater LLC. Restoration Plan for Hunters Hole. Prepared for United States
Bureau of Reclamation.
Blackwell, Creola, transcriber 1989. Samuel P. Heintzelman’s Journal 1851-1853 Fort Yuma. Yuma
County Historical Society. Yuma, AZ
Bowers, Janice Emily. 1993. Shrubs and Trees of the Southwest Deserts. Southwest Parks and
Monuments Association, Tucson, AZ, 140 pp.
BRW, Inc.1990. “Master Plan and Implementation Program-Yuma Crossing Master Plan”.
Presented to the Quechan Tribal Council by BRW, Inc., Tucson, AZ. 110pp.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1991. “1990 Annual Report on the Status of California's
State Listed, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals”.
Carothers, S. W., G.S. Mills and R.R Johnson. “The Creation and Restoration of Riparian Habitat
in Southwestern Arid and Semi-Arid Regions”. Wetland Creation and Restoration. SWCA, Inc.
Environmmental Consultants and Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University
of AZ. 351-363pp
City of Delphi. 1995.“Delphi Canal Trail, a Wabash River Heritage Corridor Fund Application”,
APPENDIX F
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Prepared by the City of Delphi, Delphi, IN.
City of Yuma. 2002. City of Yuma General Plan 2002. http://www.ci.yuma.az.us/coydcd/General%
20Plan/default.htm. Yuma, AZ.
City of Yuma / Clark-Lankford. November, 2001. Yuma Riverfront Master Redevelopment Plan.
City of Yuma. 2001. “Gateway Park: Heritage Crossings”. January. Grant application FY 2001
SLIF Grant Application. Yuma, AZ
City of Yuma. 1999. “West Wetlands Bi-National Environmental Enhancement Program”. Prepared
for the Environmental Protection Agency U.S.-Mexico Border Grant, Yuma, AZ
City of Yuma. 1997. Yuma, Arizona, Book of Facts, 1st Ed.. August. Yuma, AZ
City of Yuma, Department of Community Development-Planning and Neighborhood Services.
1997. “Colorado River Sediment Dredging & Wetlands Restoration Project”. August. Yuma, AZ
City of Yuma, Riverfront Development Office. June 30, 2001. Yuma East Wetlands District
Restoration Plan Final Draft Concept Plan. Yuma, AZ.
City of Yuma, Yuma Riverfront Task Force. 2000. “West Wetlands Report 1999-2000”. Yuma, AZ.
City of Yuma, Yuma Riverfront Task Force. 2000. “A Proposal for State of Arizona’s Sustained
Commitment to the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area”. Yuma, AZ.
City-County Planning Department. 1963. “Recreation and the River, A General Plan for the
resources of the Colorado River in Yuma County”. July. Yuma, AZ. 19pp.
Colorado River Indian Tribes. 1995. “’Ahakhav Education Nursery, An Arizona Game and Fish
Heritage Fund Application ”. November. Prepared for the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
‘Ahakhav Tribal Preserve, Parker AZ.56pp.
Colorado River Indian Tribes. 1999. “ ‘Ahakhav Park Management Plan”. September. Prepared by
V. Cuadras and Christina Rinderle. 28pp.
Colorado River Indian Tribes. 1999. “’Ahakhav Tribal Preserve Curriculum and Programs including
Resource List”. May. ‘Ahakhav Tribal Preserve, Parker AZ.
Colorado River Indian Tribes. 1998. “Bluewater Resort and Casino, Preliminary Planting Design:
Zones Two”. March. Prepared by Landscape Design Team F. Phillips, J. Squire, R. Henry, T.
Shaffer.
Zones One, Four & Five”. March. Prepared by Landscape Design Team F. Phillips, J. Squire, R.
Henry, T. Shaffer.
Zones Three”. June. Prepared by Landscape Design Team F. Phillips, J. Squire, R. Henry, T.
Shaffer.
Colorado River Indian Tribes. 1999. “Colorado River Indian Tribes Fundraising Task Force, Two
Month Strategy Plan”. ‘Ahakhav Tribal Preserve, Parker AZ.
Colorado River Indian Tribes. 2000. “Deer Island ICM Project Report”. June. Prepared for the
Multispecies Conservation Program. ‘Ahakhav Tribal Preserve, Parker AZ.
Colorado River Indian Tribes, Fish and Game Department. 1995. “Proposed Fishing Regulations.”
Parker, AZ.
Colorado River Project. 2000. “Governance in the Colorado River Basin”. Summer. River
Report.12pp.
Conant, Roger and Joseph T. Collins. 1991. Peterson Field Guides, Reptiles and Amphibians,
Eastern/Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. 450 pp.
Crowe, R. and S. Brinkerhoff. 1976. Early Yuma, A Graphic History of Life on the American Nile.
Yuma County Historical Society, Northland Press. Yuma, AZ.
Dahl, B., B. Hendrickson, J. Morton, F. Phillips, T. Stacey, L. Willenbrink. 1994.”Historic Kankakee
River Study”. Spring. Purdue University. Prepared for Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana,
IN.
Dahl, B., D. Jones, K. Mitchell, P.Lagasse. 1994. “Analysis and Feasibility Study, Greencastle/
Brazil Rails-to-Trails System”. Purdue University. Prepared for Greencastle Parks Board, IN.
Desert Botanical Garden. 2001. Phoenix, Arizona. “Recommended Desert Plant List.” http://
APPENDIX F
BIBLIOGRAPHY
www.dbg.org.
Dunne, T., and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. San Francisco: W.H.
Freeman Co.
Elsasser, Albert B. editor “Explorations of Hernando Alarcon in the Lower Colorado River region,
1540”
Environmental Data Research Institute. 1995. Environmental Grantmaking Foundations, 1995
Directory. Environmental Data Resources, Inc., Rochester, NY, 794 pp.
Environmental Education Exchange, Border Environmental Education Resource Guide, 2nd Ed.
Tucson, AZ. 2000.
Faulk, Odie B.1969. Derby’s Report on the Opening of the Colorado 1850-1851: From the Original
Report of Lt. George Horatio Derby. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM
Gaar, S., W. Hoban, S. Johnston, J. Martini, R. Royer and Professor Bernie Dahl. 1994. “Regional
Environmental Education: Curriculum and Design Guidelines for Elementary School Outdoor
Laboratories”. Spring. Prepared for Senior Regional Design, Landscape Architecture Program,
Purdue University, IN.59 pp.
Grimble & Associates. 1997. “Birds of the Yuma Area, Ecotourism, Business and Developmental
Opportunities”. Prepared for the City of Yuma, AZ. July 1997.
Grinnell, J. 1978. An Account of the Mammals and Birds of the Lower Colorado Valley. Arno Press,
New York, NY.
Hays, R. 1997. “The Colorado River Delta: Bordering on a Sustainable Future”. August.
BorderLines 38, Vol.5, no. 8. www.irc-online.org/bordline/1997/b138/b138colo.html
Hely, Allen, G. 1969. Lower Colorado River Water Supply – Its Magnitude and Distribution. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 486-D. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.
Holland, Dean 1962. An Ecological Study of the Insect Life along the Lower Colorado River.
Arizona State College, AZ.
Hopkins, Virginia. 1985. The Colorado River. Chartwell Books, Inc. Secaucus, NJ.
Ingram Design and Associates.2001. “Field Guide to Adventure”. The Southwestern Ecotourism
Alliance. Yuma, AZ. 35pp.
Ingram Design and Associates.2001. “Yuma Birding and Nature Festival”. Produced for the City of
Yuma. Yuma, AZ. 34pp.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.1999. “Habitat enhancement concept plan for Cocopah Indian
Tribal lands and adjacent areas along the lower Colorado River”. January. (JSA 98-192.)
Phoenix, AZ. Prepared for Cocopah Planning Department, Somerton, AZ.
Katz, Okitsu & Associates. September 10, 2001. Yuma Riverfront Development Traffic Impact
Analysis.
Kolb, E.L. Through the Grand Canyon from Wyoming to Mexico, The University of Arizona Press,
Tucson, AZ.
Kroeber, A.L. “ Hunger and Hostilities”, J. of Cal and Great Basin Anthro.
Kroeber, A.L. 1976. Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications, Inc., New York,
NY. 995 pp.
Little, Elbert L. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Trees, Western Region.
Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, 639 pp.
Leopold, L.B., M. G. Wolman, and J. P. Miller, 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology.
Freeman, San Francisco, CA.
Leopold, L.B., 1994. A View of the River. Harvard Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Lowe, Charles, H. 1985. Arizona’s Natural Environment. The University of Arizona Press.
Tucson, AZ.
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program. 2000. “Conservation Opportunity Area
Analyses, Phase 1 Summary and Synthesis”. March. Interagency Team. 33pp.
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program. 2000. “Conservation Opportunity Area
Analysis, Phase 1 Summary and Synthesis: Native Riparian Habitat Restoration and Costing
APPENDIX F
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Assumptions”. March. Interagency Team. 33pp.
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCRMSCP) 1999. Revised Species
Accounts (August 4, 1999). http://www.lcrmscp.org/files.html
MacMahon, James A. 1985. National Audubon Society Nature Guides: Deserts. Alfred A. Knopf,
Inc., New York, NY. 638 pp.
Marshall, R.M., S. Anderson, M. Batcher, P. Comer, S. Cornelius, R. Cox, A. Gondor, D. Gori, J.
Humke, R. Paredes Aguilar, I.E. Parra, S. Schwartz. 2000. “An Ecological Analysis of
Conservation Priorities in the Sonoran Desert Ecoregion”. Prepared by the Nature Conservancy
Arizona Chapter, Sonoran Institute, and Instituto del Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustentable
del Estado de Sonora with support from Department of Defense Legacy Program, Agency and
Institutional partners. 146pp.
McDonald, C.C., Hughes, G.H. 1968. Studies of Consumptive Use of Water by Phreatophytes and
Hydrophytes Near Yuma, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 486 – F. United
States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1968.
McKernan, R. and G. Braden. 1999. “Status, Distribution, and Habitat Affinities of the Southwestern
Willow Flycatcher along the Lower Colorado River, Year 3-1998”. March. Submitted to U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management. San
Bernadino County Biological Science Section and San Bernadino County Museum, Redlands,
CA. 71pp.
McKernan, R. and G. Braden. 1998. “Status, Distribution, and Habitat Affinities of the Southwestern
Willow Flycatcher along the Lower Colorado River, Year 2-1997”. March. Submitted to U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management. San
Bernardino County Biological Science Section and San Bernadino County Museum, Redlands,
CA. 64pp.
McKinnon, S. 2000. “Court Ok’s Pursuit of Water Claim, Quechan Tribe wants to obtain land, riverrights”.June20.TheArizonaRepublic.Phoenix,AZ. http://www.azcentral.com/news/0620river.shtml
Minckley, W.L. “Native Fishes of the Grand Canyon Region: An Obituary?” Colorado River Ecology
and Dam Management, Proceedings of a Symposium May 24-25, 1990, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 124-164.
Molles Jr., M.C., C.S. Crawford, L.M. Ellis, H.M. Valett and C.N. Dahm. 1998. “Managed Flooding
for Riparian Ecosystem Restoration”, BioScience Vol. 48 No. 9. September. 749-756pp.
Moody, Tom, Wilbert Odem and Daniel Neary. 1998. Return Intervals for Bankfull Discharge in
Ephemeral and Perennial Streams of Central and Southern of Arizona. Arizona-Nevada Academy
of Science, Phoenix, AZ.
Natural Vegetation Committee, Arizona Chapter, Soil Conservation Society of America. 1973.
Landscaping with Native Arizona Plants. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, 194 pp.
N.E.S., Inc.1994. “UTE Pass Trail Corridor”, September. Prepared for El Paso County. Colorado
Springs, CO.
Ohmart, Robert D., Bertin W. Anderson, and William C. Hunter. The Ecology of the Lower
Colorado River
From Davis Dam to the Mexico-United States International Boundary: A
Community Profile. 1988. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.19). 296pp.
Ohmart, R.D. and B. W. Anderson. “Riparian Habitat”, Chapter 9, Center for Environmental
Studies, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ.
Parker, Kittie F. 1972. An Illustrated Guide to Arizona Weeds. The University of Arizona Press,
Tucson AZ, 338 pp.
Patten, Eugene P. JR. 1977. Analog Simulation of the Ground-Water System, Yuma, AZ. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 486- I. United States Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
Payne, Neil F., and Fred C. Bryant. 1994. Techniques for Wildlife Habitat Management of
Uplands. McGraw Hill Inc., New York, NY. 840 pp.
Phillips, F, Rinderle, C, 2001. “Final Site, Soil Analysis and Revegetation Design for Lees Ferry 10
Acre Revegetation Project”. Phillips Consulting, Flagstaff, AZ 50pp.
APPENDIX F
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Phillips, F, 1998. “’Ahakhav Tribal Preserve Restoration Project” Restoration and Management
Notes. Univ of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. 12 pp
Phillips, F, Perillo, A. and Mullenix, S., 1996. “‘Ahakhav Tribal Preserve, Final Draft Report”. July.
Colorado River Indian Tribes, Department of Education, Parker, AZ, 169pp.
Phillips, F, Perillo, A. and Mullenix, S., 1995. “‘Ahakhav Wilderness Preserve and Recreation Area”.
August. Colorado River Indian Tribes, Department of Education, Parker, AZ, 79pp.
Phillips, F, Perillo, A. and Mullenix, S., 1995. “‘Ahakhav Wilderness Preserve”. Colorado River
Indian Tribes, Department of Education, Parker, AZ, 55pp.
Phillips, F. 2001.“Yuma West Wetlands Revegetation Monitoring Plan”. Prepared for the City of
Yuma. Phillips Consulting
Quechan Indian Tribe. 2000. “Quechan Wetland Conservation Plan”. Quechan Indian Tribe, Ft.
Yuma Indian Reservation, Yuma, AZ.17pp.
Ritter, D.F., Kochel, R.C. and Miller, J.R. 1986.
Process Geomorphology. Wm. C. Brown
Communications, Inc. Debuque, Iowa.
Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Rosenberg, Kenneth V, Robert D. Ohmart, William C. Hunter, and Bertin W. Anderson. 1991.
Birds of the Lower Colorado River Valley. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 395 pp.
Russell, Virginia L.1994. “The Retreat Environment: A Summary of a Study of the Participants,
Activities and Facilities of Retreat Centers”, Purdue University, presented at the Environment for
Tourism Conference Las Vegas, NV. 409-420pp.
Ryden, D. AIA/Architects, Inc. and BRW, Inc. 1991. “Yuma Crossing Buffer Area Preservation
Master Plan, Final Report”. November. Prepared for the City of Yuma. Phoenix, AZ
Satran, Ann. 1998. “Dine’ Traditional Teachings on Wildlife, A Guide for Teachers”. 1998, printed
by Window Rock Unified School District #8 Ft Defiance AZ.
Schaffer, Terry. 1999. “‘Ahakhav Tribal Preserve Curriculum and Programs Including Resource
List”. May. Printed by Colorado River Indian Tribes, Parker, AZ.
Scott, Shirley L., ed. 1987. Field Guide to the Birds of North America, Second Edition. National
Geographic Society, Washington, D.C., 463 pp.
Shaffer, Terry, 1996-2000, Avian Monitoring of CRIT 1&2 Revegetation Areas
Shafroth, P.B., J.M. Friedman, and L. S. Ischinger “Effects of Salinity on Establishment of Populus
fremontii (cottonwood) and Tamarix ramosissma (saltcedar) in Southwestern United States”
Shaforth, P.B., J.C. Stromberg and D.T. Pattern. 2000. “Woody Riparian Vegetation Response to
Different Alluvial Water Table Regimes”. Western North American Naturalist , 60 (1),.66-76pp.
Sitgreaves, Capt.Lorenzo, Report of an Expedition down the Zuni and the Colorado Rivers in 1851--U.S. Army Topographic Engineers, U.S. Senate Document 59 32nd Congress, 2nd Session
1853—Rio Grande Press, Inc. 1734 East 71st Place Chicago 49, Ill. 1962---(first published in
1853)
Sogge, M. K., R. Marshall, S. Sferra and T. Tibbits. 1997. “A Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol, Technical Report”. May. NPS/NAUCPRS/NRTR97/12. WWW.usgs.nau.edu/swwf/protocol.html#Section I: NATURAL HISTORY.
State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. March 1989. 1988
Annual Status
Report on the Status of California’s State Listed Threatened and Endangered
Plants and Animals.129 pp.
Stevens, Larry. 1983. The Colorado River in Grand Canyon: A Guide. Red Lake Books, Flagstaff,
AZ.
Swanson, M. and J. Altschul. 1991. “Cultural Resources Investigations of the Yuma Quartermaster
Depot, AZ X:6:12 (ASM), Yuma, AZ”. Statistical Research Technical Series, No. 21. AZ Dept of
Transportation and AZ State Parks. Statistical Research, Inc. Tucson, AZ. 207pp
SWCA, Environmental Consultants. 2000. “Preliminary Draft, Lower Colorado River Multi-Species
Conservation Program Conservation Strategy”. Submitted to the Lower Colorado River MultiSpecies Conservation Program Steering Committee. May 2000.
Sykes, Godfrey. 1937. The Colorado Delta. Published jointly by Carnegie Institution of Washington
APPENDIX F
BIBLIOGRAPHY
and the American Geographical Society of New York. Baltimore, MD
Taylor, J. P., D. B. Webster and L.M. Smith. 1999. “Soil Disturbance, Flood Management, and
Riparian Woody Plant Establishment in the Rio Grande Floodplain”, Wetlands, Vol. 199, No.2.
June. 372pp.
Taylor, J.P. and K.C. McDaniel. 1998. “Riparian Management on the Bosque del Apache National
Wildlife Refuge”. New Mexico Journal of Science, Vol. 38, November. 219-232pp.
Taylor, J.P. and K.C. McDaniel. 1998. “Restoration of Saltcedar (Tamarix sp.)-Infested Floodplains
on the Bosque del Apache national Wildlife Refuge”. Weed Technology, Vol.12:345-352pp.
Tellman, B. 2001.”The Sonora Desert Conservation Plan”. Winter. The Plant Press, The Arizona
Native Plant Society, Vol. 25 No. 1, 19pp.
Terres, J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf,
Inc., New York, NY. 1,109 pp.
Trafzer, Clifford, E. 1996. The Yuma Crossing: A Short History. Yuma County Historical Society.
Yuma, AZ.
Trimble, Stephen. The People, Indians of the American Southwest. School of American Research
Press, distributed by University of Washington Press.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1996. Description and Assessment of Operations, Maintenance, and
Sensitive Species of the Lower Colorado River – Final Biological Assessment. August. U.S.
Department of the Interior.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2000. Draft, Habitat Acquisition Strategy. March. Lower Colorado
Region, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, NV.
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1965. Draft Report Comprehensive Plan Lower Colorado River
Channelization Parker Division. Sept.., 44 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1997. Environmental Assessment, Colorado River Flood Response.
October. Yuma Area Office, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma, AZ.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1999. Environmental Assessment, Cooperative Agreement with the
City of Yuma, Arizona, for the Yuma West Wetlands. July. Yuma Area Office, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Yuma, AZ.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1998. Long Term Restoration Program for the Historical Southwestern
Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus) Habitat along the Lower Colorado River. Lower
Colorado Region, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, NV.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1999. River Mile 31 Mitigation Project Backwater Dredging, Permits.
April. Yuma Area Office, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma, AZ.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1992. Vegetation Management Study, Lower Colorado River, Phase 1
Report. September. Lower Colorado Region, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, NV.
103pp.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1995. Vegetation Management Study, Lower Colorado River, Phase
2 Final Report. August. Lower Colorado Region, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, NV.
72pp.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1996. Description and Assessment of Operations, Maintenance, and
Sensitive Species of the Lower Colorado River – Final Biological assessment. August.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, (USDA 2001) Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
Fire Sciences Laboratory (2001, February). Fire Effects Information System, [Online].
Available:http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [4-12-01].
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1986. Soil Survey of Colorado River
Indian
Reservation, Arizona-California. 108 pp.
USDA-NRCSNationalSoilSurveyCenter:OfficialSoilSeriesDescriptions
http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/nssc/soilsdata.html.
http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/cgi-bin/osd/osdname
.U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and
Development. 1995. Consolidated Plan for 1995, Executive Summary.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 2001. Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and
APPENDIX F
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Decision Making. DO-12. January 8. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service,
Washington, D. C.123pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1994. Draft Comprehensive Management and Use Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement, Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, Map
Supplement. September. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Western Regional
Office.47pp.
U. S. Department of the Interior. 2001. Environmental Assessment / Assessment of Effect for
Rehabilitation of Volcano Road Drainage and Associated Site Improvements. Capulin Volcano
National Monument. Union County, New Mexico. July. U. S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, Capulin Volcano National Monument.
U. S. Department of the Interior. 2002. Environmental Assessment: Remodeling Interior of Visitor
Center. Aztec Ruins National Monument. San Juan County, City of Aztec, New Mexico.
January. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Aztec Ruins National
Monument.
U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Phoenix Area Office. 1982. Final
Environmental Assessment, Agricultural and Recreational Leasing and Development on the
Colorado River Indian Reservation. March. Benham Blair & Affiliates, Inc. Oklahoma City, OK.
U. S. Department of the Interior. 2002. Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American
Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) [Online]. Available http://www.cr.nps.gov/habshaer/wwdo/
index.htm 5/30/02.
U. S. Department of the Interior. 1992. The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation with
Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. W. Brown Morton III, Gary L. Hume,
Kay D. Weeks, and H. Ward Jandl. 160pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Compendium of EPA US-Mexico Border Activities.
EPA 160-B-99-003. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. US-Mexico Border XXI Program, Framework
Document. October. EPA 160-R-96-003. Washington, DC.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 2000. Yuma clapper rail Revised Survey Protocol. February. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife. Phoenix, AZ.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995a. “Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule
determining endangered status for the southwestern willow flycatcher: Southern California,
southern Nevada, southern Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Western Texas, southwestern Colorado,
and extreme northwestern Mexico”. Federal Register 60(38):10694-10714. February 27.
Watercourse and the Council for Environmental Education.1995. “Project Wet: Curriculum &
Activity Guide, 1995”. Bozeman, Montana.
Waters, Frank. 1946. The Colorado. J.J. Little and Ives Company, New York, NY.
Wells, Reba, 1990. “ Narrative History of the Quechan People”, Master Plan and Implementation
Program-Yuma Crossing Master Plan. Presented to the Quechan Tribal Council, by BRW, Inc.,
Tucson, AZ. 51-108pp.
Western Regional Environmental Education Council, Inc. 1992. “Project Wild”. Boulder, CO.
Whitney, J.C. 1998. “Observations on Southwestern Riparian Ecosystems”, New Mexico Journal of
Science, Vol. 38, November. 233-250pp.
Woodward, Arthur. 1955. Feud on the Colorado. Westernlore Press, Los Angeles, CA.
Yuma County Historical Society. September 1979. Historic Property Survey Report. Yuma, AZ.
Yuma Crossing Park Council, Inc. August, 1984. A Master Plan for the Yuma Crossing National
Historic Landmark. Yuma, AZ.
Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization. June, 2001. “2000 Census of Yuma County.” Yuma,
AZ.
APPENDIX F
Sub Appendix A
Sub Appendices
Sub Appendix A
Management Plan and EA–
Summary of Review Process
charles.flynn@ci.yuma.az.us
4. Logging on to the Yuma Crossing
Heritage Area web site,
www.yumaheritage.com, and using the
comment submittal form on the website.
The review process in general:
In an attempt to draw responses from a greater
cross section of the community, Yuma
staff chose three distinct approaches to
1. A formal review through the City,
County and Tribal entities including
citizen commissions.
2. Focus group reviews on specific
interests in the plan.
3. An advertised series of public open
houses and the use of staff at a variety
of community events to present and
give out information to the Public and
receive their comments in a much more
informal way.
Throughout the process staff has kept the
media involved and has encouraged
newspaper articles and television coverage of
the events and the planning efforts.
Comment methods:
In addition to verbal comment on the plans and
note taking at a variety of meetings, written
comments were encouraged and received in
the following ways:
Yuma, AZ 85364
3. E-mailing comments to
Distribution:
The draft Plan and Environmental Assessment
for the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area
was issued on April 8, 2002. Fifty printed
copies and two hundred CD versions were
mailed to numerous stakeholders who had
been identified over the last two years. (A
stakeholder list is attached.)
To facilitate greater public access to the plan
and to generate comments, printed copies
were provided for public display at the following
locations:
Department of Community Development (City
of Yuma)
Yuma Public Library
Yuma City Hall
Yuma Main Street
Yuma Convention and Visitor’s Bureau’s
Information Office
US Bureau of Land Management, Yuma
Headquarters
Electronic copies on CD ROM were made
available free to the public at the Yuma
Offices, the Department of Community
Development and the City Clerk’s Office. In
APPENDIX F
addition to hard copies of the plan, the Yuma
Public Library was also provided with two CD
ROMS for review on their public computers.
Method 1: Formal Local
Review:
City Commission Presentations:
Each commission member was provided with a
CD ROM of the Plan and a letter requesting
their review. If the commission member did not
have the means to review the plan on CD
ROM, they were encouraged to review one of
the printed copies on display at the public
offices listed above. Formal presentations
were given to the following City commissions at
their regularly scheduled meetings:
Yuma Parks and Recreation Commission
April 15, 2002 5:00PM
Yuma Arts and Culture Commission
April 18, 2002 4:00PM
Yuma Planning and Zoning Commission
April 23, 2002 5:30PM
April 24, 2002 4:00PM
Quechan Tribal Council:
On April 4, 2002, a briefing was provided to the
Quechan Indian Tribal Council, with particular
emphasis on the East Wetlands project.
Continued Tribal review and involvement will
revolve primarily around the East Wetlands
project where the Tribe owns 40-50% of the
land in the project area and where the Tribal
Council has already passed a Resolution of
Support for the project. The Heritage Area will
continue to encourage the Tribe’s active
involvement in the revitalization of Yuma’s
historic downtown, including the
implementation of the Heritage Plan.
Sub Appendix A
A preliminary briefing was provided at a work
session of the Yuma City Council on February
12 at 4:30 PM. Many of the various City
commissions were involved in the formation of
the plan and staff received many favorable
responses and commitments from the City
toward the implementation of plan. In order to
confirm the commitment of the City’s
partnership in the plan, Heritage Area staff will
request formal recommendations from the four
City Commissions who have reviewed the plan.
With the formal recommendation of the City
Commissions, staff will seek City Council
approval through a Resolution of Support and
adoption of the plan. City Council has already
passed a Resolution of Support and adopted
the East Wetlands plan in a separate action.
County Board of Supervisors:
Staff gave a formal presentation to the Yuma
County Board of Supervisors on Heritage Plan
on May 20 at 9:00 AM. The County received
the plan favorably and the East Wetlands,
which is primarily in the County and on
Quechan land, was of particular interest to the
Board. Once the City has passed a Resolution
of Support and adopted the plan, Staff will
pursue a similar Resolution from the County.
The County Board of Supervisors has already
passed a Resolution of Support and adopted
the East Wetlands plan in a separate action.
Method 2: Focus Groups
Focus Group meetings:
A series of “stakeholder” focus group meetings
were held on April 25th and 26th on areas of
specific interest within the Heritage Area Plan
as follows:
a. Water – 9:00 AM - 10:30 AM April 25
b. Arizona Welcome/Visitor Center – 10:30
AM – 12:00 April 25
Yuma City Council Approval:
APPENDIX F
c. Military – 1:30 PM – 3:00 PM April 25
d. Yuma Main Street/Downtown – 9:00 AM
– 10:30 AM April 26
e. Molina Block – 10:30 AM – 12:00 April
26
f. General/make-up session – 1:30 PM –
3:00 PM April 26
These focus groups used the same thematic
emphasis as was used in developing the plan,
however the groups were expanded as to
include additional parties that have shown
interest over the last year. The minutes of
those meetings are attached.
Method 3: Informal Public
Outreach
Open Houses:
Three “Open Houses” were set up on April 25,
26, and 27 at different locations throughout the
community. The first was held at the Riverfront
Offices (200 W. 1st Street), the second at
Clymer Park (Century Heights neighborhood
adjacent Orange Avenue), and the third at
West Wetlands Park at the Wetlands Tree
Nursery. Heritage Area Board, Staff, and
volunteers assisted in the presentations.
Advertisements in the newspaper concerning
the Open house ran throughout the week of
April 22. (See attached)
Presentations to Non-Profit/ Civic/
Community Groups:
Staff offered briefings to civic organizations
throughout the region, many of which
responded:
April 12, 2002 5:00PM
Soroptimist Club
May 1, 2002 Noon
Neighborhood Leadership Academy
Sub Appendix A
May 2, 2002 6:00PM
Fort Yuma Rotary Club
May 9, 2002 Noon
Yuma Convention and Visitors Bureau
Board of Directors
April 25, 2002 8:00AM
Cinco de Mayo Bilingual event:
Of particular importance was the involvement
of the Hispanic community during the plan
process. The Heritage Area worked with the
Cultural Council of Yuma to gain direct access
to the Hispanic community. The Cultural
Council provided booth space during the Cinco
de Mayo celebration (which attracts upwards to
20,000 people, many of whom primarily or only
speak Spanish) on the Main Street Mall on
Saturday, May 4. Bi-lingual staff volunteered
their time throughout the day on Saturday to
discuss the Heritage Area Plan and take
comments. (See attached article) Staff
explained the Plan in detail to over 250 persons
attending the festival. The overwhelming
response from those attending the festival was
to continue the focus on river access and
recreational amenities along the river. As one
person described it: “We cannot afford to travel
away from Yuma for fun and entertainment.
The Colorado River is our San Diego.”
Summary of Comments Received:
In all, there was direct communication and
interaction with over 1,000 people during the
comment period. With significant input from
such a wide variety of interests and
perspectives it is difficult to address each
comment fully. While many comments were
instructive and have aided the revision of this
document, some comments will be more
appropriately addressed during implementation
of the plan where technical precision and
pinpoint accuracy will be needed during design
of specific projects. Most importantly this
APPENDIX F
document has renewed interest in a decades
old plan for the Crossing and Staff expects and
encourages a dynamic and evolving effort to
capture additional resources and stories as the
Heritage Area progresses, grows and matures.
Given the catalytic nature of this undertaking,
there will always be more resources to identify,
more partners to include and more research to
be done. What the comments have shown is
that this document provides solid basis for that
evolving conversation in the community or
many years to come.
Sub Appendix A
2.
Verbal comment summation:
While we must be careful to avoid broad
generalizations, there were several themes that
emerged from the general public:
1) Better access to and enjoyment of the
Colorado River remains the highest
priority for people from all walks of life.
2) For many of those community members
active in planning efforts in recent
years, there was a feeling of frustration
that we were still in the planning stages.
More than once, people said: “ The Plan
is fine, but let’s get started with
projects”. It has become clear to Staff
that implementation of early action
projects is important to maintain
momentum and public support.
3.
4.
Written comment summation:
The following are the general trends of the
comments received by Staff in writing from
citizens and agencies:
1. Interpretation: All of the responses
directed toward the interpretive
elements were positive. In some cases
some tightening of the interpretation will
be needed prior to concept design and
installation. As per the plan, Staff will
seek additional technical input and will
5.
pursue additional consultation with
those partners directly involved in the
interpretation. One appropriate addition
will be the inclusion of bilingual
interpretive displays given Yuma’s large
Hispanic population.
Additional areas that the YCNHAC
should strongly pursue for expansion of
the Heritage Area are Agriculture and
the Military, both of which have played
important roles in Yuma. As the
Heritage Area matures and expands
along and out from the Colorado River,
both of these themes should be
addressed in a later phase.
A constant theme was the need to
reestablish Yuma’s connection to the
Colorado River. However that
connection is reestablished, be it
through park development, ecological
restoration or programming, all of the
comments regarding the River
expressed that the appreciation of the
life and the history of Yuma cannot be
told, preserved or appreciated without
the Colorado River at the center.
The community again has
overwhelming stated that “the plan is
great, but now its time to get on with it.”
Making real, visible, tangible progress
on projects that the community can take
ownership of is the top priority that has
been voiced.
Many agencies voiced a concern that
the Heritage Area should grow and
continue to inventory the local historic,
cultural and natural resources of the
area. The Heritage Corporation is
dedicated to achieving this through its
evolving and expanding partnerships
and will continue to add projects over
time as funding and capacity permit in
the coming years.
APPENDIX F
Sub Appendix A
Partial Listing of People and Organizations Participating in Review
Process
Table 3 - Partial List of Review Participants
Tom Dyson, C.E.O.
Sam Pepper
Mark McDermott, Director
Yuma Education Consortium
Caballeros de Yuma
596 S. 4th Avenue
2702 N. 3rd Street, Suite 4015
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 83564
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Col. James M. Althouse
Sherry Cordova, Chairperson
John Gross
U.S. Army Proving Ground
Cocopah Tribe
YMPO
Commander Bldg. 2105
Avenue G & Co. 15th
502 S. Orange Avenue
Yuma, AZ 85365
Somerton, AZ 85350
Yuma, AZ 85364
Don Pope
Southwest Gas
Larry Voyles, Regional Supervisor
Chriss Hixon
Arizona Game & Fish
P.O. Box 5775
630 E. 18th Place
9140 E. 28th Street
Yuma, AZ 85366
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85365
Gail Acheson, Field Supervisor
Ralph Ogden, President
YUHS District #70
AZ Historical Soc., Rio Colorado
Kenneth Galer
Chapter
3150 S. Avenue A
Yuma, AZ 85365
240 S. Madison Avenue
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma Elementary School Dist #1
Crane School District #13
Arizona Dept of Transportation
Vivian Egbert
Mike Wicks
Paul Patane
th
th
450 W. 6 Street
4250 W. 16 Street
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85364
Roger Beadle
Ken Rosevear, Director
Steve Binkley
Yuma Visitors & Con. Bureau
Chamber of Commerce
202 S. 1st Avenue, Suite 202
377S. Main, Suite 101
190 W. 14th Street
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85364
Rick Ploski, Director
Tom Rushin, Chairman
Tom Manfredi
Yuma Main Street
H.D.R.C.
Marine Corps Air Station
710 E. Hacienda Drive
Box 99106
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85365
Yuma, AZ 85369-9106
GYEDC
Arizona Depart. Of Commerce
Yuma Association of Realtor’s
Paige Webster
Linda Edwards
President
377 Main Street, Suite 202
3800 N. Central, Suite 1400
74 W. 2nd Street
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma County Contractor’s Assoc.
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Yuma, AZ 85364
Kevin Burge, ASCE President
AZ Dept. of Water Resources
% Nicklaus Engineering
Herb Dishlip
Judy Gren
202 S. 1st Avenue
Yuma, AZ 85364
th
1851 W. 24 Street
500 N. Third Street
Yuma, AZ 85364
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Society of Military Engineers
School Superintendent
Marjorie Blaine
Jim Adler % JOL
Judith Badgley
5205 E. Comanche Street
st
st
1700 S. 1 Avenue, Suite 200B
210 S. 1 Avenue
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85364
Tucson, AZ 85707
APPENDIX F
Sub Appendix A
John & Wanda Cameron
Philbrick Emerson
Gail Gallagher
7766 Balboa Avenue
P.O. Box 1899
2703 S. Avenue B
Yuma, AZ 85366-1899
Yuma, AZ 85364
Chris Harris
Love Headstream
Bill Hirt
770 Fairmont Ave., Suite 100
C/o Wayne Benesch
P.O. Box 1899
Glendale, CA 91203-1035
230 W. Morrison St.
Yuma, AZ 85366-1899
Yuma, AZ 85364
Brad Jacobson
Pauline Jose
John King
9140 E. Co. 10 ½ Street
P.O. Box 1899
1159 Hacienda Drive
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85366-1899
Yuma, AZ 85365
Virginia McVey
Bobbi McDermott
John Ott
th
1455 S. 8 Street
2450 S. 4 Ave., Suite 402
4260 E. County 8th Street
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85364-8573
Yuma, AZ 85365
William Ogram
John & Yvonne Peach
Arlene Pingree
233 Fourth Avenue
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ 85365
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85366
Habib Rathle
Sam Spiller
Steve Irr, CEP
2321 W. Royal Palm Rd., #103
298 W. 4th Street
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85364-2239
Chris Summer
Greg Taylor
Ray Varney
Route 1, Box 40M
18824 Dylan Street
356 W. 1st Street
Somerton, AZ 85350
Northridge, CA 91326-2143
Yuma, AZ 85364
Reba Wells
Senator Jon Kyl
Senator John McCain
2322 E. Cholla Street
730 Hart Senate Building
241 Russell Senate Off. Bldg.
Phoenix, AZ 85028
Art Everett
Ian Watkinson
Steve Bell
837 Orange Avenue
Monarch’s Rest
4380 E. County 15th St.
Yuma, AZ 85364
130 S. Main
Yuma, AZ 85365
nd
661 E. 32
nd
317 S. 22
St., #B
Avenue
th
Yuma, AZ 85364
Mayor & Council
Kari Reily
Ron Hamm
City of Yuma
Yuma Community Bank
The Ferguson Group
180 W. 1 Street
454 W. Catalina Drive
1130 Connecticut Ave. NW, #300
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85364
Bill Wellman, Superintendent
Col. Richard Thompson, Cmdr.
Jacqueline E. Schafer, Director
National Park Service, Organ Pipe
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ADEQ
Cactus Natl. Monument
Los Angeles District
3033 N. Central Avenue
10 Organ Pipe Drive
911 Wilshire Blvd.
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Ajo, AZ 85321
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Jim Garrison, State Historic
Ken Travous
Jim Cherry, Area Manager
Preservation Officer
Executive Director
Arizona State Parks
Arizona State Parks
7301 Calle Agua Salada
1300 W. Washington
1300 W. Washington
Yuma, AZ 85364
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phoenix Az 85007
st
APPENDIX F
Sub Appendix A
Michael Jackson, Sr.
Roger Beadle
Wayne Nastri
Quechan Tribal President
Yuma Visitors & Conv. Bureau
Regional Administrator
st
Qeuchan Indian Tribe
202 S. 1 Ave., Suite 202
E.P.A.
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ 85365
75 Hawthorne Street
Yuma, AZ 85366-1899
San Francisco, CA 94105
Victor Mendez, Director
Wally Hill, Administrator
Craig W. Clark
ADOT Roadside Development
Yuma County
4180 La Jolla Village Dr., #405
206 S. 17 Avenue
198 S. Main Street
La Jolla, CA 92037
Yuma, AZ 85364
Jeff Rogers
Virginia Reyes
Ken Rosevear
Rogers & Ucker, Inc.
Cultural Council of Yuma, Inc.
Chamber of Commerce
2150 First Avenue
Yuma, AZ 85364
Yuma, AZ 85364
th
APPENDIX F
Sub Appendix B
Sub Appendix B
MEETING MINUTES — Interest Groups, March 2001
Yuma Crossing National Area Heritage Plan
DDR HERITAGE TEAM
March 26, 2001
VISITOR’S CENTER 8am
Attendees:
Dave Campbell
City of Yuma
Randy Hoskins
City of Yuma
Jim Gillespie
“City of Yuma” Airplane
Shirley (Woodhouse) Murdoch
Horace Griffen (‘49 Car Driver)
Judy M. Spencer, Admin
Ron Spencer (Jaycee Foundation Endurance Plane Chairman)
Roger S. Beadle
Yuma CVB
Gail Acheon
Jimmy Parks
ADOT/MUD
Ken Rosevear
Yuma Chamber
Larry Huiut
YMPO
Art Everett
River Front Task Force
Don Pope
Yuma County Water User’s Association
Scott Omer
ADOT Yuma District
Mike Steele
City of Yuma
539-1113
344-3860
344-3860
376-0100
317-3200
343-1758
782-2567
783-8911
539-0843
520-783-5040
520-317-2129
343-8692
Yuma Heritage Team (present at all five meetings)
Howard Deardorff
Deardorff Design Resources
David Johnson
Hadley Exhibits
Wayne Donaldson
Wayne Donaldson Architects
Rob Pulcipher
Deardorff Design Resources
Edie Wallace
Paula Reed & Assoc.
Paula S. Reed
Paula Reed & Assoc
Hydie Friend
The Catalyst Group
734-665-5007
716-874-3666
619-239-7888
734-665-5007
301-739-2070
301-739-2070
304-242-6733
627-2310
726-5599
APPENDIX F
GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO ALL
GROUPS
Howard Deardorff, Head of the Yuma Heritage
Team, began the meeting by presenting the
fact that Yuma has been more thoroughly
studied than most comparable cities in the
United States. He stressed that the Heritage
team was in Yuma to do more than study it
further. It was there to begin putting the
studies into action. This meeting was to
present the Team’s review process and its
interpretive concept, receive input from the
interest groups present, and then put the plan
into action. In particular, the initial project
priorities, the Visitor’s Center and the Molina
Block.
The Team wanted to know from the interest
group whether we were on the right track with
the process and concept, and what from their
perspective needs improvement and what
criteria do they want to use to approach the
projects.
Howard showed a chart of the various
interested organizations and their relationship
to the overall framework of the Master Plan: the
Community Resource Assets, State & Federal
Agencies, the City of Yuma, Private Investment
Resources, and the Heritage Team. He
presented a chart of the proposed timeline of
action projects. He then showed a chart of the
Preliminary Interpretive Master Plan Program
with the Visitor’s Center as the initial contact
point for visitors to the Yuma area. The
Visitor’s Center would give an overview of what
the area had to offer in terms of Commercial
Goods & Services, Recreation & Environment,
and History. For those interested in further
Historical information in particular, they would
move on to the Historical Interpretive Center
proposed to be placed in the Old City Hall.
From there they would be directed to even
more specific venues and interpretive themes
for:
1. Cultural Crossroads - Molina Block
2. Military - Yuma
Sub Appendix B
3. Transportation - Del Sol
4. Crossings - Gateway Park
5. River - East Wetlands District
Howard then noted that all of the information
collected in the first couple of days would be
incorporated into preliminary designs and
presented in concept at an open house on
Thursday from 4 to 6pm.
REPRESENTATIVE MEMBER COMMENTS &
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Don Pope of the Yuma County Water Users
Association said that the Association was
willing to allow the city to use the property
behind the truck inspection station bordered by
5th Avenue and Colorado Street. He said that it
would be best not to involve the BOR since that
would require Federal action and cause delays.
All that would be necessary is a simple
encroachment license from them. They then
notify the BOR. This keeps it all in local
control.
The property is available in two phases. The
first phase property is a 1.76 acre southern
portion and is available immediately. The
second phase property, a .68 acre northern
portion, will be available sometime in the future.
Mr. Pope also stated he needs a small part of
the north parcel for equipment storage. He has
also promised the resident in the existing
house, his employee, that he will be able to
retain the residence as long as he wants to live
there. The other option with this is for the city
to build a $100,000 house elsewhere for the
resident. The only other major stipulation is
that there be some kind of recognition on the
property that it was donated and once used by
the Yuma County Water Users Association. He
also made the request, but would not require,
that the Chamber of Commerce be part of the
Visitor’s Center in some form of public/private
partnership. The parcels were delineated on a
plan, shown to those present, and handed to
some in the group to keep.
The group representing the Endurance Flight
said that they were looking for a home for the
APPENDIX F
Sub Appendix B
now restored plane used in the Endurance
Flight back in the late ‘40s. They have a lot of
historical data and some associated artifacts.
They said it would be nice if they could
occasionally remove it from the display and fly
it. This would be a preferable option, though
not absolutely necessary if it proved too difficult
to implement.
parking.
The director of the Yuma Visitor’s Center said
the space in its current location was about
1200 square feet. This needs to be at least
doubled to handle current needs. He’d like to
have enough room for a theater/educational for
various users, particularly kids. He also said
that since it’s the first stop in Arizona that it
would be a good place to provide a broad
spectrum of information and places to go in the
Yuma area. It would be a great opportunity to
inform visitors that Yuma has enough to offer in
the area to stay for more than a few hours, so
they’d stay long enough to help boost the
economy of Yuma. He’d also like to have
space for merchandise sales. He also said
they need much more parking, probably three
to four times as much, as well as room for RV
The federal representative from the Bureau of
Land Management would like to see the
Visitor’s Center as a gateway to those
interested in using the public lands in area and
in Arizona as a whole. She liked the idea of a
sharing of programs within the Visitor’s Center
with other government entities as well as a
sharing of the retail business. She’d also like
to have it as a venue for issuing permits for
public land use.
WATER
The ADOT representative for the commercial
vehicle inspection station said that there were
9000+ trucks per day crossing into Yuma in
February. There is a stacking requirement and
he needs more space to queue trucks. This
includes tour busses.
The representative from Arizona Game & Fish
thinks that a multi-agency collaboration is a
good idea.
9am
Attendees:
Roger S. Beadle
Jeff Rogers
Don Pope
Mary C. Newcomb
Terri Salter
Kathy Carr
Al Goff
Ken Rosevear
Mike Steele
Roger Gingrich
Art Everett
Yuma Heritage Team
Yuma CVB
Clark-Langford
Yuma County Water User’s Assoc.
Realty Tech / BOR
Reclamation
USIBWC
Yuma Chamber
City of Yuma
City of Yuma
376-0100
619-688-9030
520-627-8824
520-343-8103
520-343-8248
520-343-8133
520-343-9036
520-782-2567
343-8692
348-8709
539-0843
APPENDIX F
Sub Appendix B
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Don Pope discussed a Powerpoint presentation
he gives to various groups. The Heritage
Team requested to hear this at a later time.
(This was accomplished later that same
evening). He also mentioned that the bike path
could be further developed along the river on
Yuma County Water Users Property with a
basic encroachment license to accomplish the
action.
Another participant stated that much water is
available in the Yuma area, but it would be best
not to be perceived as being wasteful with
items such as many fountains or other water
features. He continued to stress that water
features were fine as long as Yuma was still
perceived as frugal and as long as they
stressed some aspect of conservation along
with the feature.
per year.
Someone else noted that the water story is
woven into all of Yuma’s history. It’s historically
been a highly emotional issue. Conflicts have
been numerous and bitter.
Currently, the Metropolitan Water District
(MWD), which includes LA, wants access to
Yuma’s water. California is currently overusing
its allotted water and looking for further
sources.
Tina Clark, of the City of Yuma noted that
National Public Radio and Public Television
were in the process of developing a story on
the history of the Colorado River. There would
be a traveling display beginning in January of
2002. She felt, where better than Yuma to kick
off the display.
The BOR will also have a 100 year celebration
of its history beginning in July of 2002.
Another participant stated that agriculture was
a major $600 million industry in the Yuma area
MILITARY
Attendees:
Mike Thompson
Jeff Rogers
Gloria Stanton
Russell W. Baas
Robert C. Filbey
J. B. Ross
Ken Rosevear
Mike Steele
Capt. Mark Carter
Art Everett
Roger S. Beadle
Yuma Heritage Team
10am
YPC-Heritage Center
Clark-Langford
(One Woman Show--WWII)
EXCEL(Retired CSM, YPG)
Yuma Schools Trans Center
(Retired Col, CDR, YPG)
EXCEL group (Retired US Marine)
Yuma Chamber
City of Yuma
MCAS Yuma
River Front Taskforce
Yuma CVB
328-3394
619-688-9030
726-6676
978-546-7258
520-341-0335
520-341-9076
520-329-8995
520-782-2567
343-8692
269-3609
269-2275
539-0843
376-0100
APPENDIX F
GENERAL DISCUSSION
It was stated that quite a bit of the story of the
Military in Yuma is a 20th Century story. Much
of it occurred during WWII when Patton chose
this area as the primary training grounds for
his forces. The influx of people into the Yuma
area in about 1941 had an explosive impact on
the existing population of 5000. There was
even an impact from the area’s German and
Italian prison camps.
One of the participants stated that there are
two distinct areas in this region in terms of the
Military: The Crossing, which faded in
prominence in the 19th century, and the Air
Station and Proving Ground, which was the
military rebirth in the region in the 20th century.
It was stated by many present that it would be
best not to try to duplicate displays in Yuma of
the Air Station / Proving Ground, but to whet
the appetite in Yuma and direct them out to the
other venues where they could view more fully
developed displays.
One person thought that the “appetite whetters”
could be located at various venues throughout
the area.
One participant noted that museum displays
need to be changed periodically and that they
need to be varied in order to be interesting and
Sub Appendix B
successful. In his opinion, a museum “brings
back memories and makes people ask
questions.”
Most of the unloading of incoming military
during WWII was done at Pilot Knob, not in the
City of Yuma.
Other Ideas:
• Need handouts at various locations.
• There could be mini-visitor’s centers at
strategic locations throughout the area,
such as McDonalds, the Airport, Del Sol,
etc.
• Build Military Museum adjacent to
Veteran’s Park.
• Century House is a cramped space.
• Should things that occurred in town be
displayed in town--USO, Train.
Marine Base Issues:
The base handles 80% of Aviation Training for
all US Marines.
There are currently no facilities set aside for
visitors, and the representative stated that it
would be better to represent its role at some
venue in Yuma, rather than open a museum
year-round on the base. He said he would
need to discuss the ideas presented at the
forum to the CO on base, but there could
potentially be special events on occasion out
there.
APPENDIX F
Sub Appendix B
DOWNTOWN
11am
Attendees:
Tom L Dyson
Jeff Rogers
Lisa Sargent
Christy Thomas
Rosemarie Gwynn
Chet Lane
Dora Lane
Ken Rosevear
Cynthia Rouillard
Julie Campbell
Gary Munk
Art Everett
Vanessa Owen
Roger S. Beadle
Virginia Reyes
Gwen
Trish Swanson
Yuma Heritage Team
Yuma Educational Consortium
Clark-Langford
Yuma Main Street
Yuma Main Street
Yuma Design
Property Owner
Property Owner
Yuma Chamber
COY Arts & Culture
COY Arts & Culture
Yuma Main Street
Greater Yuma Economic Dev. Corp.
Yuma CVB
Cultural Council of Yuma
Yuma Art & Culture Commission
Yuma Fine Arts
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Vanessa Owen of the GYEDC asked what the
economic impact of the Crossing would be and
where the Crossing would be located. There
wasn’t a specific answer to what the economic
impact would be, except to say that a variety of
positive proactive downtown improvements
would potentially bring more interest in
spending money in the downtown area.
Someone asked what the timeline would be for
the Molina block downtown. The answer was
January 2002 when the city hopes to get the
first million dollars to begin work.
Someone stressed that they’d like to see the
Yuma community coming into downtown, rather
than the current flow of people from elsewhere.
Howard Deardorff posed this question to the
group: If you have visitors from out-of-town,
where do you take them to show off your town
and entertain them? What are you most proud
of? Is it in the downtown area?
One of the participants noted that parking
would be needed downtown. Howard
520-783-1010
619-688-9030
520-782-5712
520-782-5712
783-6433
329-4500
329-4500
782-2567
376-6108
376-6268
783-7069
539-0843
783-0193
376-0100
783-2423
344-8779
329-6607
responded that parking needs to be distributed
throughout the downtown, not just down by the
river, so people walk through the town to get to
some of their destinations.
Someone stated the need for office space.
Some locations mentioned were above existing
shops, in the Del Sol, and on vacant land south
of Giss now owned by the railroad. Someone
said that there were 30,000 to 50,000 square
feet of vacant space currently, but that it wasn’t
being rented.
Representatives of the Yuma Theater said they
were working on rehabbing it and they thought
it would be a better space to focus immediate
attention for funding than the Lyric Theater
because it has more space, more usable
space, and therefore offers more possibilities.
They’re looking to develop a 700 seat
Performing Arts Center with office and art
studio space.
Someone asked where downtown
entrepreneurs can get money to fund projects
downtown. The response was that there needs
to be public/private investment and there are
many examples of these successes throughout
the country.
APPENDIX F
Sub Appendix B
A participant noted that business needs are
different from visitor’s needs.
It was noted that parking, business, and
infrastructure need to be in place for the
package to take off.
Someone said that family recreation events
would help draw both locals and visitors into
downtown at locations such as Gateway Park.
restore the character of a Heritage Area.
Someone asked if there was a housing
component in this plan. Answer: not yet, but it
could be brought in as the downtown
restoration and rehabilitation evolves. This
could also involve office, retail, and
entertainment combined. These would all help
support each other.
It was noted that there could be funding for
historic restoration of private businesses as
long as there’s a public benefit, such as helping
MOLINA BLOCK
1pm
Attendees:
Tom Rushin
Oscar Schraml
Megan Reid
Barbara Christensen
Gary Munk
Art Everett
Jeff Rogers
Roger S. Beadle
Steve Binkley
Steven Bell
Yuma Heritage Team
HDRC/Historical Society
Historical Society
HDRC/Yuma Main Street
Clark-Langford
Yuma CVB
Chairman-River Front Task Force
GENERAL DISCUSSION
It was presented to the group that there was a
lot of space in the Old City Hall and it would be
good potential exhibit/office/library space for
the Historical Society. The concept presented
emphasized that the Old City Hall would be the
base for the Historical Society and a good
place to present an overview of Yuma’s
historical significance. This venue would be a
springboard to more specific venues around
the area.
A spokesperson for the Historical Society
voiced concern that this was the first time
they’d heard of this option and that she’d need
to talk to her board to see if they would be in
agreement to such a change. This is a
significant change from what they had planned,
782-6581
783-2272
782-1841
783-6128
783-7069
539-0843
619-688-9030
376-0100
782-5809
341-1181
which was to move into a future new building
on the Molina Block. She posed other
concerns:
Would this jeopardize the existing collection?
Would this require a change in staffing since
they’re already short-staffed and the larger
building would require more staffing?
Would the move be hard on the collection?
They had planned on owning their own building
rather than leasing a space.
Moving some bigger pieces in their collection
would be difficult in the city hall.
Getting moved from the Molina historical story.
Not sure if the Historical Society would be
comfortable sharing some of the exhibit space
with other groups as was proposed in the
concept.
Charles Flynn noted that much of the staffing
APPENDIX F
and maintenance issues would be covered
since the city would need a management plan
for long-term maintenance and operations.
General comments from participants in the
room:
Sub Appendix B
Key issues with the existing Molina Building
are:
1. Complete the restoration
2. Find a use for the building
3. Find a way to keep it functioning
Key issues with the existing Connor House are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Yuma is a good environment for walking
except for July and August. This helps for
distribution of venues to circulate people
throughout the downtown Yuma area.
City Hall is in a good central location and
it’s on a prominent rise.
With the sizable library, it would be a good
location for those doing historical research.
Operational costs are a large concern.
Large object storage could be placed offsite in a convenient, centrally located place
in town.
It’s more cost effective to move the
Historical Society into City Hall than it is to
build a new building behind the Molina
Block.
Move it or Destroy it.
The city will bear the cost of moving it. The
Heritage Team architect, Wayne Donaldson,
said that it would be more costly to build a new
adobe than it would to move the existing one.
Options need to be considered by interested
parties and agreed upon.
There were agreements for a representative
from the Historical Society to meet with the
Heritage Team architect and the exhibit
designer in the following two days to discuss
these issues further.
APPENDIX F
Sub Appendix C
Sub Appendix C
EAST WETLANDS DISTRICT
LANDOWNER/STAKEHOLDER CONSENSUS
BUILDING
The YEW planning team has met with all
project stakeholders and discussed the
proposed restoration plan. The following are
lists of the stakeholders involved in the project,
meetings and presentations that have taken
place, and stakeholders concerns that have
been voiced throughout this process. Ideally,
the YEWP will have established group
consensus by the completion of the final
concept plan on June 30, 2001. This will
provide the project with a strong base to
continue onto Phase II.
List of YEW landowners and stakeholders
1. Quechan Indian Tribe
2. US Bureau of Reclamation
3. US Bureau of Land Management
4. US Fish and Wildlife Service
5. US Army Corps of Engineers
6. AZ State Land Department
7. AZ Game and Fish
8. AZ Department of Environmental Quality
9. Yuma County
10. LCR Multi Species Conservation
Program
11. City of Yuma
12. State Historic Preservation Office
13. Private Land Owners: Headstream,
McVey, William Ogram, John Cameron,
John and Candice Ott, John and
Yvonne Peach
14. Yuma County Pest Abatement District
15. Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club
APPENDIX F
Sub Appendix C
List of YEW landowner/stakeholder meetings with Phillips Consulting and City of Yuma
Meeting
City of Yuma Riverfront Development Office (Project Start Up)
Bureau Of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation,
Arizona Game and Fish
Yuma Police Department
Quechan Museum Staff
City of Yuma Riverfront Development Office
Bureau Of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation (data collection)
Michael Steele, Director, Yuma Community Development
Bill Hurt, Quechan Indian Tribe
Greg Taylor, Pilot Project Lobbyist – MSCP
Lower Colorado Backwater Committee
Quechan Tribal Council meeting
Law Enforcement Stakeholders
Landowner/Stakeholders Meeting
Site tour for the MSCP steering committee
YEW private landowners
Roger Gingrich, COYPW
Bureau of Reclamation Meeting
Yuma East Wetlands open house
Multi Species Conservation Plan Presentation
Arizona State Department of Water Resources
Herb Gunther, State Senator
Arizona State Parks
Riverfront Executive Committee
Yuma City Council
Marilyn Young, Mayor of Yuma
David Jaramillo, Quechan Tribe
YEWP Draft Review Meeting with EPA
Quality Assurance Plan Development Meeting with EPA
Stakeholders Comment Resolution Meeting
Yuma Area Agriculture Council (Draft Plan Presentation)
Rod and Gun Club (Draft Plan Presentation)
Private landowners (Draft Plan Presentation)
Date
February 2001
February 15th
February 15th
February 15th
February 15th
February 16th
(planning meetings)
March 2nd
March 2nd
March 2nd
March 2nd
March 5th
March 20th
March 23rd
March 26th
March 26th
March 26th
March 27th
March 27th
March 27th
March 27th
April 5th
April 5th
April 5th
April 5th
April 5th
April 10th
April 10th
April 10th
April 10th
April 20th
May 22nd
June 12th
June 15th
June 19th
June 28th
June 28th
APPENDIX F
BOR (Draft Plan Presentation)
June 28th
LCRMPWG (Draft Plan Presentation)
July 11th
Landowner/Stakeholder Concerns gathered
to date (4/30/01)
1.How do we protect restoration operations
from Gila and Colorado River floods?
2.How do we deal with influx of sediment?
3.How do we transport City of Yuma filtered
decant water to the wetlands?
4.What is causing the death of large stands of
cottonwood and willow in the Yuma East
Wetlands (capillary action with salts?, too high
or to low of a water table?, heart rot?)
5.What lessons have been learned from
previous restoration attempts in the Yuma East
Wetlands?
6.Will the project need augmented flows from
Imperial and Laguna Dams?
7.How do we deal with homeless, drug
trafficking and undesirable recreation issues?
8.How do we manage, maintain the project
once it is established?
9.How do we protect existing endangered
species in the Yuma East Wetlands?
10.Can we clear large salt cedar stands with
current USFWS report concerning willow
flycatchers nesting in salt cedar?
11.How can wildlife agencies contribute to
endangered species surveys?
12.What are project priorities for
implementation?
13.How will law enforcement responsibilities be
shared?
14.Will the Yuma East Wetlands area include
hunting and overnight camping?
15.What types of recreation are included in the
plan?
16.Where do we focus recreational uses on
site?
17.How accessible do we make the site?
18.What permits/agreement will be required
from Tribal/Federal/State/County/
19.Private Landowners/Local Government
stakeholders to implement restoration plan?
20.What is the acceptable setback and buffer
for existing critical habitat?
21.Will the restoration operations add to the
Sub Appendix C
current mosquito problem?
22.What Mosquito management techniques
can be used?
23.Where is the salinity reduction plan (1979)
located, AZ Game and Fish?
24.What resources can agencies contribute to
project planning and implementation?
25.How will the project be funded?
26.Where will the Yuma East Wetlands
interpretive/cultural center be located?
27.Who will perform the archaeological walk
through on the site?
28.Who will perform EA on project plan?
29.What additional water drainage is
contributing to project area? (i.e. Ag drains,
seepage)
30.Is the surrounding water table in ag lands
higher than the Yuma East Wetlands???
31.How will the project impact surrounding
agricultural land? (i.e. herbicide/pesticide)
32.What method do we use to obtain private
land in Yuma East Wetlands project area?
33.Are the goals and objectives of this project
realistic? - fear of the project turning out like the
Tress Rio project in Arizona.
34.Project needs to seriously look at and
address return irrigation flows on the Colorado
River.
35.There is concern in regards to the water
quality of return irrigation flows in the project
area.
36.What will be the mechanism in which the
project is managed once implementation
occurs? (Quechan Tribe, Non profit
organization, City of Yuma, IGA agreement
between all stakeholders?)
37.Will project be a liability for the State?
38.Does the engineering, design and
monitoring plan include sufficient detail for the
long term maintenance and monitoring of this
area?
39.Project needs to work closely with all
concerned irrigation districts. (Wellton/Mohawk,
Hilliam, Imperial, Cibola, etc)
Written comments were received and
included in this final draft concept plan
from the following stakeholders:
Arizona Department of Water Resources
APPENDIX F
Yuma County Pest Abatement District
Arizona Department of Health Services
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club
City of Yuma, Riverfront Task Force
Sub Appendix C
•
•
PUBLIC OUTREACH PLAN
The Yuma East Wetlands Restoration Project
strives to include and involve as many
members of the public as possible. Though
participation and community service, volunteers
will have the chance to be involved in many
phases of the project. However, in order to
achieve the full support and assistance from
the community, significant public outreach will
be required to circulate information regarding
these opportunities.
The goal of YEW public outreach is to educate
the public on the Yuma East Wetlands
Restoration Plan and generate increased
citizen participation. Public outreach will
primarily target local service clubs and
organizations, church groups, civic groups,
student councils and other environmental
organizations. Additionally, considerable
efforts will be made to cross over cultural
barriers, reaching all ethnic groups in Yuma
area.
The public will be informed of upcoming
projects through a variety of measures, each
tailored to fit the scope and size of the project.
The following may be used individually or
cumulatively to inform and involve the public.
• Articles and press releases for the local
newspaper or other widely circulated
publications, such as: The SuperShopper,
Bajo El Sol, A View from the Front Porch
• Public service announcements on the radio
and television to explain the project and
promote public involvement.
• Postings of event information on the city’s
Internet web site and advertised on the
government access channel (YCTV).
• Flyers posted in public places, such as: city
& county offices, the library, the future public
•
•
•
•
kiosk at Gateway Park and Quechan tribal
offices
Mass mailings to the general public through
utility bills and to service clubs and
organizations for distribution to members.
Informal presentations of the project at open
houses, neighborhood round tables, and
other community forums.
Formal presentations to various service
clubs, homeowner’s associations, and other
civic and professional groups.
A Yuma East Wetlands newsletter with
updates on the project.
Project update articles printed in
newsletters, such as Developing Yuma and
River Currents.
Information distribution to local leadership
groups, neighborhood associations, Yuma
Main Street, the Historical Society, the
Chamber of Commerce, the Quechan Tribal
Council, and other volunteer organizations.
Groups such as the Yuma Rotary Club,
Kiwanis Club, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, 4-H
Club, the Yuma Gun and Rod Club, the Nature
Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, will be
contacted to participate in habitat restoration.
Initial stages of the project will offer
opportunities for clean up, recycling, and the
establishment of a native plant nursery. Still
other service clubs may wish to become
involved in the re-vegetation of cleared habitat
areas. As the Yuma East Wetland Project
progresses, additional community projects and
events will be identified and a contact list of
service clubs and organizations will be
established.
APPENDIX F
Sub Appendix D
HDRC Visioning Meeting with Howard
Deardorff
March 1, 2002
Participants:
Tom Rushin
Gary Munk
Bill Moody
Dom DeTorres
Ron Bradford
Bobette Aken
Laurie Grimes
Matt Spriggs
Charles Flynn
Sub Appendix D
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
General Discussion
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Why HDRC formed – Clymer Building and
demo of the predecessor building
Purpose of HDRC
Group desire for additional training on
Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines
Interpret to fit Yuma
Need to establish a fund for:
Emergencies
Upgrade of building materials via gap
granting
Past role has focused purely on regulation
with a focus on restoration
Need to identify/inventory other historic
districts and properties in the City
HDRC needs to “sell” themselves and
improve their image
Preserve historic integrity of the City
Common sense application of the Code
Heritage Area covers the area bounded by
the Colorado River on the north, Avenue 7E
alignment on the east, 12th Street alignment
on the south and the Colorado River – US/
Mexico boarder on the west.
Need design guidelines for more areas in
the City (residential)
Economic reality needs to be
acknowledged
Need focused, reasonable regulation
Advocacy role
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Call realtors that have signs in historic
districts to inform them of the district and
HDRC role in the area
Public education/awareness through
brochures
HDRC must receive training first prior to
public outreach and education
HDRC would like to reestablish
memberships with the National Trust for
Historic Preservation and/or other
preservation organizations
HDRC needs regular training sessions from
Staff and special training from outside
experts
Plaque program can increase awareness,
education and appreciation
Refine area of responsibility
Remove DRC review where HDRC has or
should have jurisdiction – OT zoning district
Work toward HDRC sponsored nomination
of properties for the National Register
Long term goal
Need to inventory and catalog Yuma using
the Heritage Area as the boundary
List of what is individually listed, is
contributing, is eligible and is noncontributing
Staff to develop HDRC Staff Report
revisions to include an identifier –
individually listed, contributing, noncontributing or eligible
HDRC doesn’t want to throw up road blocks
to development or reuse of sites
HDRC needs extensive training
Need to define SHPO’s role and
responsibilities
Need to build a relationship with SHPO
Need to mediate with SHPO
National Park Service may also be able to
provide technical assistance and guidance
HDRC needs funds for
Revolving loan funds
Grants to homeowners
Emergency fund
Technical assistance
Inventory, survey and nominations
Goal to have Wayne Donaldson come to
Yuma and make a presentation to area
architects, engineers, contractors,
designers and interested others on the
APPENDIX F
Sub Appendix D
Secretary of Interior’s Guidelines
Action Steps:
1. Focused, reasonable regulation
a. Interpret Secretary of the Interior’s
Guidelines
b. Expansion of Historic Districts
2. Facilitation
a. Build relationship with SHPO – Bob
Frankenberger
b. Technical/Design Guidelines
c. Revolving Loan Fund
d. Grants and emergency stabilization
3. Education
a. Catalogue current inventory
b. Secretary of the Interior’s training on a
regular basis
c. Self training
d. Contractor, realtor training
e. Training with design community
Public education and outreach
APPENDIX F
Sub Appendix E
Sub Appendix E
Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Plan
Focus Group Meetings Held at the
Riverfront Offices at 200 West 1st Street
on April 25, and 26, 2002.
The following are minutes of focus group
meetings with the participants invited to
participate in specific Interest Areas. All of
these meetings were open to the general
public. Comment Sheets were distributed to
all participants with a summary of comments
documented as a conclusion to these minutes.
2.
Visitors’ Center Group:
April 25, 2002, 10:30 AM
Participants:
James A. Gillespie, “City of Yuma” Airplane
(Endurance Flight)
Judy Spencer, “City of Yuma” Airplane
(Endurance Flight)
Jimmy D. Parks, Arizona Department of
Transportation
Art Everett, Yuma Crossing Heritage
Foundation Inc.
Roger S. Beadle, Yuma Convention and
Visitors Bureau
Sam Bova, Yuma Valley Railroad (Live
Steamers)
Ken Rosevear, Yuma County Chamber of
Commerce
Larry Hunt, Yuma Municipal Planning
Organization
Matthew Spriggs, Yuma Riverfront Team,
Planner
Charles Flynn, Director of Yuma Crossing
Heritage Area Corp.
Howard Deardorff, Heritage Planning
Consultant
Howard Deardorff presented a brief overview of
the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area
Plan with an emphasis on the proposed
Visitors’ Center. The following comments were
made:
1. What is the main function of the Visitors’
3.
4.
5.
6.
Center? It is to provide an opportunity to
welcome visitors to the State of Arizona,
the City of Yuma and the Yuma Crossing
National Heritage Area. Specifically, it
would direct visitors to commercial,
recreational, environmental, and historical
sites and attractions. Those interested in
the history of the area would be directed to
the Heritage Center located in the Old City
Hall. Parking and shuttle service to the
Heritage Center and Downtown would be
available at the Visitors’ Center.
Traffic flow generated by the Visitors
Center was a concern. Exiting on to First
Street would be difficult in terms of making
a left turn. Cars should exit out onto Fifth
Avenue, and from there, onto First Street.
There could be an archway sign that says
“Welcome to Yuma Crossing National
Heritage Area” just east of Fourth Avenue
on First Street.
What kind of help are you asking of the
Yuma Endurance Flight Group? Initially,
we will need any interpretive information
that you have. As we get further along, we
may need fundraising help to complete the
Endurance Flight Exhibit.
There should be an interactive exhibit for
children in the exhibit area where the “City
of Yuma” is displayed.
How much will this project cost?
Preliminary Estimates are around $3.5
million. All agreed that we should not wait
to amass all these funds, and that we
should split this project into four phases.
Phase I could be a TEA-21 grant on ADOT
Right-of-Way to enhance the truck
inspection station with landscaping and
other amenities. Then we could work on
the parking. Heritage Area funding would
focus on the Visitor Center building,w hich
would house the Endurance Flight Plane.
Since initially we would defer the bridge
ramp and use First Street and Fifth Avenue
for access, the off-ramp would be deferred
to the fourth phase.
Why can’t Visitors’s Center access come
off of the inspection station drive? Because
there are often back ups with trucks waiting
for inspection during harvest times. It is not
a safe option in terms of traffic circulation.
APPENDIX F
7. What happened to the idea of putting flags
on the bridge representing the tribes and
Yuma’s Historic Districts as shown on the
plan? This can still be pursued and would
need to be coordinated with CALTRAN
since they control the bridge.
Military Heritage:
April 25, 2002, 1:30 PM
Participants:
Bonny Rhoder, Radisson Hotel
Theresa Moore, Radisson Hotel
Mike Thompson
Tom Jones, Arizona Veterans
Matthew Spriggs, Yuma Riverfront
Heritage Foundation Inc.
Consultant
Plan with an emphasis in the Interpretive Plan
related to Yuma’s Military History. The following
comments were made:
1. Currently there is not much interest in
developing or expanding the museum at
the Yuma Proving Grounds. With the
events of 9/11/01, it would be better to have
a Military History Museum or interpretive
venue in or near the downtown. We do not
want the security risks of bringing the public
on the base.
2. There are over one hundred photographs at
the base museum. Chuck Wollenjohn
would be a good contact person regarding
what is available. The Heritage
Corporation should seek National Park
Service Funds to create a Military Museum.
There are at least two Sherman Tanks at
the base that could be used for an exhibit.
One million men and women were trained
in Yuma during World War II.
3. In terms of the plans for Gateway Park,
some people are concerned about the
problem of homeless people bathing in the
river. The beach area will be relocated to
the east of the I-8 overpass with better
Sub Appendix E
access via an extension of Gila Street and
parking on the lower level. The beach will
not remain in the center of the park.
Downtown: April 26, 2002, 9:00 AM
Participants:
Dorothy Young, Southwest and More
Virginia Reyes, Yuma Cultural Council
Julie Campbell, City of Yuma
Sylvia Weichemarn
Rick Ploski, Yuma Main Street Inc.
Barbara Christenson, Yuma Main Street Inc.
Gary Munk, Yuma Main Street Inc.
Becky Chavez, City of Yuma, Parks and
Recreation Dept.
Paige Webster, Greater Yuma Economic
Development Corporation
Consultant
Plan with an emphasis on interpretive
opportunities in the downtown. The following
comments were made:
1. How do we get façade improvement
funding from CDBG? A specific proposal
must be submitted to the Department of
Community Development during the
process of program development. There
would be specific criteria defined. For
example, is the private owner making
interior improvements? We should
proposed a pilot project of restoring a
building on Main Street, using Architect
Wayne Donaldson. Once we get the
Heritage Plan approved this should be a
funding priority.
2. Many liked the plan for developing
residential housing for the old Southern
Pacific Railroad property, which also
preserves the Old Depot . We should be
promoting a mix of incomes, adding middle
to upper income housing. “We need
APPENDIX F
spending power in the North End.” What
phase would this development be? First,
we need to resolve brownfield issues.
There will need to be some environmental
work done. We will need to see some other
development successes in the downtown
before this project would go forward. An
example would be the proposed “Shop
Keeper” units proposed by Craig Clark.
3. My greatest concern is not having enough
parking. When they can be justified, we are
proposing three level parking decks off of
Gila and Madison.
4. We need an art center downtown. This is
proposed as part of the redevelopment of
the Old Yuma Theater. This is not,
however,a heritage area project.
5. We are concerned about call centers
located in the downtown. They should only
be permitted if they build there own deck
parking. They do not bring business to
downtown merchants.
The group was enthusiastic and supportive of
the overall Heritage Plan. There was some
frustration with how slowly things have
progressed in terms of implementing the plan.
Molina Block Group:
April 26, 2002, 10:30 AM
Participants:
Megan Reid, Arizona Historical Society
Barbara Christensen, Yuma City Historical
Society
Oscar Schraml, Rio Colorado Arizona Historical
Society
Rosemarie Gwynn, Arizona Historical Society
Ralph E. Ogden, RCC, Arizona Historical
Society
Fred W. Jones, Arizona Historical Society
Wally Hill, RCC, Arizona Historical Society
John S. Curts, City of Yuma
Howard Deardorff, Heritage Planning Consultant
Sub Appendix E
Plan with an emphasis on the proposed Molina
Block Campus. The following comments were
made:
1. There is not enough parking at the
proposed Visitors’ Center. The entrance to
the Visitors’ Center is too quick. We agree,
the more we look at it, we are convinced
that for the first phase the entrance will
have depend on signage directing visitors
to turn right on First Street to enter the
parking lot for the Visitors’ Center. The
shuttle should have an Historic theme.
2. Why not have the Visitors’ Center at the
Old City Hall? Because there is even less
space for parking there.
3. What is the timing of the private
development proposed along the River
Front and in the downtown? They will
parallel each other.
4. We will need another $1 million to complete
the Molina Block Building. How far can the
match go back because we have already
expended subtantial funds on the building.
We probably can’t go back further than the
October 2002 designation. We are
anticipating that by March of next year
$200,000 will be available for the Molina
Block Campus. We are looking for local or
state matching funds where the funds
already exist for up to $1 million.
5. If we at Molina Block want to develop
something without Heritage funding are we
subject to Heritage approval? No, not
unless you use Federal funding. However,
since it is State-owned land, it is subject to
state approval.
6. Does the interpretive plan include the
Siphon? Yes it does. We are considering
an observation deck behind Old City Hall
that would provide interpretive materials
and exhibits explaining its construction and
how it functions. We have some excellent
photos available to us from the Bureau of
Land Management.
When asked for general impressions of the
plan, a few participants responded that they
would need more time to review the documents
before making comments.

SUPPORTING REFERENCE MATERIALS for the YUMA CROSSING

Transcription

Similar documents

Your One Stop Employment Center

AArt scene in Yuma - Yuma County Chamber of Commerce

Invites Qualified Applicants for Superintendent

Brewer Application Rules and Regulations

070607 - tina malia

7 marines die in crash - San Diego Union

District 15 news - Alcoholics Anonymous Yuma

Mario Dipp, Dean - Imperial Valley Economic Development

Pulse- August Edition - Recognition Professionals International

Media Kit - Z93yuma.com