(SS) NOLLOW GNNO¥D ASNOdSAY TWULOAdS GNOOES 01 HOA dV UNOINOD : BIg

€80°0='S
oS woneo07y Supfing

lll oat Jo a . ou __ Sit
° f



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001, “Architectural Resourees Group

Figure 3. - The image shows the building under construction. The view is looking toward the west
and into the space that will become the main observation deck at the Canyon rim. GCNPA Photo
Number 16793b. Photo dated 1928.

APPENDIX E


ay Continued:

Terrace Roof Loads:

Tar & Gravel Roof 6.0 psf

3/8" Plywood 1.4 psf

1" Str. Sheathing 2.3 psf

Vigas at 3'-6" 5.5 psf
Miscellaneous 1.0 pst

TOTAL 15.9 psf

Terrace Roof Area:

Atr = 13-65 + 18-42 — 60 Atr = 1541
Wr := Atr-18.9 Wtr = 29125

Roof area (sq. ft.)

Total Terrace Roof Load (Ibs):


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 ~ Architectural Resources Group

Figure 6. This image illustrates the native Kaibab stone at the corner pier and west eleva-
tion near the west entrance. Mortar was set so as to be invisible between the joints and
stones were laid to look as if the pier was constructed without mortar. View is looking
toward the north. Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F

=


Yavapai Observation Station © Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group July 6, 2007

one small opening, now closed with a wood louver, toward the southern side of the building and three
larger expanses of glass toward the canyon side. More pronounced at the east elevation are flared out
lower courses of the stone walls; this corner treatment serves to mediate any sharp comers and soften
the building’s profiles (see Appendix F, Figure 7).

North Elevation

The north elevation dramatically rises straight up from the line of the sheer canyon wall below it (see
Appendix F, Figure 8). The defining feature of this elevation are the five large picture windows which
form the northern facade.

South Elevation

The south elevation is comprised of coursed rubble walls and introduces the building as an impenetrable
fortress with four small window openings, two infilled with a wood louver and two with small panes of
glass. All four windows have a solid stone lintel above and solid stone sill below. A regular row of
protruding rafter ends punctuates the facade. Three of the buildings four doors are south facing.

Roof

The building’s flat roof mimics the horizontality of the setting and the extreme flatness of the canyon

rim and recalls the precedent of Pueblo architecture. It is of tar and gravel above the roofline. The

parapet roofline does not follow a clean straight line but rather is a crenellated profile, in the manner of

indigenous architecture. The roof framing members are round and rough-finished. A low brick chim-

ney, a later addition in the southwest corner, does not rise above the parapet and is not visible from the é
ground below. Antennas and other equipment have been installedon the roof and can be seen from cer-

tain angles (see Appendix F, Figure 9).

Interior

Though the interior was initially laid out as two distinct spaces with different purposes, characteristics
and light-reflecting qualities, it is now perceived as one vast room measuring 3,000 square feet.
Originally the interior spaces, one open-air, the other closed, dark and cave-like, afforded a contrasting
device that distinguished the two spaces and highlighted their distinct purposes of viewing vast distances
and closely examining rock specimens. At present, the feeling of the interior is quite changed from the
original intent. The building no longer conveys a museum quality since the expansion of the bookstore
in 1992. A series of large single-pane windows along the western wall give a sealed-in effect and the
carpeted interior lies in place of a concrete floor, scored to look like stone. Rough-hewn wall surfaces
and the rocky parapet have been smoothed over in stucco and concrete. The east and west walls of the
observation room have corresponding windows that are hinged to open. The rear half of the interior
space has solid wall surfaces, is primarily windowless and is filled with book displays and shelving sell-
ing books and videos. There are four timber columns in the interior (see Appendix F, Figures 10-12).

24 Puysicat DESCRIPTION



Building Assessment Report Yavapai Museum
Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

IV. ELECTRICAL
A. ELECTRIC SERVICE
1. Existing Conditions

Electrical service to the building is provided by APS at 120/208V,
1-phase, 3-wire. The service disconnect is a 3P-150A circuit
breaker which in turn feeds a 150A main panel.

2. Recommendations

The existing service equipment appears to be in fair condition but is
a candidate for replacement due to its age. Recommend
replacement.

The existing service capacity is adequate for the planned
renovation. However, the load capacity will be reviewed when the
air conditioning and museum loads are more fully established.

B. POWER DISTRIBUTION
1. Existing Conditions

A single panelboard for lighting and receptacle circuits is located in
the building. Service to the panelboard is via overhead conduit
routing. The panelboard is rated at 120/208V, 1-phase.

2. Recommendations

All existing panelboards should be replaced with new panels during
the renovation phase.

Cc. LIGHTING AND RECEPTACLES

1. Existing Conditions

Lighting consists mainly of surface mounted track light fixtures and
incandescent downlights.

Recessed wall mounted receptacles and telephone outlets are
located at various points to satisfy current equipment locations.

Flack + Kurtz Electrical
Ref. No.: $00.02260.00
November 7, 2000


Flack + Kurtz Inc.

Yavapai Museum
Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

BUILDING ASSESSMENT
REPORT

Prepared for:

Architectural Resources Group
Pier 9, The Embarcadero

San Francisco, CA 94111

Prepared by

Flack+Kurtz Inc.

A WSP Group Company

343 Sansome Street

San Francisco, California 94104

November 7, 2000



RECOMMENDED
Paul Cloyd, PE/RA
Project Manager, Denver Service Center

APPROVED:

Joseph Alston
Superintendent, Grand Canyon National Park

Cover: East Elevation from HSR Drawings

April 23, 2001

April 30, 2001


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon Nationa! Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 2. This image depicts the east-facing door just behind the south elevation. This
door leads into the back of the shop, formerly the exhibit room. The strap hinge depicts a
stylized eagle head. Rounded iron bolts are ornamental. There is no stair, rather the
&round slopes up to the threshold. Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report

July 6, 200

Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group

Figure 12. - Exterior view of the Yavapai Observation Station shortly after construction. GCNPA

Photo Number 7169. Photo dated 1930.

APPENDIX E



CRITICAL CONNECTION FROM EXTERIOR

FIG. 12 YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM



Building Assessment Report Yavapai Museum

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

II. HEATING, VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING

A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION

In general the heating system equipment seemed to be in good
working order and has been fairly well maintained over its
operational lifetime. The plans of the existing conditions appear to
be reasonably accurate with only a few deviations and
undocumented changes.

B. AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM

1.

Flack + Kurtz

Existing Conditions

The entire building is heated by electric radiant convectors mounted
on walls or beams near the ceiling. The convectors are
approximately 3 inches wide and are several feet long. Several of
the convectors are grouped together in zones and controlled by wall
mounted thermostats.

There are currently no provisions for outside air or cooling for the
space. However, there are small ceiling registers that are capped
which may have been used at one time to provide some outside air
and cooling for the space. Two gravity relief vents are located on
the roof.

Recommendations

If the observation area is to opened up to the outdoors, it could be
possible to re-use the electric radiators in order to provide some
heating on the open terrace. If the remainder of the building
becomes a museum or display area we would recommend adding a
small roof mounted air cooled heat pump which would provide
heating, cooling and minimum outside air requirements for the
occupied space.

Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning

Ref. No.: $00.02260.00

November 7, 2000

}


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 200% Architectural Resources Group

Figure 23. This photo shows Ranger Ralph Redburn addressing visitors on the open terrace of the
Yavapai Observation Station. As seated visitors peer out into the canyon, it is evident why the parapet was
originally kept so low. Photo dated September, 1932. GCNPA Photo Number 5825.

APPENDIX &


mAN Wood Column Connections:

Although they may exist, positive connections between the log columns and the foundation,
and between the columns and the beams, could not be verified with the limited investigation
permitted. This condition occurs at four log columns in the Terrace area of the building. Unlike the
roof to wall connections, the bearing length at the column to beam connections is very short (see
Figure 14), and without positive connection, the possibility exists of the roof beams moving off the
column and losing support.

D Slope Failure and Surface Fault Rupture:

The typical meaning of the slope failure evaluation statement as intended by FEMA 310 is
whether the structure is in danger of being hit by a landslide. The Yavapai Point Museum is free
from this concer, however, it is in danger of being part of a landslide. Similarly, the surface fault
rupture statement is intended to address natural geologic faults -- while there is a small fault running
through Grand Canyon Village, the far more serious concern is the abandoned mine and natural
cracks in the strata over which this building was constructed.

The Grand Canyon is nine miles wide and 4,500 feet deep near the Yavapai Point Museum.
In geologic terms, The erosion of another few feet of the south rim, which will completely consume
this building, is inevitable. In human terms, the question is whether this occurrence is likely to
happen in the near future.

Before discounting the possibility of such an event as vanishingly unlikely, recall the rockfall
from the face of Glacier Point in Yosemite National Park on November 16, 1998. In this case, no
rockfall had been recorded in historic times, despite the occupation of nearby Curry Village since
1899. The rocks above had been exposed and weathering for over 1 million years, and all at once,
an estimated 19,900 cubic feet, or 3.5 million pounds of rock exfoliated from the face and
plummeted to the valley floor. Admittedly, the weathering and erosion process in the Yosemite
Valley is entirely different than that at the Grand Canyon, this example is included only to
emphasize that geologic events sometimes do occur on a human time scale.

Several potential weaknesses are present in the strata underlying the Yavapai Point Museum:

1) At the "basement," which various sources indicate to be the opening of an abandoned mine,
a large crack is visible in the face of the rock above the entry (Figure 15). This crack
extends deep into the rock below the structure (Figure 16). Wooden wedges have been
driven into the crack for unknown reasons, it may have been in an effort to stabilize the
ceiling of the basement and prevent the periodic fall of small stones.

2) A large natural crack exists in the strata west of the basement (Figure 17).

3) The original floor plan (Figure 18) indicates an opening or crack, even larger than the
basement, below the northeast comer of the structure. This area has been "improved" with
masonry work (Figures 4 & 15), but it was impossible to determine whether the void was
filled, or the mouth of the opening simply "bricked up" with stone masonry.


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report » Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group July 6, 2001

Upon its completion, the Yavapai Observation Station was considered an immediate success and
“attracted much favorable comment as to the manner in which it fit[s] in with the landscape features and

appears to have grown as a continuation of the canyon walls.”13

Yavapai Interior and Exhibits

As stated above, the interior was divided into two discrete spaces, the observation terrace and the exhib-
itroom (see Appendix E, Figures 18-20, and 32-35). The building was equipped with a large model
of the Grand Canyon, samples of rock from the various formations, charts, maps, examples of fossil
temains, and three high power telescopes. Viewing from the Yavapai was highly studied and controlled
through the use of fixed telescopes and field glasses mounted on the parapet. Each parapet view was
numbered and had a corresponding numbered exhibit with specimens such as fossils and rocks from that
site in the room adjoining the terrace. The first descriptions of Yavapai Station specify that there were
three telescopes. But shortly after construction, possibly as early as 1930, thirteen World War I battery
commander telescopes and binoculars were loaned for use at Yavapai by the War Department. By 1944,
they were dilapidated and nearly beyond repair, as was noted in a memo written by Park Naturalist
Louis Shellbach to the Park Superintendent regarding the annual report on the condition of the tele-
scopes. Shellbach suggested requesting replacements from the War Department, noting:

Considering the length of time that they have been in constant daily use and the excel-
lent service they have rendered the public, there cannot be the slightest doubt as to their
value as interpretive mechanisms and as a means of service to the large number of visi-
tors to the Grand Canyon National Park. 14

At the time of its construction the facility was considered “well adapted for telling the story of the

Grand Canyon, its formations, structure and relation to life forms on the earth.”15 In a 1931 memo writ
ten by John Merriam regarding the use of Yavapai Station, he noted that the “selection of [geologic] fea-
tures of interest is of much advantage to the visitor, and it is desirable that opportunity be given the visi-

tor to utilize the data as carefully as possible.” 16

Gardens

Museum gardens were a direct result of the park service’s expanding interest in natural history, and
parks began to hire resident naturalists to direct interpretive programs and select plantings. Unlike
buildings which could be constructed in a single season, it took several seasons to establish life-zone
gardens, collections of native wild plants. In the grounds surrounding the Yavapai Point Museum, the
planting of an extensive garden of native wild plants was initiated upon completion of the building (see
Appendix E, Figures 24-26). By 1931, plants from the Canadian Zone of the North Rim and from the
Lower Sonoran Zone within the canyon were flourishing in defined plots along tightly-curved paths
studded with local boulders. The rest of the area was landscaped with plants from the Upper Sonoran
Zone which is the natural habitat of the South Rim. Not only did the plantings serve an educational pur-

14 HisTorICAL BACKGROUND:


Wall Type Regions of Regions of High
Moderate Seismicity
Seismicity A B

Top story of 14 14 9

multi-story

building

First story of 18 16 15

multi-story

building

All other 16 13

conditions

Fig. 8: ALLOWABLE HEIGHT-TO-THICKNESS RATIOS FOR URM WALLS

FEMA 310 Table 4-2



Bievyjiod 208

opens een.te Ine)

Tiga FRONT cog

LOTT TES ATT GIT ITE OT



= = os

Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 11. This image illustrates the northern side of the Yavapai interior. As opposed to the bookstore func-
tion of the back half of the interior, the north side of the interior provides space for viewing the canyon. The
timber columns on the interior are original. Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 17. Detail shows window on the west elevation of the Yavapai exterior. Wood log
end exhibits deterioration. Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F


nee ee eee ee ee el

AN Calculation of Diaphragm and Shear Wall Strengths:
As noted ind, the Strength Values for Existing Materials, FEMA 178, Table C6.1.1a and
Strength Values for New Materials Used in Conjunction with Existing Construction, FEMA 178,
Table C6.1.1b, herein reproduced as Figures 9 and 10, will be used for this analysis.

Applying these values to the observed and assumed construction of the Yavapai Point
Museum gives the following diaphragm strengths:

Office Roof: 3/8" Plywood over 1" Straight Sheathing

675 lb/ft + 300 Ib/ft = 975 lb/ft
Exhibition Hall Roof: 3/8 ply over 1" Str. Sheathing above 1" Str. Sheathing
675 Ib/ft + 300 Ib/ft + 300 Ib/ft = 1275 tb/ft
Terrace Roof: 3/8" Plywood over 1” Straight Sheathing
675 lb/ft + 300 lb/ft = 975 lb/ft

The strength of the stone masonry walls is more difficult to estimate. Section 5.4.1 of FEMA
178 suggests a maximum "quick check" shear stress of 10 psi in solid brick masonry. It does not
specifically address stone masonry. FEMA 310 does not provide any guidelines or acceptable stress
level, and simply states in Section 2.2, "Unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings . . . shall have
destructive tests conducted to determine the average bed- joint shear strength ...." A discussion
with Mike Schuller of Atkinson-Noland and Associates in Boulder Colorado, a company
specializing in in-situ testing of masonry structures, indicated that the strength of high quality
masonry may greatly exceed 10 psi. In particular, random Ashlar lay-ups, which provide interlock
between stones, may easily have shear strengths of 40 psi, and can exceed 100 psi.

For initial evaluation, without conducting testing, a shear strength of 10 psi has been
assumed, representing a reliable minimum strength.


-—

mca sane hc
prrenrei rte

abit

ar 1

. dt
uiew eLesisie wrohioc, ss
baeeaiae ren ean <O Lo.

alin

@= were.
@— wem

ELECT RICOL PLOW

RET

ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS a

Vo. ELECTRICAL eeAoyacs

Ns eugereian ontancog sue mune atk QUATINN GLUT, Cones,
Sate aus eetep woking,

ately nee ak BSR



es
U5 PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

|| jj

CHECKED BY |ARCHTECT seen ems

BASIC DATA

SCALE ¢ tie 40-0

SECTION. .C:¢

SECTION “A -A

come

DIVISION OF LANOSCADE,

UNITED STATES

REGIONAL

nom
ARCHITECTURE

o——— OBSERVATION AREA

PROPOSED. RECONSTELETION AT YAVAPAI
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2007 ‘Architectural Resources Group

Figure 18. - The image shows the interior of the Yavapai Observation Station. GCNPA Photo Number
9748. Photo dated 1930.

APPENDIX &


Z\ continued:

3' thick walls and columns at Terrace:

Find allowable bending & tension stress:

twi=3 Actual wall thickness (ft).
hwa := r-tw hwa = 48 Allowable max wall height based
on allowable slenderness ratio (ft).
Pwa := tw-hwa-y Pwa = 21600 Weight of max allowable wall (Ibs/ft)
w= tw-y-Sa w= 923 Lateral distributed load (Ibs/ft*2)
wehwa
8 ma = 26568 Allowable moment at base of wall (ft-Ibs/ft)

6-ma_ Pwa

tw? tw
oa i= a oa = 73 Allowable tensile stress at base of wall (psi).

Find moment capacity of actual wall:

hw :=7 Actual wall height to bottom of beams / top of masonry (ft).

Pw := tw-hw-y Pw = 3150 Actual wall weight (Ibs/ft).

2
mis (= +oa- 1) m= 17343 Allowable moment at base of actual wall (ft-lbs/ft).
tw

Find base moment and shear of actual wall as cantilever:
2

me := “te me = 2260 Actual moment as cantilever (ft-Ibs/ft).
ve i= whw ve = 1.5 Actual shear stress as cantilever (psi).
tw: 144

The actual moment (2,260 ft-Ibs/ft) is less than the allowable moment (17,343 ft-Ibs/ft) and
the actual shear stress (2 psi) is less than the allowable shear stress (10 psi), thus the
Terrace walls and columns can act as cantilever beams and require no support at the
diaphragm.

59


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group July 6, 2001

rior log elements were unfinished. However, as these elements are currently painted, and it is not
practical to leave them exposed for maintenance reasons, it is recommended that all exterior wood
elements remain painted.

* Windows should have all delaminating and flaking paint surfaces sanded and scraped. All sash and
frames should be repainted to match the original color. Windows should be repaired to operable
condition. All hardware should be rehabilitated and replaced, in kind, where broken or missing.

* Historic, exterior doors should have all delaminating and flaking paint surfaces sanded and scraped.
All doors and frames should be repainted to match the original color. All doors should be repaired
to operable condition. All hardware should be rehabilitated and replaced, in kind, where broken or
missing. The two exterior doors replaced during the 1978 renovation should be removed. Doors
that replicate the original, 1928 doors should be installed in their place. All doors (old and new)
should receive new weather-stripping and thresholds.

Interior Rehabilitation

The extent of interior rehabilitation will depend on the selected treatment alternative (discussed under
“alternatives for treatment”). It is assumed that the design of all exhibits will be undertaken by the
National Park Service. As the specific exhibit design is not an architectural issue, it is not discussed in
this document. It is suggested that exhibit design reflect original exhibits housed in the building as evi-
denced in primary source documents within the park archives.

Interior rehabilitation measures common to all alternatives include the painting of interior wood ele-
ments and the installation of a new mechanical heating and cooling system (refer to the mechanical
building assessment report in the Appendix I of this document). The interior carpeting should be
removed. It is preferable to restore the original, scored concrete floor. However, portions of this floor
were routed-out and grouted during the 1978 renovations and it is not known to what extent the original
flooring remains. If necessary, a new topping slab may need to be installed. The existing wall shelving
and sales desk in the exhibit room area should all be removed, and the walls restored to their original
finishes. Historic photos of the space illustrate the original floor surfaces.

Additional measures needed to make the structure comply with current building codes are described
under “requirements for treatment” below.

Requirements for Treatment

In concise terms, this text outlines applicable laws, regulations, and functional requirements. Specific
attention is given to issues of handicapped accessibility, human safety, fire protection, energy conserva-
tion, and abatement of hazardous materials.

The rehabilitation design shall conform to NPS cultural resources policies and guidelines and will be

34 TREATMENT AND USE

— a


ELEVATION LOOKING NORTHWEST

FIG. 2 YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM



=— a ee oe oo oo oe oe le le

Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources

Figure 47. The image illustrates sections and floor plans by Architect Cecil Doty for the proposed con-
struction of the Yavapai Interpretive Facility, a Mission 66 facility, dated 1966. The proposed project was
intended to be sited at Yavapai Point on the location of the existing Yavapai Observation Station. Its con-
struction would have required the demolition of the existing building. GCNP Archives.

APPENDIX E



Yavapai Observation Station » Historic Structure Repost + Grand Canyon N nal Park

July 6, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

Tishler, William, ed. American Landscape Architecture: Designers and Places. Washington, D.C.:
Preservation Press, 1989.

Tweed, William C., Laura Soulliere, Henry G. Law. National Park Service Rustic Architecture: 1916-
1942. National Park Service, Western Regional Office, February, 1977.

Whiffen, Marcus. American Architecture Since 1780: A Guide to the Styles. Cambridge: The MIT
Press, 1969.

Wirth, Conrad L. Parks, Politics, and the People. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980.

Wray, Jacilee. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for Yavapai Observation Station.
April 13, 1990.

United States Department of the Interior. National Register of Historic Places. National Register Bulletin
15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Revised 1995.

United States Department of the Interior. National Register of Historic Places. National Register Bulletin
39: Researching A Historic Property. 1991.

i
BisuiocraPHy = 44


A\ Comments on Demand Capacity Ratios and "Actual" Diaphragm Loads:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report 310, Handbook for the Seismic
Evaluation of Buildings -- A Prestandard, published in January 1998, as well as FEMA report 178,
i , published June 1992, the
, 1997, and other sources, spend a considerable amount of
effort calculating a Demand to Capacity Ratio (DCR) for diaphragms of unreinforced masonry
structures. This DCR is then compared with a graph similar to Figure A (below) to determine
acceptability. Oddly, Figure A permits the DCR to far exceed 1.0.

Why a Demand Capacity Ratio in excessof1.0 C T
should be permissible is unclear. None of the
references researched explained this point. Simplistic
logic would suggest that if the demand exceeds the
capacity (DCR > 1.0) failure would result. The fact ol ty
identical DCR allowable curves appear in various
sources suggests empirical evidence exists to support
the curve. It may be that transverse bending strength
and out-of-plane shear strength of masonry walls,
which are neglected throughout the calculations,
although they are obviously nonzero, allow transfer of Z|
loads through the walls perpendicular to the direction | i
of earthquake motion. Qualitatively, these 10 ic) +}
considerations would result in a curve of the shape iF
given in Figure A: Very long walls would have no
appreciable capacity due to bending or shear in the
horizontal direction, but would have a strength due to ° 1 2 3 4S 8
out-of-plane shear and bending in the vertical direction. __ DBIAND-CAERCITY BATIO, DOF
This strength would be fixed by the allowable Figure A: FEMA 310, Figure 4-1.
slenderness ratio of the wall. Thus, as the wall
becomes longer in the horizontal direction, the allowable DCR curve would asymptotically approach
a value greater than 1.0. On the other hand, as the wall becomes shorter in the horizontal direction,
transverse bending and shear can carry more and more load until, in the limit, when the distance
between the endwalls is zero, the diaphragm is required to carry no load at all. Thus, the allowable
DCR curve would approach infinity as the building width approached zero. The curve given in
Figure A appears to follow this trend, with the unreasonable extremes of infinitely wide and
infinitely narrow buildings truncated.

420

een
8
|

HRAGM SPAN, £ OR Li
20.3048 FOR m
cS

g

(e}

The problem with blindly accepting the DCR criteria presented in FEMA 310 occurs later
on, in considering the shear wall strengths. Two equations are given for this value: First (equation
4-21), gives the force in the shear wall as equal to the sum of half the tributary weight of the
diaphragm plus the self weight of the shear wall multiplied by a seismic coefficient. The maximum
value is limited by equation 4-22, which gives a force equal to the self weight of the shear wall
multiplied by a seismic coefficient plus the load which could be applied by the maximum capacity
of the diaphragm.


Se ee ee ee ee

ZN Continued:

Based on the above, it appears appropriate to replace S,, with S,, such that equation 4-21 reads:
F,, = 8, x (W,, + 0.5 x Wy) 4-21 (revised)
Equations 4-22 through 4-25 should be modified similarly.

Similar arguments can be made regarding C-11 through C-15 of FEMA 178. In these equations the
Effective Peak Velocity-Related Acceleration Coefficient A, should be replaced with the Seismic
Coefficient C, as calculated in equations 2-4 or 2-5, to give:

F,, =C, x (W,, + W,/2) C-11 (revised)

It is worth noting an inconsistency between FEMA 310 and FEMA 178 that lends further credibility
to the concept of revising these equations. Comparing the unmodified equations in each we see:

Fyn = Spy X (Wy, + 0.5 x W,) 4-21 (FEMA 310)
=A, x(W,, + W,/2) C-11 (FEMA 178)

The only difference between these equations is the use of S,, in place of A, by FEMA 310.
However, this is a significant difference, these two factors are not the same. Sp, is the mapped 1.0
second Spectral Response Acceleration modified to account for site geology, whereas A, is the
mapped Peak Velocity Related Acceleration Coefficient with no modification for site geology.
Experiences in San Francisco's Marina District during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake made it
abundantly clear that site specific geology cannot be neglected.

Equation 4-15 (FEMA 310) and C-5 (FEMA 178):
The next equation to be reviewed is equation 4-15 from FEMA 310:
DCR =2.5 x Sp, x Wy/2vyx D 4-15
In this equation W, represents the mass of the diaphragm while Lv, x D represents the strength, or
"capacity" of the diaphragm. To determine the "Demand to Capacity Ratio" the numerator of this

equation must represent the "demand," or lateral force. This, of course, would be the mass (W,)
multiplied by a seismic coefficient.

As argued with equation 4-21 above, Sp, is not a seismic coefficient, and, for most unreinforced
masonry structures, is not the governing Spectral Response Acceleration. As such, it should be
replaced with S,.




Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 8. - The image shows the eastern side of the Yavapai Observation Station. GCNPA Photo
Number 9770. Photo dated 1930.

APPENDIX E


ds Roof to Wall Connections:

If any connecting elements (bolts, straps, etc.) exist, they were not visible during the site
visit. The available portions of existing drawings did not include any information relating to the
connection of the roof diaphragm or vigas to the masonry walls. As such, this discussion is
necessarily more qualitative than quantitative.

Flag note A identified the critical wall elements as the north most masonry columns. This
is also the location of the critical connections. Here the most load is transferred over the least
distance. For that reason, emphasis is placed on assessing these connections, with the assumption
that all other connections will be less critical, and more likely to perform adequately during an
earthquake.

Figures 12 and 13 show the connection at the northeast column from the outside and inside
of the building, respectively.

Movement of the roof relative to the column in the north-south direction would require the
main beam to shear through the top of the column. The area of the failure surface would be
approximately 12" x 36" = 432 sq. in. At a shear strength of 10 psi, this would equate to a load of
4,320 Ibs, far in excess of the applied reaction of 2,454 / 2 = 1,227 lbs (see Figure 11).

The capacity of the connection in the east-west direction is harder to judge. The vigas above,
as well as the main beam, are all socketed into the masonry to some extent, and appear to comprise
a joint of significant strength. Allowables, or a coefficient of friction for wood in masonry are not
available, but some simplistic calculations can be performed:

The applied load (see Figure 11) is 3,045 /2 = 1,523 lbs.

Assuming % the surface of the embedded beam is in contact with the masonry gives a shear
surface of 1 x 6" x 36" = 679 sq. in.

This would require a minimum masonry to wood bond of 2.2 psi.

This stress, as an average over the surface of the log, seems very low, and is likely an
acceptable value. In addition, friction, and the socketing of the vigas at the top of the column will
provide additional resistance.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the analysis to this point has been using a static
procedure for the calculation of loads. While convenient, one should never lose sight of the fact
earthquakes are a dynamic event. When large forces are generated, it is only for the briefest of times.
Considering this adds confidence to the adequacy of these connections: The bearing lengths are very
long. The entire roof structure would have to shift three feet or more to lose vertical support from
the masonry column.

49


Inguleted Glaws
Ty al Windows

(aceon

cam ee
} t ! 7 Toad
TeOe 1 . “uot
SOLEt 25 ft Cextere’) SECTION AA Ae #0
88 Heke! Geet Caaenen
SECA She Bee atta
Po Outee Eagiaters

ve louver met
dws moun) epsionsh

3" Beale

197 ea)

BEtusi sysrem
* Ears

AN Doct is herjzontel maneursments only

Yaparat Museum Floor Pian Beer EARS Thao ea a
Wy ntvor MiGcct root mounted on support wetem

REDUCED SIZE REPRODUCTION

end subsiciantly insutared.

UNITED. stares.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR wee
ATIONAL ARK senviCE arano CARON Wir oma pas

DEWen ERMIE CENTER ire SggUERY sogguise AnzeHA



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001

Appendix I.

Consultant Reports.

Architectural Resources Group


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report » Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

* to reconstruct the original cantilever roof at the deck’s north side which would be structurally
possible but costly; or,
* not to reconstruct the original cantilever roof.

Retaining the current configuration is, most likely, the least costly of the alternatives. The current build-
ing plan has been in place for nearly 47 years, while the original was only in place 25 years before the
alterations took place. The changes to the plans were originally made to address very important issues:
increased space that was needed for audience seating during lectures (the reason for the removal of the
stone wall between the two spaces) and the desire to use the building year round (the reasoning behind
the glass enclosure). Though these issues may not be as relevant to the building today (the building
does not currently house lectures) they do represent educated and thoughtful decisions that reflect the
history of the building’s use.

Conversely, the alterations do detract from the original building plan. The structure is now perceived as
one room, while it was originally designed to be two distinct spaces with different uses. As mentioned
previously, the current configuration is most likely the cause of some of the summer cooling problems.
While the building is now operable year-round due to the glass enclosure, the interior has, as a result,
become much warmer during the summer months. Further, the winter weather issues that initially pre-
vented the building from being operable year round could most likely be addressed with alternative
means: radiant heat could be introduced in the concrete floor to melt incoming snow and ice, and the
floor could be sloped to drain the melted snow out the north side of the building.

The removal of the windows would raise some safety issues; the low wall at the north side of the room
would have to be made taller (42” - legal guardrail height) if the windows were removed. This could be
accomplished by rebuilding a taller stone wall or adding a guardrail on top of the existing stone wall.
As the original wall was lowered in 1953 when the windows were installed, rebuilding it to its original,
taller height would be in keeping with a full restoration scheme. While it is true that immediately out-
side the building, such heights are not required for site walls immediately rimming the Canyon, it is rea-~
sonable to expect that, inside a structure, a greater level of safety should be provided for the occupants.

If it is decided to retain the glazing along the north elevation, one option that would more accurately
match the openness of the original design would be to use butt glazing to avoid the vertical mullions.
The mullions were added as part of the 1978 works and would not be considered historic as they are
outside of the period of significance.

The exterior catwalk would most likely need to be removed as well. If the windows were removed,
access to this catwalk would be entirely too easy (and dangerous) for the visiting public. If the windows

TREATMENT AND Use 9-37,



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 | Architectural Resources Group

Figure 11. This photo shows the newly constructed Yavapai Observation Station. View is of the south and
west elevations. Note people in the foreground at the water fountain which was later removed. Photo is dated
June 24, 1929. GCNPA Photo Number 2821.

APPENDIX E


ee ee ee ee

a,
@ usw
nus
ea

wr. Wags

vacuue seme,

(016) ety rowan
D eavnner

Fonuach Un ROW,

a) as
— ol a ees, eeeren
— a dsvernsany overt
—-—4 umes) oust
— ~~ Pre)

0 a eauenent

4 He —— count?

“ ps ce eK. ea

4 ara.

a 4

LIGHTING __ PANELROARR ten?
Wy. 30 CACJIT, PANMLNOAKL, RATED 186/240,
Lmaise, 8 Suey S/n Min Foe Mauna ae
te Se HACE BONE BRUAMGCS, 196 Maps
3 Suan fem URFeC! Mast NR.
KERTH, BES FORBES
doz siuab. AoAL
ryct tee i er wea 09k one aka
GES, fetta or Fay oat Meena Bene ae
es TRE eRSat ote) ANA ge

eRaucit

y/

“Gewmale

ONE... LINE DLAGR AA
so faee ys, 16, wiR sec

D peeguates encute
© Svcsielins

LGhiING FATE SUEUR

roc

=

“panera pow ray = soe

teeny

tet

00,

mee Ce rughesn

samme me

[esniranii” Sena
Tat san

oe. a commana, ta pe
ER nat eon aetacatn

a rN

ora)

Wi, RAL Ta AR REATLHA

ume 2
hae

rod aot era

snes Bu Att
intutty a ba

rovmers\ Kove.
comet w/prand

NLC.
prcanenrwiiey —
heacokerstie

sbeucmene,

VAS

ple
AS Boilte

reece.
aren
Feveione

| mugedM |

5

OF

ETE

ZERIT PLETE



J — or apgm aLamabors (28.89

‘«

ower
Was

TT REARS SSL cay

poe ey

* pul etal . Pol ecate

| LIGHTBOX RMOVERe SEcTOM LIGHT BOK ISOMETRIC
’

Leow bom ree op 0 gulae
een

1 Bx hoe puree wine Woo" {Tere

recy

YAVAPAI KUSEUM

Jemma 8,197

oes

Mo BOLTS

TANG T TOL TITER

‘p6 wonoee}



Yavapai Observation Station *

July 6, 2001

Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group

Figure 48. - Image shows the interior of the Yavapai Observation
Station with alterations in progress. GCNPA Photo Number
10548. Photo dated 1978.

APPENDIX E

ae: a Om


ea a.
} ort ee ene tee 3.



Yavapai Observation Station »« H

July 6, 2001

Figure 9. This image illustrates typical conditions on the flat tar and gravel roof. In the
foreground is the brick chimney below the parapet. View is looking to the southwest
corner. Long view is looking southwest. Note paved rim trial and boulders along the
walk. Photo dated May, 2000.

toric Structure Report + Grand Canyon Nationa! Park

Architectural Resources Group

APPENDIX F



= =

LN Continued:

When the DCR significantly exceeds 1.0, the second equation will always control. This
makes sense, after all, the load applied by the diaphragm cannot be greater than the capacity of the
diaphragm. However, consider a structure with a DCR in excess of 1.0, but still within the
acceptable region of Figure A, whose shear walls have a capacity slightly greater than the load
calculated by equation 4-22 (that is: The load generated by the walls plus the maximum load that
can be applied by the diaphragm). By the criteria of FEMA 310, this would be an acceptable
structure, and could be expected to perform adequately during an earthquake. Now consider: If one
were to nail a sheet of plywood to the roof, increasing the strength of the diaphragm, the limiting
value of equation 4-22 would increase, the structure could no longer be considered adequate, and
failure of the shear walls would be anticipated. Yet no new load has been introduced to the
structure! Clearly, if out-of-plane wall strength made the original structure adequate (as
hypothesized above), the improvement of the diaphragm would not destroy this capacity and make
the structure weaker.

Obviously, a more in-depth investigation of the actual structural capacities is required.

For the purpose of this evaluation, horizontal bending of the walls perpendicular to the
ground motion will be neglected, but vertical bending of those walls will not be. FEMA 310 gives
some empirical values which make an estimate of this strength possible. Table 4-2, reprinted here
as Figure 8, gives empirical values for the allowable slenderness of unreinforced masonry walls.
Using these values, a bending capacity can be calculated assuming the wall to have a fixed base and
a pinned connection at the diaphragm. (Note that the same numeric value for moment is obtained
assuming a pinned base and pinned diaphragm connection, but tension stresses are reduced in
bending at the base by the self weight of the wall. Thus this is the "more conservative" assumption,
as it results in lower allowable tensile stresses.) With consideration given to the self weight of the
wall, the tension stress generated by this bending can be calculated. For any wall with a slenderness
ratio less than the limiting value, an allowable base moment can be calculated which results in the
same tensile stresses. This moment may be relied upon to reduce the demand on the diaphragm.
Following these calculations, the reaction required at the diaphragm is an actual demand, and may
not exceed the capacity of the diaphragm without failure. Similarly, connections and shear walls
must be capable of reacting this load.

It is worth noting that Section 4.2.5 of FEMA 310 uses exactly this procedure to calculate
out-of-plane forces in walls, at diaphragm connections, and in diaphragms themselves, Further,
Section 4.2.5 uses ySps as the seismic coefficient for these calculations. The value of is given as
0.4 for life safety, and then multiplied by 2 for flexible diaphragms, giving a seismic coefficient of
0.8 x Sys. This is in excellent agreement with the seismic coefficient S, = 1.0 x Spg which has been
used heretofore in this evaluation based on the discussion indy The difference between the 1.0
factor and the 0.8 factor can be explained as an effort to compensate for the use of modification
factors for inelastic displacements which exceed 1.0 (FEMA 310, Table 3-4) used for materials other
than unreinforced masonry to which Section 4.2.5 may apply (Section 4.2.5 is generally applicable
to the analysis procedure of FEMA 310, and not specific to the "Special Procedure" of Section
4.2.6.) Even in the worst case, the use of 1.0 x S, would simply include a slight conservativism.


EXTERIOR STONE
WALL

LOG BEAMS:
: _\

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP.

OFPCE Book sHoP OBSERVATION CATWALK
DECK
TJ
|
(TY SECTION - EXISTING CONDITIONS
SE Scale D
DESIGNED: | SUB SHEET NO. TLE OF SHEET DRAWING NO,
Wet YAVAPA! MUSEUM
ORAWN EXISTING CONDITIONS
PKG.) SHEET
scan @ & 4 8 4 9 TECH. REVIEW: HSR NO. []
Provect worm 1087 3/2001 GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK for =.



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 31. - Ranger lectures to a crowd of tourists on the deck of the Yavapai Observation Station. The
image is indicative of the popularity of the Park in the post-war era. The building was more heavily
used by traveling Americans than had originally been envisioned and resulted in crowding on the obser-
vation deck. GCNPA Photo Number 1610. Photo dated August, 1948.

APPENDIX E


Yavapai Observation Station » Historic Structure Report » Grand Canyon National Park
Joly 6,200: ~ Architectural Resources Group
Ml Historical Background

Developmental History and Context

This section of the HSR outlines the people, events, and historic contexts associated with the structure. Historic
Contexts are broad patterns of historical development in a community or a region that may be represented by
historical resources. Historic contexts can be identified through consideration of the history of individual properties
or groupings of properties within the surrounding area. The establishment of historic contexts provides the
foundation for decision-making concerning the planning, identification, evaluation, restoration, registration, and
treatment of historic properties, based upon comparative significance, Historic contexts can be developed for all
types of resources including, but not limited to, buildings, structures, objects, sites and historic districts. The
methodology for developing contexts does not vary greatly with the different types of resources, and contexts may
relate to any of the four National Register criteria. At the core of historic contexts is the premise that resources,
Properties, or happenings in history do not occur in a vacuum, but rather are part of larger trends or patterns.

The Canyon’s First Inhabitants

Humans have known the Grand Canyon, the major chasm of the Colorado River and its tributaries, for thousands of
years. Indigenous people have lived in the Grand Canyon for over 4000 years, with recent evidence suggesting
people may have been utilizing the canyon as long as 10,000 years ago. Grand Canyon National Park is rich in
cultural resources; the park records include 4,000 prehistoric and historic sites, based upon intensive survey of
approximately 2.5% of the entire park. Estimates of archaeological resources within the park top 50,000
archaeological sites, prehistoric and historic, based upon the limited sample survey that currently exists.

For thousands of years, people moved in and out of Grand Canyon, leaving behind evidence of their passing.
Thousands of dwellings, shelters, and agricultural terraces have been located, providing evidence of ancestral
hunters, gatherers and farmers living on both rims and in the inner canyon. Campsites, rock art, house foundations,
pottery, chipped stone, ground stone, and other artifacts remain to help tell the story of these people and their lives
within the canyon over the last 10,000 years.

A single portion of a Folsum point provides the only evidence to date of Paleo-Indian hunters within Grand Canyon
nearly 10,000 years ago. Although evidence for human occupation is limited, it is well documented that Archaic
peoples began utilizing the Grand Canyon over 4000 years ago. Split-twig figurines, projectile points, campsites
and rock art attest to archaic populations in and around the Grand Canyon from ca. 3500 B.C. to 1 A.D. Though
limited, archaeological materials suggest near continuous occupations through the Archaic and Basketmaker (early
A.D. to ca. A.D. 700) periods, moving directly into the Puebloan period occupations (ca. A.D. 800 - 1300). Groups
identified as representing both the ancestral Puebloan peoples and Cohonina culture have been identified throughout
the Canyon during those time periods, gradually giving way to contemporary peoples. The Hopi, Zuni, Southern
Paiute, Havasupai, Hualapai and Navajo all left remains that have become part of the archaeological record. These
same people continue to use the canyon today for traditional and religious reasons.

Grand Canyon has been home to various groups of people for thousands of years. These people, both native
Americans and more recent Euro-Americans, have utilized the canyon as both a home and a place linked to
traditional practices, values and beliefs. To the Hopi and Zuni, the Grand Canyon represents their place of origin
into this world. For Hopi, it also represents the place where their spirits come to rest after death. Although the
Anasazi (Hisatsinom), or ancestral Puebloan people, migrated from the canyon area, their descendants, the Hopi and
Zuni, continue periodic visits.

For the Pueblo people, archaeological remains in the canyon provide evidence for their migration from their place
of origin to their present homes. For the Pai people (Hualapai and Havasupai), the canyon and the river are the
lands they have been entrusted to care for. The river represents the backbone. For the Southern Paiute, the canyon
represents a place given to them from the Creator to protect and manage, including its water and natural resources.
To the Navajo people, the Colorado River in Grand Canyon forms a protective boundary on the western border of
Navajo land. Many of the tribes who claim ancestral ties to the Grand Canyon continue to use the park. Salt and
hematite are collected from the locations along the river by all tribes, and certain plants are collected for traditional
and medicinal purposes throughout the park. Pine nuts are still collected by Indians and non-Indians. One small
group of Havasupai continues to live approximately one mile west of Grand Canyon Village in Supai Camp.

Most Havasupai today earn their living from tourism, ranching, and wage labor. Both

HisTORICAL BACKGROUND 7



Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon Nationat Park

July 6, 2007

Appendix A.

Appendix B.

Appendix C.

Appendix D.

Appendix E.

Appendix F.

Appendix G.

Appendix H.

Appendix I.

Appendix J.

Appendix K.

Architectural Resources Group

Existing Conditions Drawings of Plans, Elevations, and Section, by
Architectural Resources Group, dated April 13, 2001.

Drawings Illustrating Alternative Treatments by Architectural Resources
Group, dated April 13, 2001.

Plans Illustrating Pamary and Secondary Spaces of Significance within the
Building, dated April 13, 2001.

Code Analysis.

Historic Photographs of the Yavapai Observation Station in Chronological
Order.

Photographs of Existing Conditions.

Potential Seismic Hazard Assessment by Sato and Associates, dated October
1998.

National Register Nomination for the Yavapai Observation Station, dated
April 13, 1990. (Due to document length, only the Statement of Significance
is included.)

Consultant Reports.

Copies of Original Drawings of Grand Canyon Observation Station by
Herbert Maier, dated July, 1927.

Plan of Parking Area, Section A-A thru Parking Area at Yavapai Point by

National Park Service Division of Landscape Architecture,
dated February 7, 1951.

TABLE OF CONTENTS



Continued:

April 11, 2001
10:32 am
East - West loading (cont)
REACTIONS:
Name Location Vertical Moment
Rsol 11.0000 ~3045.0144
Rs02 20.0000 -919.4727
Rs03 30.0000 ~2882.9695
Rs04 53.0000 -2212.1685
Rs05 61.0000 -361.3750



Building Assessment Rs

eport Yavapai Museum
Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ARTICLE PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION.......ccccccessesessssessesseesceneessseneeneesaecessecsseessuecseesnessneessesseeseeesnecsesees 1
I. HEATING, VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING .........cccssseesseseeerees 2

I. PLUMBING...

TV. ELECTRICALww..o es eesseesssecesssesssescescssesssssscenessnessecsssessnecsnsecsnecsessessacesuesucenseesnneseee 4

Vv SITE PHOTOS 200... eecceesscssessessesssenecsessessscsscssscssscssnecenscecasensessserseseacenesenseensecese 13

Flack + Kurtz Table of Contents
Ref. No: S00.02260.00

November 7, 2000

TOC


ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP

OBSERVATION DECK

oO

REPLACEMENT
HOOD DOOR

BOOK SHOP

GLAZING

aan EXTERIOR STONE WALL

DESIGNED: Sl 8 ‘SHEET NO. THLE OF SHEET DRAWING NO.
(TD) PLAN - EXISTING CONDITIONS YAVAPAI MUSEUM
a
Spy Scale O HSR P&G] “SHEET
"ou Reve: bial acl
Prosect wort }PMT 3/2001 GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK lor _ =

[TM. sorrit, Above

ORIGINAL WOOD DOOR



sonny

ENGINEERS

Yavapai Observation Station Structural Assessment
Grand Canyon National Park October 31, 2000

At the large window opening adjacent to the east entrance, it appears that two timber sections that
partially support the timber header are missing. The header still bears directly on the stone wall and is not
in any danger of falling out.

In the observation deck area, the timber beams and columns support cantilevered timber joists, which
extend to the edge of the deck. Four 3” diameter pipe columns, at 12 feet on center, were added in 1953
at the cantilevered roof edge. It is not known whether these pipes were intended to provide support for
the enclosing window wall being added, or if support of the roof edge was needed.

At some unknown time, a brick chimney was added in the southwest interior corner of the building. It is
not currently being used. Above the roofline, the brick has deteriorated and partially broken off.

A metal-grated service balcony is supported by pipe sections cantilevered from the stone masonry wall at
the outer edge of the observation deck. The connection of the pipes to the building is unknown.

Recommendations

Based on its age, construction, and historic status, the Yavapai Museum would fall under the provisions
of the Uniform Code for Building Conservation. Because the building is in seismic zone 2B, and since no
change in occupancy has occurred, the structure does not require strengthening for seismic loads. The
building must comply with the Building Code requirements for floor live loads though. Since most of the
floor is on grade, the museum appears to comply with the code, although the floor framing over the lower
storage room is unknown.

The structure is in very good condition, considering its age and the building materials used.
Replacements should be made where stones have been removed from the walls, grouting the replacement
stones securely in place. Missing timber members around the large windows should also be replaced. All
wood-to-wood connections should be verified as having nailed connection detailing. If renovation work
is undertaken, the in-place detailing of the enlarged opening at the interior stone masonry wall should be
investigated and verified as adequate. Because there are no signs of potential failure or damage, it is
assumed that the details shown in procured construction drawings are sufficient for the existing
conditions.

In 1998, an ATC-21 Rapid Visual Screening assessment was completed for the Yavapai Museum. The
assessment identified the parapet in the southwest corner of the building as a potential falling hazard. The
existing parapet is constructed from full-wall width stones, mortared together, with a mortar cap. The
maximum parapet height is approximately 12 inches high. Due to the width of the stones, and the mortar
cap tying the stones together, the parapet presents a very low-risk for a falling hazard. The short height of
the parapet would not allow sufficient room to add a typical parapet bracing system. The parapet could be
simply removed above the roof line. However, instead of attempting to brace or remove the stones, any

we

mB Ewe eel eel ele


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 17. - The image shows view of the east elevation of the Yavapai Observation Station. Note
the beginning of the rim wall, which was extended to the vista point in 1933. Photo dated July,
1930 by George Grant.

APPENDIX E


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 26. - The image shows the building after landscaping and the installation of curbing.
The view is looking toward the north. GCNPA Photo Number 7225. Photo dated 1935.

APPENDIX &


|) 3> -$83
Grad Coy bu

Yavapai Observation Station
Historic Structure Report

a5

EAST BCEVATION:

GRAND CANYON

National Park « Arizona



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2002 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 52. - The image shows the west/southwest elevation of the Yavapai Observation Station.
Photo dated February, 1989 by Jacilee Wray.

APPENDIX E



aMNPAL Poesy é

254 pumas seo

| Masower

PARTIAL DETAIL
ar VIEW YaNDOW

PLAN VIEW ys Io” “«

oeraetane SP Pak prenon “einer
are

fc ana Ow. Wie 247A me LD WAM
sti wey ie Oth A Me. or Det Fe



Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Yavapai Observation Station * Histo

July 6, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 14. This image illustrates the tree well on the west side of the building, though the tree
is no longer extant. Maier, ever sensitive to the surrounding landscape, incorporated this
unplanned feature into the building during construction to accommodate an existing tree
rather than cut it down. Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F



Building Assessment Report

Yavapai Museum
Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

Flack + Kurtz
Ref. No.: $00.02260.00
November 7, 2000

5. Electric Radiator Nameplate

6: Roof Vent

Site Photos


Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001

Architectural Resources Group

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Il.

TI.

Iv.

Vi

VI.

VII.

IX.

Executive Summary and Administrative Data «+..-csescssecesceesseceerenseceeceecenesessaneees 1
Historical Background ++++e+ssesscssesseeeseesseasensneasecnssesteecnsesaeassnrescrsesersneans 7
Significance and Integrity Evaluation -+++++++++++++ deteaueneecceneeceeseecesssoetenesenseneee 19

+23

Physical Description
Conditions Assessment ceretsssetesseeeeee ane nanan rrr rrr Perrre eter iri rrrtrt rer irr rrer rire 27

Chronology of Development and Use +29

Treatment and Use -+seeesreesereseecesesseseco sees aeneeeenneeecesees sae eceesveeesereenes seer 33
Bibliography ........ssssecsseeseceeseeeeeescerenonees eerrerrrere) abeeeeeeeeeenseteretecssceensees 39
Endnotes se-sesssccessecsccsseeccesceeseustecesensacsacseeerssee de eeeeeeeeeeeeeensccesesseeeeneee 43
Appendices

TaBLe OF CONTENTS:



New eucptamwnl “0.
(rit monavinw cst)

ee
mae

NEW FAM

: avery sreucrURE 4
SMW Woo MAME

Seat arson a

ale wan oe ~

renralg weed rte

eRe see mice 7

<BCUK

deo
BCOURe  ePBE FOS Rao

Kerne Lin eackse more>”

Rice];
piace |!

eves ange war |
recta Spe
Orem) re

Cee EvoeT ALY

Cop aren

ser parece
~ PUT Aik a We PLO w/ tag soste coms)

Maite Masi OUT. 02 WS.

LO alatot Foeonie. moos,

TING PETAL

Sete

Rae messune

serene, tof eer Mi eliceu eotpelue:
F _ pilesicn Numi eave Toes

eves fo mienenynnesk
Geant agrees
Se at ito

= ne surrey ce wre

JAVAP?AL MU SEM
lcs Beas



loads directly to the foundation as bending in cantilever beams. Unreinforced masonry tends to
behave in a stiff and brittle fashion, thus little damping or energy dissipation occurs in the walls
themselves. Therefore, the walls react a force close to the full directly supported mass multiplied
by the ground acceleration (in accordance with Newton's famous F = m x a).

Building Evaluation:

As mentioned in the introduction, this structure was evaluated and rehabilitation
recommendations developed based on FEMA 273, the NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, October 1997, and its references to FEMA 178, the NEHRP Handbook

‘pte Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, June 1992, which was superceded by FEMA 310,

the Handbook A andard, January 1998. (Again,
refer to note sof ‘Appendix B for an in-depth explanation of the process followed.)

The balance of this report will follow closely to the format of FEMA 310. Copies of
various forms from that report have been included where appropriate. A Tier 1 evaluation is not
allowed for Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Structures With Flexible Diaphragms, therefore,
an evaluation in accordance with the Special Procedure of Section 4.2.6 of FEMA 310 has been
carried out. Tier 1 evaluations using the Geologic Site Hazards and Foundation and the Basic
Nonstructural checklists remain applicable for the entire structure.

Flag notes appearing on the included forms, in calculations, and other places, refer to
detailed discussions and/or calculations contained in Appendix B of this report. Information used
for this evaluation was collected during a visit to the building March 2001; various sheets of the
original blueprints dated 1927; a few sheets of renovation drawings dated 1952; and a few sheets
of renovation drawings dated 1977. None of these drawing sets was complete, and much of the
information was illegible. In addition, further information was gleaned from the Transcontinental
Geophysical Survey (35°-39° N) Geologic Map from 112° W Longitude to the Coast of
California, Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-532-C, Carlson and Willden, U.S.
Geologic Survey, 1968; the Encyclopedia Britannica; and verbal information provided by Park
personnel.

The Yavapai Point Museum was occupied and in use at the time the field investigation was
performed, At the explicit direction of the National Park Service, no destructive investigation or
material testing was performed. Assumed material strengths have been used in this evaluation.
It should be noted that this is not in conformance with FEMA 310, Section 2.2, which reads:
"Unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings with flexible diaphragms using Tier 2 Special
Procedures of Section 4.2.6 shal! have destructive tests conducted to determine average bed-joint
shear strength, v,., and the strength of the anchors." In addition, no excavations or geotechnical
borings were performed. Invasive investigation (e.g: Cutting holes in walls and ceilings to observe
the structure) was not performed, instead, inaccessible structural details were assumed based on
extrapolation of accessible structure, available drawings, and common building practices.


ee es ee oe

Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 53. - Grand Canyon National Park records states that the image depicts the “observation
room foundation, storage room door and catwalk on the north elevation” of the Yavapai
Observation Station. Photo dated February, 1989 by Jacilee Wray.

APPENDIX E



Yavapai Observation Station « Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

* Televisions removed from observation deck.
+ Existing sales desk installed.
+ Unbroken wall at south end of exhibit room removed.

CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND UsE 331



FEMA 310
SUBSECTION.

4.2.6.1, Applicability:

4.2.6.2, Cross Walls:

4.2.6.3, Diaphragms:

4.2.6.4, Shear Walls:

4.2.6.5, Out-of-Plane:

4.2.6.6, Connections:

4.2.6.7, Open Fronts:

ANALYSIS RESULTS
This structure meets the stated applicability requirements.

There are no cross walls in this building, nor would they be appropriate given the
geometry of this structure. Diaphragm capacity will be checked based on the
existing building geometry. This section is not applicable.

As explained in Bj, there are inconsistencies in the Demand Capacity Ratio
analysis method of FEMA 310 that make it unreliable. By calculating the out-of-
plane cantilever capacity of the walls (see ), the actual Joads in the
diaphragms were calculated and found to be well below the actual capacity of the
existing structure (see ). Existing diaphragms are adequate.

Both the shear and bending loads, including out-of-plane effects, were calculated
for the critical,shear walls in , and found to be far below the capacities
calculated in Ls Existing Shear walls are adequate.

Calculations in a and & show the out-of-plane loads to be far below the
capacities of the masonry walls. Walls have adequate out-of-plane capacity.

This section, as written in FEMA 310, is not strictly applicable to this structure.
Howaver, the roof to wall connections are important, and are discussed at length
in . The existing roof to wall connections are adequate.

This building effectively meets the requirements of this sgction using moment
resistant columns rather than cross walls. Calculations in show the masonry
columns to have sufficient weak axis strength to react loads generated in the
cantilever portion of the diaphragm extending out to the observation windows.
Sufficient capacity exists to support the open front.

’ By omitting a checklist for Unreinforced Masonry Structures with Flexible Diaphragms,
FEMA 310 misses some potentially significant items. Two of the evaluation statements from
Section 3.7.16, the General Basic Structural Checklist, are important in this structure:

ASSESSMENT.

Non-Conforming rAN

Non-Conforming rAN

FEMA 310 EVALUATION STATEMENT

‘WOOD POSTS: There shall be a positive connection of wood posts to the
foundation.

GIRDER/COLUMN CONNECTIONS: There shall be a positive connection
between the girder and the column support.


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon Nationa! Park

Architectural Resources Group

July 6, 2001

Figure 33. - The image shows the interior of the Yavapai Observation Station with a relief ‘map of the
Grand Canyon in the foreground and the rock wall in the background. Window at right faces west.
GCNPA Photo Number 9743. Photo dated c. early 1950s shortly before the rock wall was removed.

APPENDIX E


« :
~ i
ew ui Lun wed aban.
: ‘ _aFrav ess eames rer tee U9 ,
iM 7 , i —
a: i H
; i we 7
FS uh dos
} Bick tssm,: a e
| ut
Y ; . ot
H sues garnet eat &
| : Be \
i : ie . z 1 ~
bet j .
| : |
i ' .
! |
i :
t i
‘ AP Stet use ce
: . i wee os
q . i | sreewe pears 03a fi ‘
i dots, |e
Hl oy oe Me de ae ae |
a SECTION THRO-OPS,
i vos oven Ueto” oP, BEAM TATIERMATE
J : *~ <P ROR AY orp: eoee rage sean este
; . BLY SERS aS,
roe Latwibe Pearce BEAM, Beteraer,
me beer woe
, 7 28 rem means ane wzeo uit Cot yen e2k7,
‘ bes Veet" eee ane Been Wire werd
tl :
aye eee
i . :
i ren oy >
4 i aa ee
j Puan, Jeace Yeo ~



Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group

July 6, 2007

Figure 28. This photo of the open terrace at the Yavapai Observation Station during a snowstorm shows
snow piled on top of the parapet and telescopes. The ingress of snow was described as a recurring problem

that prevented the building from staying open year-round. Photo dated is 1944. GCNPA Photo Number
7022.

APPENDIX E



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report . Grand Canyon National Park

— “Architectural Resources Group

promontory with views on three sides.

Museums in the Parks

The need for park museums was first recognized in 1920, but it was several years before the park ser-
vice found sources to fund construction. Eventually grant funding from the Laura Spelman Rockefeller
Memorial Fund facilitated the construction of park museums and interpretive structures. Funding for the
Yavapai Point Museum came from a $10,000 grant from the Memorial Fund given to the American
Association of Museums (AAM). Herbert Maier was hired by the AAM to design museums for
Yellowstone, Yosemite, and the Grand Canyon. Maier worked closely with Ansel Hall, park naturalist
and later head of the Educational Division, and Carl Russell, the park service’s museum expert. NPS
landscape designers, particularly Thomas C. Vint, collaborated with Maier and prominent geologists and
scholars in selecting the sites for the museums and reviewing designs.

Collaborative Efforts: The American Association of Museums and the NPS Educational Division
The Yavapai Observation Station was the first formal interpretive structure at the Grand Canyon. The
plan for interpretation at Yavapai was the collaborative work of many influential scholars, scientists,
curators, and researchers. The philosophy that united them was that innovative interpretation allowed
the visitor to gain knowledge by observation and utilization of the displayed geological information.
Among the most instrumental of these scholars were Hermon C. Bumpus, Carl Russell, and John C.
Merriam, together with Ranger Ansel Hall and Edwin McKee, Park Naturalist and affiliate of the
Carnegie Institute (see Appendix E, Figure 9).

Hermon C. Bumpus, first director of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, had strong
ideas about park museums. He promoted a "focal point” lookout facility as best representing what park
museums should be about:

The controlling fact governing the development of educational work in the national
parks is that within these reservations multitudes are brought directly in contact with
striking examples of Nature's handicraft. To lead these people away from direct contact
with Nature... is contrary to the spirit of the enterprise. The real museum is outside the
walls of the building and the purpose of the museum work is to render the out-of-doors
intelligible. It is out of this conception that a smaller specialized museum, the trailside
museum, takes its origin.

The AAM played an active role in museum development at the Grand Canyon National Park during the
1920s. Another grant from the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial in 1926 funded the observation
station and museum overlooking the Grand Canyon at Yavapai Point. Ansel Hall continued in AAM
employ on the project, and John C. Merriam - formerly professor of paleontology at Berkeley, later
president of the Camegie Institution of Washington — spearheaded it for the park museum committee.

HisTorIcAL BACKGROUND 11


ee ee ee ee

Executive Summary:

Originally constructed in 1928, the Yavapai Observation Station has undergone at least two
major renovations (in 1953 and 1978) as well as a name change, to become the present Yavapai
Point Museum. This structure remains the Park's main interpretive center, and attracts visitors by
the thousand with its displays, bookstore, and, of course, the view.

The Museum is a single story unreinforced stone masonry structure perched at the very rim
of the Canyon. This portion of northern Arizona is a region of moderate seismicity. This fact,
combined with the historically poor performance of unreinforced masonry structures during seismic
events, and the high occupancy of this building, is cause for concern. This report has been
prepared to address this concern by evaluating this structure for seismic hazards and suggesting
retrofit work where appropriate.

This building is in generally excellent condition, and only two apparent deficiencies were
found. It should be noted that invasive investigation was specifically prohibited in this evaluation,
and such investigation may prove these deficiencies to be non-existent:

1) Positive ties could not be verified between the log columns and the foundation, and
between the log columns and the log beams.

2) The building is located at a site that may be at risk of sliding, fracturing, or collapsing in
a major quake.

This report recommends that these items be verified. In particular, the condition of the
underlying strata (item 2) should be assessed by a qualified Geological/Geotechnical Engineer.
If positive connections cannot be found at the log columns (item 1), details are included in this
report for a simple, inexpensive retrofit.

It is anticipated that the work proposed by these recommendations will cost approximately
$5,600.

The evaluation of this structure, and the recommendations presented, address only the life
safety performance of the building during an earthquake with a 10% chance of occurrence in 50
years. They are not intended to assure the survival of the structure itself, nor the performance of
the structure in a so-called "maximum credible earthquake,” nor are concerns unrelated to seismic
performance addressed.

Further renovations, both structural and non-structural, have been recommended in the
i Poi istori , Architectural Resources Group, November
2000. The reader should refer to that document for further information.


Grand Canyon National Park - Yavapai Observation Station
April 13, 2001

shown on the building plans. Based on the table below, the total occupancy load for the
exhibit space is 136 people. The total occupancy load for the office space is one person.

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP

Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc.



July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Appendix L. Alteration to Yavapai Station designed by K.M. Saunders, dated
December 8, 1952.


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 | Architectural Resources Group

Figure 40. This image illustrates the covered porch of Mary Colter’s Hermit's Rest. Located at the canyon
rim, the building served as a refreshment stop for sightseers. Hermit’s Rest opened 1914. The materials,
scored floor, low stone wall following the canyon wall are among the similarities to the Yavapai Observation
Station. Herbert Maier was an admirer of Mary Colter s work. Image from Grattan, Virginia. Mary Colter.
Builder Upon the Red Earth. p. 29

APPENDIX E

|


July 6, 2001

Appendix R. Window Glass Replacement and General Upgrade Drawings by National Park
Service Interpretive Design Center, Harper’s Ferry West Virginia, dated
December 1, 1977 and As Built Drawings (various details), Sheets 6-10, dated
June 6, 1978.


LX catcutate Out-of-Plane Wall Loads, Capacities, and Reaction at Diaphragm, YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM:

The out-of-plane strength of the unreinforced masonry walls is calculated based on empirical
allowable slenderess ratios as explained ind. “Excess” capacity in walls with a slenderness ratio
less than the empirically allowable value is used to support lateral wall loads as a cantilever from the
ground. Where walls have some excess capacity, but not enough to act completely as a cantilever,
the minimum diaphragm reaction required to prevent wall collapse (as a “propped cantilever’) may
be calculated.

The Yavapia Point Museum is located in a region of "Moderate" seismicity. FEMA 310, Table 4-2,
reproduced here as Figure 8, gives an allowable wall slenderness ratio of 16.

r= 16 Allowable slenderness ratio.
Sa := 0.205 Seismic coefficient. seeA\,
y= 150 Density of limestone ashlar masonry (pcf).

2' thick walls at Office and Exhibition Hall:

Find allowable bending & tension stress:

twi=2 Actual wall thickness (ft).

hwa := tw hwa = 32 Allowable max wall height based
on allowable slenderness ratio (ft).

Pwa := tw-hwa-y Pwa = 9600 Weight of max allowable wall (Ibs/ft)

w c= tw-y-Sa w= 615 Lateral distributed load (Ibs/ft*2)

ma = 7872 Allowable moment at base of wall (ft-lbs/ft)

oa = 48.667 Allowable tensile stress at base of wall (psi).

Find moment capacity of actual wall:

hw := 10 Actual wall height to roof diaphragm (ft).
Pw := tw-hwy Pw = 3000 Actual wall weight (Ibs/ft).

2
m:= (= +oa 14s) m = 5672 Allowable moment at base of actual wall (ft-bs/ft).

Find base moment and shear of actual wall as cantilever:

2

me := = me = 3075 Actual moment as cantilever (ft-Ibs/ft).
w-hw 7 .

ve = ——— ve = 2,135 Actual shear stress as cantilever (psi).
tw. 144

The actual moment (3,075 ft-Ibs/ft) is less than the allowable moment (5,672 ft-Ibs/ft) and the
actual shear stress (2 psi) is less than the allowable shear stress (10 psi), thus the Exhibition
Hall and Office walls can act as cantilever beams and require no support at the diaphragm.


North - South loading (cont? April 11, 2001
Continued: 10:31 am

il

ea ar

0.0000 SHEAR 65.0000
1969.5000
ot |
-1969.5000
0,0000 MOMENT 65.0000
47.7000
~19202.5644


=

<= — =

CURB SRCTICN
prs

UINTERSECTION DETAIL ©
YAVAPAI POIAIT SPUR,

SECTION A-A THRU PARKING AREA |

HALF-SIZE REPRODUCTION 1 |

stsomsorte H.C, BRYANT (mene) wma 22281

PLAN OF PARKING AREA
CAPACITY 50 cams ~ EXPANSIBLA To 200



EXISTING VIGAS 16”
& DECKING =

2) 3” 4" 4" 3” 2”
$

r
3} — tr .

RB 1/4” EACH SIDE
eye | |

W/6-5/8"¢ THRU BOLTS
EXISTING 7

|
LOG COLUMN :

»
EXISTING CS LSx3x1/4x0'—4", TYP 7

SLAB 5/8"9 THRU BOLT
1/2"6 EXP, BOLT, TYP
NOTE:

f== TO MINIMIZE VISUAL IMPACT, A SINGLE
"T” PLATE MAY BE INSTALLED

t J IN A SLOT CUT IN THE COLUMN
E = AND BEAMS.

“{

10”

COLUMN CONNECTION RETROFIT

SCALES: 1/2”=1
1 1/2"=1 So"

FIG. 19 YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM



Yavapai Observation Station » Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

YOM Lhe

Figure 19. - The image shows the interior of the Yavapai Observation Station. The view is look-
ing north toward the parapet and mounted view descriptions and telescopes. Note flooring
scored to imitate flagstone. GCNPA Photo Number 7154. Photo dated 1931.

APPENDIX E



BASEMENT, SHOWING CRACK AND MASONRY REPAIRS TO CANYON WALL

FIG. 15 YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM



Cc NC
Cc NC
Cc NC
Cc NC
c NC

c NC
Cc NC
c NC

°
@
ACECMCRORG

© @©

NIA

NIA

NIA

® ©

BEARING CONNECTIONS: Where bearing connections are required, there shall be a minimum of
two bearing connections for each wall panel. (Tier 2: Sec, 4.8.4.4)

INSERTS: Where inserts are used in concrete connections, the inserts shal! be anchored to
reinforcing steel. (Tier 2: Sec, 4.8.4.5)

PANEL CONNECTIONS: Exterior cladding panels shall be anchored with a minimum of 2
connections for each wall panel for Life Safety and 4 connections for Immediate Occupancy. (Tier

2: Sec. 4.8.4.6)

DETERIORATION: There shall be no evidence of deterioration or corroding in any of the
connection elements. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.4.7)

DAMAGE: There shall be no damage to exterior wall cladding. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.4.8)

GLAZING: Glazing in curtain walls and individual panes over 16 square feet in area, located up to
a height of 10 feet above an exterior walking surface, shall be laminated annealed or heat
strengthened safety glass that will remain in the frame when cracked. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.4.9)

Masonry Veneer

SHELF ANGLES: Masonry veneer shall be supported by shelf angles or other elements at cach
floor above the first floor. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.5.1)

TIES: Masonry veneer shall be connected to the back-up with cosrosion-resistant ties. The ties shall
have a spacing of equal to or less than 36” for Life Safety and 24" for Immediate Occupancy with a
minimum of one tie for every 2-2/3 square feet, (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.5.2)

WEAKENED PLANES: Masonry veneer shall be anchored to the back-up at locations of flashing.
(Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.5.3)

Parapets, Cornices, Ornamentation and Appendages
URM PARAPETS: There shall be no laterally unsupported unreinforced masonry parapets or
cornices above the highest anchorage level with height-to-thickness ratios greater than 1.5 in

regions of high seismicity and 2.5 in regions of moderate or low seismicity. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.8.1)

CANOPIES: Canopies located at building exits shall be anchored at a spacing 10 feet for Life
Safety and 6 feet for Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.8.2)

Masonry Chimneys

URM: No unreinforced masonry chimney shall extend above the roof surface more than twice the
least dimension of the chimney. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.9.1)

MASONRY: Masonry chimneys shall be anchored to the floor and roof. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.9.2)
Stairs

URM WALLS: Walls around stair enclosures shall not consist of unbraced hollow clay tile or
unreinforced masonry. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.10.1)

STAIR DETAILS: In moment frame structures, the connection between the stairs and the structure
shall not rely on shallow anchors in concrete, Alternatively, the stair details shall be capable of
accommodating the drift calculated using the Quick Check Procedure of Section 3.5.3.1 without
inducing tension in the anchors. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.10.2)


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group July 6, 2001

were removed, the steel and glass storefront between the foyer and observation terrace (installed in
1978) could also be removed, further returning the plan to its original configuration.

Regardless of the treatment alternative pursued, it should be recognized that this structure may be eligi-
ble for National Historic Landmark designation. While the park may not be currently prepared to under-
take a major restoration of the structure, the significance of the building warrants that the long term goal
be to restore it to its original configuration and finishes. To that end, any changes or improvements
made to the building before such restoration can be undertaken, should be reversible and pose no harm
to the historic integrity of the structure.

38 TREATMENT AND Use



Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Appendix P. Proposed Seating Plan for Observation Station at Yavapai Point by National
Park Service Landscape Architectural Branch, dated May, 1963.


Summary of Deficiencies:

The evaluation process of FEMA 310 showed very few deficiencies in this structure related
to its expected life safety performance in a design seismic event. The two items worthy of note are:

1) Positive ties could not be verified between the log columns and the foundation, and
between the log columns and the log beams. A failure here could result in one or more of the
columns moving out of their proper location, leading to a partial roof collapse.

2) The building is located at a site that may be at risk of sliding, fracturing, or collapsing
ina major quake. Should a portion of the underlying canyon rim slough in a major earthquake, the
building, its occupants, and anyone in the vicinity would be in great danger.

It should be noted that the deficiencies identified are based on a "BSE-1 Earthquake",
defined in FEMA 273 as ground motion which has a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50
years. Since the structure is regularly occupied, and frequently crowded, this is a high enough
possibility of occurrence to warrant concern.

Recommendations:

For the most part, the Yavapai Point Museum can be expected to perform well in a seismic
event. However, further investigation should be undertaken with regard to the two deficiencies
noted. The results of such investigation may serve to provide further assurance of the safety of
building occupants, or may identify corrective actions which need to be taken.

At the same time, the historic nature of this structure should be recognized, and an effort
made not to significantly alter the historic fabric and outward appearance of the structure. With
this in mind, invasive investigation and retrofits should be made as minimally intrusive as possible.

Column Connections:

As explained in AM, the connections at the top and bottom of the log columns could not
be verified. Typical construction practice would suggest there are steel alignment pins or bolts in
the ends of the columns, however, this could not be confirmed. It may be possible to remove a
portion of the carpet and determine whether restraint is provided at the base of the column.
Similarly, it may be possible to drill a small exploratory hole, or to use a feeler gauge or metal
detector to probe for connecting elements between the log beams and the columns.

If such investigations cannot be performed, or if they reveal no positive connections,
restraints such as those shown in Figure 19 should be installed.

It is anticipated that this retrofit could be accomplished by Park personnel. The total cost
of this work should be minimal, and is estimated at no more than $600.

Ve


ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP

e)

°

REMOVE CONCRETE AND
RESTORE ORIGINAL STONE
WALL FINISH

OBSERVATION DECK

CQ eee CARPET AND
REPAIR ORIGINAL SCORED

12)

REMOVE
AIRLOCK, ENTRY

meee, | VESTIBULE
os
Yy
A
EXHIBITS Y
ALY Yt
a _ -
LIL \ LLL me CALL OU,

(1) ALTERNATIVE 3 - RESTORATION

UPL scale D

DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES #3 - RESTORATION:

i
RECONSTRUCT FORTION OF STONE PARTITION WALL
BETWEEN OBSERVATION DECK 4 EXHIBITS

i
REMOVE GLAZING AT OBSERVATION DECK ¢ INSTALL
GUARDRAIL

REMOVE CONCRETE FINISH FROM NORTH WALL (AT
OVERLOOK) AND RESTORE ORIGINAL STONE FINISHES
AT INTERIOR

REMOVE GLAZING BETWEEN VESTIBULE AND
OBSERVATION DECK

REMOVE CARPETING AND REINSTALL SCORED
CONCRETE FLOOR

REHABILITATE MATERIALS AS NECESSARY

DESIGNED; [Sub SHEET NO. THLE OF SHEET DRAWING NO,
— | YAVAPA| MUSEUM
ORANIE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE #3
HSR Pac.) ‘sneer
ae "2
OATE: —|
4/13/2001 GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK —|% =



—_

_TM om

Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Appendix F. Photographs of Existing Conditions.



=a

=m = a

Grand Canyon National Park - Yavapai Observation Station
Apzil 13, 2007

Preliminary Code Analysis and Accessibility Evaluation

The following codes have been referenced for this analysis: the 1997 edition of the
Uniform Building Code; the 1997 Uniform Mechanical Code; the 1996 Uniform
Electrical Code; the 1994 Uniform Plumbing Code; and the 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
The 1997 Uniform Code for Building Conservation (UCBC) has also been referenced to
determine alternative code compliant solutions for historic buildings.

Although not a building code, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal
civil rights law that governs accessibility to buildings for the disabled. National Park
Service (NPS) Director’s Order 28 requires all historic structures to be made accessible to
the highest degree for visitors and employees. Because the intent of the ADA is not
necessarily addressed in the building code, a review of a project pursuant to ADA
requirements is included in the following preliminary code analyses. The following
standards have been referenced for this analysis: ADA Accessibility Guidelines for
Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG), amended January 1998, and the Uniform Federal
Accessibility Standards (UFAS). Where there is a discrepancy between ADAAG and
UFAS, the NPS is required to follow the guidelines that provide equal or greater
accessibility.

The classification of historic buildings as qualified historic buildings is typically an
important step in the long-term preservation of historic character. Building codes, such as
the UBC, prescribe solutions to conditions based on new construction models. When
conformance with prevailing codes - such as the UBC - would adversely affect the
historic character of a qualified historic building, the UCBC may be invoked as a means
to preserve historic fabric and explore solutions that meet the intent, but not necessarily

the letter, of the UBC.

As indicated above, the following code analysis is preliminary. To facilitate future design
work, this code analysis attempts to cite all major ways in which the building does not
comply with prevailing codes. If the UBC and UCBC suggest that a condition may
remain subject to verification with the building official, the non-compliant condition is
typically noted and qualified.

The classification of program elements (uses) are as follows:

1) Occupancy Classification: Chapter 10 of the UBC establishes the available number
of occupants in the building, (a ratio referred to as occupant load) and Chapter 3 outlines
occupancy requirements. The following matrix excludes square footages for service areas
occupied or used by the occupants of the major rooms; these spaces include circulation
(corridors and staircases), toilet rooms, and closets. The rooms discussed below are

ARCHITECTURAL RESQURCES GROUP

Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc.


= oom

Appendix U. Seismic Rehabilitation, Yavapai Observation Station by
J.F. Sato Associates, dated July, 2001

Prepared for:
Denver Service Center
National Park Service

12795 West Alameda Parkway
Denver, CO 80225

SEISMIC REHABILITATION:
YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK

Prepared by:

J.F. Sato and Associates
5898 South Rapp Street
Littleton, CO 80120
Phone: (303) 797-1200
Fax: (303) 797-1187

Job # 0125
FINAL

July, 2001


NATIONAL PARK

FOR POTENTIAL SEISMIC HAZARDS

; Prepared by= -

J F. ‘Sato and. Associates

"5898 South Rapp Street”
Littleton, CO 80120 © *.

“Phone: (303) 797-1200.
‘Fax: (303) 797-1, 1 87.

400% ein a |

»1998



a mm =

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP

REMOVE GLAZING AND
INSTALL GAURDRAIL

REMOVE CONCRETE AND
RESTORE ORIGINAL STONE
WALL FINISH

oO

OBSERVATION DECK,

oO 1°)

CL REMOVE CARPET AND REMOVE — Ny
REPAIR ORIGINAL SCORED AIRLOCK ENTRY

i
|

VESTIBULE

CH
GY
Z
GY
Yy
ExaiBiTs Ai
Z Yy
Y WY
| VE Wy
Y STORAGE OFFICE
ml
Yi, LLL | LL

DEVELOPMENT lu teearivce #3 _- RESTORATION:

RECONSTRUCT PORTION OF STONE PARTITION WALL
BETWEEN OBSERVATION DECK 4 EXHIBITS

REMOVE eLazNG AT OBSERVATION DECK ¢ INSTALL
GUARDRAIL

REMOVE CONCRETE FINISH FROM NORTH WALL (AT
OVERLOOK) AND RESTORE ORIGINAL STONE FINISHES
AT INTERIOR

REMOVE GLAZING BETWEEN VESTIBULE AND
OBSERVATION DECK

REMOVE CARPETING AND REINSTALL SCORED
CONCRETE FLOOR

REHABILITATE MATERIALS AS NECESSARY

DESIGNED: ‘SUB SHEET NO. TITLE OF SHEET ‘DRAWING NO,
Wt YAVAPAL MUSEUM
ae ALTERNATIVE '3 - RESTORATION Ora DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 3 f—
4 2 4 8 TECH. REVIEW: : HSR No.)
sc et
ale @ We" = Vo DATE: Lil | GI
PROJECT NORTH 17 713/2001 GRAND CANYON, NATIONAL PARK for =



3.8 Geologic Site Hazards And Foundations Checklist
This Geologic Site Hazards and Foundations Checklist shall be completed when required by Table 3-2.

Each of the evaluation statements on this checklist shall be marked compliant (C), non-compliant (NC), or
not applicable (N/A) for a Tier 1 Evaluation. Compliant statements identify issues that are acceptable
according to the criteria of this Handbook, while non-compliant statements identify issues that require
further investigation. Certain statements may not apply to the buildings being evaluated. For non-compliant
evaluation statements, the design professional may choose to conduct further investigation using the
corresponding Tier 2 evaluation procedure; the section numbers in parentheses following each evaluation
statement correspond to Tier 2 evaluation procedures.

Geologic Site Hazards
‘The following statements shall be completed for buildings in regions of high or moderate seismicity.

C) NC N/A LIQUEFACTION: Liquefaction susceptible, saturated, loose granular soils that could jeopardize the
building's seismic performance shall not exist in the foundation soils at depths within 50 feet under
the building for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.7.1.1)

aD c @e) N/A SLOPE FAILURE: The building site shall be sufficiently remote from potential earthquake-induced
slope failures or rockfalls to be unaffected by such failures or shall be capable of. accommodating any
predicted movements without failure, (Tier 2: Sec. 4.7.1.2)

Ayc (Re) N/A SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE: Surface fault rupture and surface displacement at the building site
is not anticipated. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.7.1.3)

Condition of Foundations

The following statement shall be completed for all Tier 1 building evaluations.
‘S) NC N/A FOUNDATION PERFORMANCE: There shall be no evidence of excessive foundation movement
such as settlement or heave that would affect the integrity or strength of the structure. (Tier 2: Sec.

4.7.21)

The following statement shall be completed for buildings in regions of high or moderate seismicity being evaluated to the
Immediate Occupancy Performance Level.

Cc NC DETERIORATION: There shall not be evidence that foundation elements have deteriorated due to
corrosion, sulfate attack, material breakdown, or other reasons in a manner that would affect the
integrity or strength of the structure. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.7.2.2)

Capacity of Foundations

The following statement shall be completed for all Tier | building evaluations.

c NC @a) POLE FOUNDATIONS: Pole foundations shall have a minimum embedment depth of 4 ft. for Life
Safety and Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.7.3.1)

a4


Roof:

All portions of the roof are flat, or nearly so. The roof over the Office is believed to
consists of built up tar and gravel roofing over 3/8" plywood, over 1 x 10 straight sheathing,
supported by 2 x 6 joists. The joists span from the masonry bearing wall at the south to a beam in
the wall between the Office and Exhibition Hall. A plaster and lath ceiling is attached to the
underside of the joists.

The roof over the Exhibition Hall appears to consist of built up tar and gravel roofing over
3/8" plywood, over 1 x 10 straight sheathing over 2 x 4 purlins, over a 1 x 10 plank ceiling. The
ceiling and purlins are supported on ~12" diameter log rafters ("vigas") which span from beam to
beam or bearing wall to bearing wall, depending on location.

The roof of the Terrace consists of built up tar and gravel roofing over 3/8" plywood over
1x 10 straight sheathing. The sheathing is supported by vigas spanning from the beam between
the Exhibition Hall and Terrace, over two column supported log beams, and cantilevering out to
the curved north wall. In the original configuration, there was no north wall, so it is reasonable to
assume the vigas still act as a cantilevers, and are not supported by the more recently installed
window framing. See Roof Framing Plan, Figure 5.

Foundation & Ground Floor:

The building foundation appears to consist of grouted stone masonry walls bearing directly
on the native stone of the canyon rim. The stone masonry walls are tapered, and slightly thicker
at the base than the top. The ground floor is an unreinforced concrete slab-on-grade.

Aligned with the north wall of the building, is the canyon edge. In areas it has been patched
or improved with stone masonry to support the curved north side of the building. A portion of this
masonry work encloses the "Basement," which has a single door opening on the north side, see
Figure 4.

Very little deterioration of the foundation is anticipated based on observations of the
concrete composing the floor slab and the exposed portions of the masonry walls. No signs of
settlement or foundation distress were evident. A few stones are missing from the walls near the
base. The stone composing the canyon rim at this location is fractured, there is at least one cave
below the structure, and significant masonry "improvements" to the canyon walls directly below
the building.

Note that no excavations or geotechnical borings were performed. Evaluation of the
foundation condition was limited to visual observation of the exposed structure and a search for
evidence of settlement in foundations or connected elements, Partial original plans were available
for this structure, but the foundation was not well detailed.


Nonstructural Checklist Evaluation:
A reproduction of the Basic Nonstructural Component Checklist from Chapter 3 of FEMA

310 follow, comments or related information as they pertain to each question are included in
Appendix B of this report under the appropriate flag note.

419


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2002 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 22. - The image shows park naturalist Eddie McKee in the foreground and the eastern side of
the Yavapai Observation Station in the background. Note roof overhang at north side of the building
in its original configuration before cropping. Note rough wall constructed to follow the rim. GCNPA
Photo Number 9371. Photo dated September, 1932.

APPENDIX E

|



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report - Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 32. This photo shows the original interior rock wall that separated the exhibit room from the open terrace
and the type of exhibits that were typical when the building first opened. The splayed wall near the west entrance

was an exhibit of the geology of the canyon. The wall was removed in 1953. Photo is undated. GCNPA Photo
Number 9744.

APPENDIX E


GLAZING

aa EXTERIOR STONE WALL i
GY O O

INDOW, TYP.
OBSERVATION DECK (—

ALUMINIM/ELASS

STOREFRONT

VESTIORE
‘STONE BENCH

INTERIOR STONE WALL,

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP.

REPLACEMENT HOOD DOOR

BOOK SHOP

SOFFIT, ABOVE

‘WY aa

STORAGE OFFICE

ORIGINAL WOOD DOOR

rl
LENTIL EL OLLIE NLL
A gece FLUE

ORIGINAL WOOD DOOR

DESIGNED: ‘SUB SHEET NO. YAVAP. A MUSEUM ‘DRAWING NO.
ae FLAN 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS OPA EXISTING CONDITIONS
scar fem Seenin 49) 1a ee HSR
V4" = f-O” ~
PROJECT NORTH O13, 2001) GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

july 6, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 12. This image illustrates the eastern side of the Yavapai interior and the eastern entrance where glass
doors have been installed. Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F

= a ap


= m=

 TM =—_— am

=

= = om

= ws

Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 57. - The image shows the exterior of the east window of the observation room of the Yavapai
Observation Station. Note the addition of rock chinking. Photo dated February, 1989 by Jacilee Wray.

APPENDIX E


Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2008 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 5. This image illustrates the western elevation of the Yavapai building. Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F


Walls:

Walls consist of native Kaibab limestone laid in a primarily coursed, but occasionally
random ashlar pattern and cemented together with deeply raked mortar of an undetermined
composition. Walls are approximately 24" thick; stone masonry columns at the Terrace are
approximately 36" thick. Very close to the base, and at building corners, the walls flare to form
buttresses. However, since this detail occurs only quite close to the ground, its contribution to the
building mass may be neglected. The buttresses do add some moment capacity at the base of the
walls, however, neglecting this contribution should not make the evaluation overly conservative.
A few small window and door opening exist in the walls of the Office and Exhibition Hall area.
These openings are typically spanned by stone lintels. No distress is evident at any of these
locations.

Historical Significance:

The low roof line of this building, combined with the coursed native stone mimicking the
striations of the canyons geology, create a structure that seems a part of the landscape. The
building, originally designed by Herbert Maier, exemplifies Park Service Rustic Architecture, with
additional elements reflecting the native architecture of the Southwest. The curved north wall,
following the rim of the canyon, is a further unique aspect of this building. The structure was
nominated to the National Register of Historic Places in 1990.

The historic nature of this structure limits both the thoroughness of the evaluation and the
nature of any acceptable retrofits. In many cases, preserving the historic fabric of a structure may
prevent incorporation of a complete rehabilitation, forcing adoption of what FEMA 273 terms
"Limited Objectives." FEMA 310, at least in its commentary, recognized these difficulties. While
Section 2.2 states, "Unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings . . . shall have destructive tests
conducted," the commentary of Section 1.1 notes, "Testing that damages the historic character of
the building generally is not acceptable. In addition, an appropriate level of performance for
historic structures needs to be chosen that is acceptable to the local jurisdiction.”

Lateral System:

This one story structure has basically one concentration of mass above the ground level
consisting of the roof, complete with roofing, framing, and supported snow. Additional mass is
contained in the stone shear walls themselves. This mass is distributed (vertically) throughout the
structure. In a seismic event, displacement of the ground results in a lateral acceleration of the
building, including the walls, roof, and any supported snow. The acceleration of this mass results
in a lateral force which must be reacted to the ground.

In this structure, the lateral force is carried as shear in the roof to the supporting masonry
walls, where it is carried in shear and cantilever bending to the foundation. Where no wall exists,
such as along the north windows, the shear load must be carried by the diaphragm (acting as a
cantilever) in one direction only, with the appropriate reactions transferred to various wall
elements. The walls themselves, being thick, short, and heavy, are able to carry some out-of-plane


Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2002 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 10. This image illustrates the interior toward the back of the Yavapai Observation Station. Much of the
floor space is given over to the bookstore function: a cash register, check-out desk, free-standing laminated
blonde wood book racks, plastic laminate display and shelving system, and fluorescent uplighters and under-
Soffit strips. Articles for sale are books, framed photographs, videos, postcards and calendars. With the
exception of the ceiling rafters, very few original finishes or features are visible. Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F


, oa oe ee ee |

be

[a2] 101 42.4
1 4

ras

a f
x
Zz

ssl

G aa

TT

=e oo

LOADS IN Ib/ft
REACTIONS IN Ibs

LATERAL LOADING DIAGRAM ‘S¥pusits
SCALE” 1/16"=1-0"

FIG. 11. YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM



Appendix A

Figures

1) Elevation Looking Northeast

2) Elevation Looking Northwest

3) Plan of Building

4) North Elevation of Building

5) Roof Framing Plan

6) Map: 0.2 Second Spectral Response Ground Motion
7) Map: 1.0 Second Spectral Response Ground Motion
8) Allowable Height-to-Thickness Ratios

9) Strength Values for Existing Materials

10) Strength Values of New Materials Used in Conjunction with Existing Construction
11) Lateral Loading Diagram

12) Critical Connection from Exterior

13) Critical Connection from Interior

14) Beam / Column Connection

15) Basement Crack and Canyon Wall Improvements
16) Basement Crack

17) Crack in Strata Below Structure

18) Original Floor Plan Showing Voids

19) Column Connection Retrofit


Building Assessment Report Yavapai Museum

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

L INTRODUCTION

A.

Flack + Kurtz

GENERAL

The Yavapai Museum is located on the South Rim of Grand Canyon
National Park. The site elevation is approximately 7,000 feet above sea
level.

The Yavapai Museum was originally constructed in 1928 for the purpose of
providing an observation area to better understand the geology of the Grand
Canyon. Its current use is still as an observation area. However, a
bookstore has since been added. The plan is to renovate and restore the
building to its original use as an observation platform and museum.

This report provides a basic assessment of the building's HVAC, plumbing,
fire protection and electrical systems. The report is based on a review of
available building drawings and a walk through of the building on May 15"
and 16", 2000 by Flack + Kurtz. The estimation of the future viability of
existing systems is based solely on field observations. The walk through
was limited to the observation of visible equipment only. Equipment was
not tested or operated for functionality, nor were hidden areas exposed or
inspected.

Recommendations related to code issues are based on the current versions
of the Uniform Building, Electrical, Fire, Mechanical, and Plumbing codes.

Introduction

Ref. No.: $00.02260.00
November 7, 2000


Building Assessment Report Yavapai Museum

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

Recommendations

Light fixtures should be replaced with new energy efficient lighting
systems where possible. Magnetic ballasts should be assumed to
contain PCB’s and disposed of in accordance with all applicable
rules and regulations

D. FIRE ALARM SYSTEM

1.

Flack + Kurtz

Existing Conditions

There is no fire alarm signaling system currently installed. Smoke
detectors are installed with local annunciation.

Recommendations

The current occupancy use group does not require a full fire alarm
signaling system. However, it is recommended to add ADA visual
strobe devices to meet the requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). ADA xenon strobes should be
located 80” above finished floor or 6" below ceiling, whichever is
lower. Strobes would located in all common areas including break
rooms, lobbies and restrooms. A fire alarm panel will need to be
provided in order to power the strobe devices. A remote dialer
should be provided to communicate with an off-site monitoring
station.

Electrical

Ref. No.: $00.02260.00

November 7, 2000


Yavapai Observation Station

Historic Structure Report

prepared for the
National Park Service

prepared by

Architectural Resources Group
Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc.
San Francisco

GRAND CANYON

National Park » Arizona

United States Department of the Interior


ee |

A Continued:

Bearing out this observation is footnote 1 of table 4-5 of FEMA 310. This table provides

"m - factors", or material strength modification factors for use with the loads calculated under FEMA
310's new procedures. However, footnote 1, for unreinforced masonry structures, states: "Applicable
to buildings with rigid diaphragms; for flexible diaphragms see Special Procedures."

Based on these considerations, the Strength Values for Existing Materials given in table C6.1.1 of
FEMA 178 will be used for analysis based on Section 4.2.6 of FEMA 310.

Conclusions:
. Equation 4-21 of FEMA 310 should be revised to:
F,,=S, x (W,, + 0.5 x W,) 4-21 (revised)
Equations 4-22 through 4-25 should be similarly revised as required.
. Equation 4-15 of FEMA 310 should be revised to:
DCR =S, x W,/Zv,xD 4-15 (revised)
Equations 4-16 through 4-18 should be similarly revised as required.
. Equation 4-19 of FEMA 310 should be revised to:
Va=0.6xS, xC,x Wy 4-19 (revised)

° Material strengths from Tables C6.1.1a and C6.1.1b of FEMA 178 should be used with
analysis based on Section 4.2.6 of FEMA 310


AN Caiculation of Seismic Coefficients, YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM:
The seismic coefficient Sa is calculated from equation 3-4 of FEMA 310.

hn := 9.5 Average height from ground to center of mass at roof level (ft).

Ct = 0.020 Coefficient for “all other framing systems,” (including masonry bearing walls).
3

T:=Cthn* T = 0.108 Fundamental period (s), FEMA 310 Eqn. 3-7.

Ss := 0.308 0.2 Second Spectral Response Acceleration, Figure 6.

S1 := 0.083 1 Second Spectral Response Acceleration, Figure 7.

Fy := 1.0 Long period site coefficient for Site Class B. see
Fa:= Short period site coefficient for Site Class B. see&y
SD1 := prs SD1 = 0.055 FEMA 310 Eqn. 3-5.

SDs = $Fass SDs = 0.205 FEMA 310 Egn. 3-6.

SDI
Sag = —— Sag = 0.511
a9 = a9
Sa, := SDs Say = 0.205
Sa := min(Sa) Sa = 0.205 FEMA 310 Eqn. 3-4

SDs greater than 0.167 but less than 0.50 constitutes a region of MODERATE SEISMICITY in
accordance with Table 2-1 of FEMA 310.


ite)

‘ed States Department of . =: interior
r Park Service

nal Register of Historic Places
Btinuation Sheet

r number___§ _ Page __3 ’

park. It was designed as an observation station to call attention to the

Physical and historical geology of the Grand Canyon.

Yavapai Observation Station was one of the first settings for interpretation
in the Natiopal Park Service located at the site of the phenomenon to be
interpreted. John C. Merriam had the “leading hand” in the interpretive
aspects of the project according to Maier.” Merriam was the President of the
Carnegie Institution and Chairman of the Committee on Educational Problems in
National Parks which became the Advisory Board for the National Park Service.

Merriam’s 1927 interpretive report for the Yavapai, “Suggestions Regarding
Educational Program for Grand Canyon," is considered to be a classic example
of interpretive planning. Merriam suggested telling the “main story” of the
Grand Canyon by transmitting information to the visitor in a way that they
could gain the most information in a short time.

Merriam wanted to develop opportunities for the visitor to learn the features
of special interest on their own initiation. To accomplish this the
observation station must “turn attention to the proper direction and yet leave
the visitor the maximum opportunity for his own initiative and observation.”
The Yavapai was to be an observatory where “interest might be stimplated
better by pointing out the realities upon which the theory rests."

Under Merriam’s leadership leading scientists Dr. Herbert Gregory from the
Geology Department at Yale University; D. Davis White, Senior Geologist for
U.S.G.S.; Dr. Francois E. Matthes, USGS; and Dr. C.W. Gilmore, curator of
Vertebrate Paleontology of the U.S. National Museum; as well as Herbert C.
Maier, American Association of Museums; Ansel F. Hall, Senior Naturalist and
Forester from the University of California at Berkeley; and Dr. Edwin D.
McKee, then working for the Carnegie Institution of Washington, determined
which geological features were the most outstanding and how they could be
interpreted most effectively.

interview with Herbert Maier, conducted by S. Herbert Evison, October
28, 1962. Harper’s Ferry Center History Collection.

Btpid., pg. 11.

john C. Merriam, “Memorandum Regarding Use of Yavapai Station,” no
date. National Park Service microfiche files, Grand Canyon.

B3john C. Merriam, “Notes on remarks by John C. Merriam in address to the
Naturalist Staff of Crater Lake Park, Sinnott Memorial, August 6.
1932." National Park Service microfiche files, Grand Canyon.



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 50. - The image shows the west elevation of the Yavapai Observation Station illustrating
the building's existing profile and glazing. See Figure 5 for a historic view from the same angle
that dramatizes the depth of the roof overhang as it was originally constructed. Photo provided
by Paul Cloyd at NPS. Photo dated February, 1989 by Jacilee Wray.

APPENDIX E

Ez Ei


Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 10. - The image shows the laying of conduit at the Yavapai Observation Station. GCNPA Photo
Number 276. Photo dated c. 1930.

APPENDIX E


Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001

Appendix D. Code Analysis.

Architectural Resources Group


FLOSL. PLE oe Kons
as mewnog nw cua PROT

HALF- SIZEGREBRGDUOTION

ae 1895 CUAKE 24 YOU NLA RIPE

ihn meme ne meneame mee eee


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Blneennpicnief

ys ao ad Aer

AN

~ FLOOD Pt

eo 2
Ginnle: &-ner

Figure 45. Floor plan of the Yavapai Observation Station by Herbert C. Maier, dated 1928. Note the irregular
roofline along the northern side of the structure, later altered to form a more symmetrical line. In plan the
Exhibition Hall reads as a square and regular box connected to the free-form viewing terrace. The two Spaces had
separate functions: one, open for viewing long vistas, and the other for close inspection of geological specimens.
Image copied from Park and Recreation Structures, by Alfred H. Good, 1935. p. 179.

APPENDIX E


Z\ calculate Diaphragm and Shear Walt Loads, YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM:

Since the walls and masonry columns have been shown in a to be capable of reacting their lateral
out-of-plane loads to the ground as cantilevers, the only loads in the diaphragm are those that originate
there.

Sa = 0.205 Seismic coefficient, see js.

North - South ground mation:

Due to the long diaphragm span, and the absence of continuous shear wails, it is evident that the Terrace
area will be critical for this loading.

wtr := 15.9 Terrace roof unit weight (psf).

The roof diaphragms are modeled as lateral beams. The applied loading is equal to the roof unit weight
times the seismic coefficient times the width of the roof. Figure 11 shows the assumed loading and
support conditions.

wl := wtrSa-13 wl = 42.4 Diaphragm lateral load (Ibs/ft).
w2 := wir-Sa-31 w2= 101 Diaphragm lateral load (Ibs/ft).

Beameval was used to calculate the shears and reactions developed by this loading, (see & ).

The maximum reaction, 2,454 Ibs shared by two masonry columns, is not the critical condition for wall
loading. That occurs during East-West ground motion (see below).

Maximum shear, 1970 Ibs, occurs at the edge of the viewing area roof. Here the diaphragm depth is
approximately 20 feet.

V:= 1970 Max. diaphragm shear load, see a » (Ibs).
v= ~ v= 98.5 Max diaphragm shear stress (Ibs/ft).

The maximum diaphragm shear stress, 99 Ibs/ft, is well below the allowable diaphragm shear
stress, 975 Ibs/ft, (see ). Thus the diaphragm is adequate.

East - West ground motion:

wer := 18.9 Exhibition Hall roof unit weight (psf).
wor := 20.5 Office roof unit weight (psf).

The roof diaphragms are modeled as lateral beams. The applied loading is equal to the roof unit weight

times the seismic coefficient times the width of the roof. Figure 11 shows the assumed loading and support
conditions.

wl := wtr-Sa-42 wi = 137 Diaphragm lateral load (Ibs/ft).
w2 := wir-Sa-65 w2 = 212 Diaphragm lateral load (Ibs/ft).
w3 := wer-Sa-40 w3 = 155 Diaphragm lateral load (Ibs/ft).
w4 := wor-Sa-28 w4 = 118 Diaphragm lateral load (Ibs/ft).

Re


tion Station * Historic Structure Report » Grand Canyon Nationat Park

July 6, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

More than half of the interior floor space is given over to a number of bookstore features: a cash regis-
ter, check-out desk, free-standing laminated blonde wood book racks, plastic laminate display and shelv-
ing system, and fluorescent uplighters and under-soffit strips. The lighting is designed to highlight the
abundance of articles for sale: books, framed photographs, videos, postcards and calendars, all fitting
for a bookstore or giftshop. The building’s interior imparts a distinct sense of commerce.

Basement

A small storage room is located below the westemmost part of the interior. Perhaps a misnomer to call
it a basement, the ground level space occurs as part of the natural rock formation. The space is not
accessible from the building interior but only from the cliffside. The “room” probably pre-dates the
structure. It appears to be an old mine shaft opening. The door at the north side of the building has a
door opening with a single-pane lite.

Landscaping
The landscaping appears rather untended. Although some of the rock outlines of the beds are evident,
the life-zone garden has been virtually eliminated (see Appendix F, Figures 13, 14).

PuysicaL DESCRIPTION =. 25.



(ss) NOLLOW GNNOUD ASNOdSTY TVULOTdS NODS Z'0 YO AVN UNOLNOD :9 Bq

80€'0='S
doneoo7] Surpying

oS



mam SE EP SE eS we SE SPB SE SB ese ese we

BEAM / COLUMN CONNECTION

FIG. 14 YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM



n Station * Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2003 Architectural Resources Group

removal of part of the roof overhang negatively impacted the building aesthetically and functionally.

The workmanship of the masonry of the original structure is intact and displays a high level of achieve-

ment. The building’s materials, though aged, are in relatively good condition.

The structure retains significance as the embodiment of the work of various individuals. The building is
significant as well for its role in the development of rustic park architecture and interpretive structures.
Within the context of the development of the rustic style, the Yavapai Observation Station best exempli-

fies the National Park Service philosophy of melding the built environment into the natural landscape.

SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY EVALUATION 21



Yavapai Observation Station +» Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 49. - The image illustrates an aerial view showing relationship to the Yavapai Observation
Station to the rim of the canyon in the foreground and the extent of the parking lots in the back-
ground. GCNPA Photo Number 16477 dated 1980.

APPENDIX E


FHA

ENGINEERS

Yavapai Observation Station Structural Assessment
Grand Canyon National Park October 31, 2000

gaps between stones could be fully filled with mortar and the mortar cap could be patched or replaced.
This repair would tie the full-width stones together, serving to reduce any falling hazard, while preserving
the historic appearance of the building.


Seapine ee
a
f .
ace at

Apa Coven.

(Ame een.

wy

ee Co oe

Lr

Caer

Las

TP ret



Yavapai Observation Station « Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

Appendix K. Plan of Parking Area, Section A-A thru Parking Area at Yavapai Point by
National Park Service Division of Landscape Architecture,
dated February 7, 1951.


Yavapai Observation Station « Historic Structure Report +» Grand Canyon National Park

‘Architectural Resources Group July 6, 2001

Energy Conservation

The heating and cooling systems are currently inadequate. Originally an open air structure, the enclo-
sure of the observation deck with glazing in 1953 eliminated a major source of natural ventilation. The
glass enclosure allows the building interior to heat up significantly during warm, sunny weather and cur-
rent ventilation is inadequate to exhaust the accumulated heat. This is further compounded by the
absence of a partition wall between the observation deck and exhibit hall. When originally designed, the
exhibition hall was enclosed on four sides by stone walls with small window openings. This most likely
created a dark, cool environment. Now that the wall at the north side of the exhibition hall has been
removed, heat that enters the glazed observation deck travels directly into this area of the building.

Solutions to this problem include both the installation of new mechanical systems and the possible reha-
bilitation of the spaces to their original 1928 configuration (refer to the “alternatives for treatment” sec-
tion of this document).

In general, all of the utilities are aged and should be replaced. The existing 120/208V 3-phase service is
adequate for the planned use. However, the load capacity will need to be reviewed when the air condi-
tioning and other loads are more fully established. All light fixtures should be replaced with new energy
efficient lighting systems where possible.

Abatement of Hazardous Materials

Asbestos-based elements and lead based paints are most likely found throughout the interior and exterior
of the building. A Level 1 HAZMAT testing program is recommended for the entire building. All (e)
magnetic ballasts should be assumed to contain PCB’s and disposed of in accordance with all applicable
tules and regulations.

Alternatives for Treatment

This section presents and evaluates alternative approaches to realization of the ultimate treatment.
Alternatives are presented in both text and graphic form. Analysis addresses the adequacy of each solu-
tion in terms of impact on historic materials, effect on historic character, compliance with NPS policy,
and other management objectives.

Three alternatives have been discussed for the future of this building:

* Maintenance Scheme: retain the current configuration.

+ Partial Restoration: reconstruct the central rock wall separating the observation deck from the exhi-
bition hall.

+ Full Restoration: reconstruct the central rock wall separating the observation deck from the exhibi-
tion hall, remove the glazing at the observation deck to restore the open-air porch, and restore multi-
paned window at the east elevation. Within the Full Restoration option there are two choices:

36 TREATMENT AND USE


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Appendix M. Cases for Yavapai Observation Station drawn by K.M. Saunders, dated
April, 1954.


Existing Materials or Configuration of Materials

Strength Values

Horizontal Roofs with straight sheathing and roofing applied
Diaphragms ? directly to the sheathing

300 ib/ft for seismic shear

Roofs with diagonal sheathing and roofing applied
directly to the sheathing

750 ib/ft for seismic shear

Floors with straight tongue-and-groove sheathing

300 Ib/ft for seismic shear

Floors with straight sheathing and finished wood
flooring with board edges offset or perpendicular

1,500 Ib/ft for seismic shear

Floors with diagonal sheathing and finished wood
flooring

1,800 Ib/ft for seismic shear

Metal deck with minimal welding ©

1,800 Ib/ft for seismic shear

Metal deck welded for seismic resistance /

3,000 Ib/ft for seismic shear

Crosswalls ®4 Plaster on wood or metal lath

600 Ib/ft/side for seismic
shear

Plaster on gypsum lath

550 Ib/ft for seismic shear

Gypsum wall board, unblocked edges

200 Ib/ft for seismic shear

Gypsum wall board, blocked edges

400 Ib/ft for seismic shear

Existing Footing, | Plain concrete footings
Wood Framing,

f. = 1,500 psi unless
otherwise shown. by tests ©

Structural Steel,
Reinforcing Stee) | Douglas fir wood

Allowable stress same as

for DF No. 1°
Reinforcing steel 1 F, = 40,000 Ib/in?

maximum °
Structural steel F, = 33,000 Ib/in?

maximum ¢

° Material must be sound and in good condition.

» Shear values of these materials may be combined except the total combined value should not exceed

900 Ib/ft.

© Allowable stresses given may be increased for seismic loads as specified in the 1988 NEHRP

Recommended Provisions.
4 No increase in stress is allowed.

€ Minimum 22-gage steel deck with welds to supports satisfying the standards of the Steel Deck

Institute.

! Minimum 22-gage steel deck with 3/49 plug welds at an average spacing not exceeding 8 inches and

with sidelap welds appropriate for the deck span.

FEMA 178 Table C6.1.1a

Fig. 9: STRENGTH VALUES FOR EXISTING MATERIALS



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6 2007 ‘Architectural Resources Group

Figure 59. - The image shows the Pinyon tree-well originally designed by Herbert Maier on south-
west corner of the Yavapai Observation Station. Photo dated February, 1989 by Jacilee Wray.

APPENDIX E


East - West loading (cont?

Ad, Continued:

April 11, 2001
10:32 am

Be Wie

0.0000 SHEAR 61,0000
1747,5435
“1506
-1837.4565
0.0000 MOMENT 61.0000
8288.5000
-10254.3595


etic mead coitiud

flee Rausing FoR see
aacnaneeril

RAR a re ar.



rN

April 11, 2001
10:32 am
East - West loading

LENGTH = 61
MODULUS OF ELASTICITY = 10000000
MOMENT OF INERTIA = 1.0000

SUPPORTS:

SUPPORT FLEXIBILITY COEFFICIENT FORCED

Name| Type Location Vertical Rotational ||Deflection Slope
Rs01/Simple 11.0000

Rs02|Simple 20.0000 —_———

Rs03 |Simple 30.0000 ——_—__—_——_

Rs04|Simple 53.0000

Rs05|Simple 61.0000

HINGES:

Name Location Rotation Stiffness

Hg0l 30.0000

Hg02 53.0000

UNIFORM LOADS:

Name Start Location End Location Load

U£01 0.0000 18.0000 137.0000

VEO2 18.0000 31.0000 212.0000

Uf£03 31.0000 52.0000 155.0000

UEN4 52.0000 60.0000 118.0000

59



&\ calculation of Roof Loads, YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM:

Calculate Masses:

Snow Loads:
Pg := 48 Ground snow load (psf) for South Rim per Park Engineer.
T= 10 UBC Tab. A-16-B for standard occupancy.
Ce := 0.6 UBC Tab. A-16-A for standard open terrain.
Pf := Ce-l-Pg UBC 40-1-1.
Pf = 28.8 Roof Snow Load (psf).

FEMA 310, Section 4.2.4.2 specifies an effective snow load of 0.0 psf when the design snow
load is 30 psf or less. This reflects the low probability of having a significant snow load during a
seismic event.

Office Roof Loads:

Tar & Gravel Roof 6.0 psf
3/8” Plywood 1.1 psf
1° Str. Sheathing 2.3 psf
2"x 6" @ 24" 1.1 psf
Plaster & Lath Ceiling 8.0 psf
Miscellaneous 2.0 psf
TOTAL 20.5 psf
Office Roof Area:
Aor := 9-28 Aor = 252 Roof area (sq. ft.)

Wor := Aor-20.5 Wor = 5166 Total Office Roof Load (Ibs):

Exhibition Hall Roof Loads:

Tar & Gravel Roof 6.0 psf
3/8" Plywood 1.1 psf
1" Str. Sheathing 2.3 psf
2"x 4" @ 24" 0.7 psf
1" Str. Sheathing 2.3 psf
Vigas at 3'-6" 5.5 psf
Miscellaneous 1.0 psf
TOTAL 18.9 psf

Exhibition Hall Roof Area:
Aer := 1-28 + 21-40 Aer = 868 Roof area (sq. ft.)

Wer := Aer-18.9 Wer = 16405 _—‘ Total Exhibition Hall Roof Load (Ibs):


65'-0"
4°-0" 42°-0" 19'-0"
— ——\ “T

rey

i}

re

TERRACE

oO

i}

io
J L °
nN
wo

EXHIBITION HALL °

ry

N

OFFICE ©

0

_| [2'-0" TYP
10’-0” 32'—0” 12'-0" 11'-0"
PLAN
PLAN A BA

SCALE” 3/32"=1°—0” +

FIG. 3 YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July6,2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 19. This image illustrates the parapet above the flat roof. Evidence of mastic
repairs. View is looking south. Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F


Yavapai Observation Station « Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Appendix N. Proposed Reconstruction of Observation Area at Yavapai by National Park
Service Branch of Landscape Architecture, dated July 8, 1954.


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 2. - The image shows the building under construction. The view is looking toward the rear
room. Note lintel over opening. GCNPA Photo Number 16793a. Photo dated 1928.

APPENDIX E

|


Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 56. - The image shows the interior of the observation room of the Yavapai Observation
Station. View is facing east to the foyer. Photo dated January, 1990 by Jacilee Wray.

APPENDIX E


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 20. This photo shows Ranger Ralph Redburn and visitors in the interior of the Yavapai
Observation Station. One of the prominent features of the interior was the rock wall that showed layers
of canyon geology. Photo dated September, 1932. GCNPA Photo Number 5823.

APPENDIX E



Yavapai Observation Station +» Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon tional Park
July 6, 200 Architectural Resources Group
Vi. CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE

This section summarizes the physical construction, modification, and use of the Yavapai Observation
Station. It also includes information on any major maintenance and rehabilitation campaigns. The
information presented is based on historical documentation with corroboration from first-hand observa-
tion and limited materials analysis. Changes to the building for which chronological documentation is
not available are noted and explained at the end of the chronology.

Chronology of Use

The building was constructed in 1928 for use as an interpretive museum and viewing platform for the
geology of the Grand Canyon. While is still serves as a space for public viewing, most of the exhibits
were removed in the 1970s. The structure currently serves as a bookstore and viewing area.

Chronology of Development / Alterations

1924 Museum recommended for construction in comprehensive plan for the development of
Grand Canyon Village.

1927 Design process initiated.

1928 Formal opening ceremony held July 19, 1928.

1930 Masonry added to parapet to alter straight roofline to more serrated profile.

Installation of life zone gardens ~ native plants used for landscaping.

Installation of gutter at north side of roof to prevent melted tar from dripping during

summer months.

1933-34 Re-arrangement of zone garden.

Area between road curb and museum paved with flagstone walks.

Rim wall and Yavapai parking area wall installed by the CCC.

Underground electric power line installed.

1940 Installation of lightning arresters at roof due to several previous lightning strikes.

1951 Maintenance records note that stone paths in zone gardens should be resurfaced, that the
canyon viewing area (to the east of the building) should be paved, and that the rough
stone flagging around the building needed replacement. It is not known exactly if or
when this work was completed.

1953 Rehabilitation work completed during the winter months of 1953, designed by architect
Kim Saunders, includes:

* Enclosure of observation deck with five large single-pane picture windows. This
work involves removing the top course of the rock guardrail wall at the north end of
the observation deck and pouring a concrete cap over the remaining portion of the
wall to support the steel frames for the plate glass windows. Due to the window
installation, the cantilever roof at the north side was cut back.

CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE =. 29


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2007 Architectural Resources Group.

Figure 38. This image illustrates the clay model of Mary Colter’s boldly sited Bright Angel Lodge at the
canyon edge first planned in 1916. Colter’s approach to siting and this image of a stone building merging with
the canyon wall were highly influential on NPS architects, especially Herbert Maier, architect of the Yavapai
Observation Station. Image from Grattan, Virginia. Mary Colter. Builder Upon the Red Earth. p. 83.

APPENDIX E

BE na awe ee ae ee eee eee eee


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report » Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group July 6, 2001

spiritually and physically, the canyon remains of great importance to the local native peoples: it is a
holy place, an object of pilgrimages, a symbol of legends, and a home place. Today, the reservations of
the Hualapai, Havasupai, and Navajo tribes include parts of Grand Canyon National Park; the Paiute and
Hopi reservations are nearby. Each of these tribes is linked to the history of the Canyon, from early

times to present day involvement.”

European Exploration

During the early Spanish period, both the Hualapai and Havasupai were relatively unaffected. The first
few Spanish soldiers and explorers to encounter the canyon were led by Garcia Lopez de Cardenas from
Francisco Vasquez de Coronado’s expedition of 1540-1542.3 Cardenas and his men arrived at the South
Rim of the Grand Canyon in late September of 1540 with the assistance of Hopi guides. Finding the
land arid and difficult to traverse, the Spaniards left the canyon and its surrounding plateau lands to
native tribes and were not seen again in the immediate area until the 1770s. More concermed with chart-
ing the New World and understanding the geography of the region, the Spanish they were awed by the
canyon as a barrier, not for its scenic beauty, and focused instead on more easily-habitable regions.

American Westward Expansion

American trappers, fur traders, and frontiersmen scouted the area in the early nineteenth century, but
tended to avoid the treacherous, unforgiving and still uncharted depths of the canyon. Like the Spanish
before them, they saw it as an impediment to their hunting and trapping activities. In 1848, much of the
territory was still unexplored. The course of the Colorado River had never been surveyed, nor did the
canyon have an established name. In 1869, Major John Wesley Powell, a geologist and explorer from
Illinois, organized several expeditions to charter the river that cut through the canyon. Powell’s expedi-
tion appears to have been the first organized expedition of white men to successfully navigate the
Colorado River and opened the way for further settlement.

Despite Powell’s success, the American frontier came late. Rugged topography and a hot, arid climate
deterred settlers. Consequently, those who came were mostly men without families in search of wealth:
ranchers, settlers, and mining prospectors. These men arrived in Arizona in the 1870s in such huge
numbers that the population quadrupled. Hundreds of mining claims were staked, but mining meant
overcoming prohibitive difficulties: such as, lack of water; insufficient trails; packing out the ore on bur-
ros; and, finally, paltry deposits. Some mining prospectors saw that their trails and land had greater
value in tourism than in mining. This realization coincided with escalating settlement of the Southwest
and railroad expansion, particularly the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad, which pushed across northern

Arizona.

Tourism Reaches the Canyon
While the extension of the railroad to northern Arizona made the canyon more accessible in the last

8 HisTORICAL BACKGROUND


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 21. - The image shows a caravan of autos, conducted by park naturalist Eddie McKee, lined
up in front of the Yavapai Observation Station. Note distinctive craggy roofline as altered from the
original. Note gravel road finish. GCNPA Photo Number 711. Photo dated September, 1932.

APPENDIX E


Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

Yavapai Observation Station * Historic

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 27. - The image shows the original comfort station made of rough-rock construction. The facility
was built in 1928 and removed in 1960. GCNPA Photo Number 9734. Photo dated September, 1935.

APPENDIX E


[- 65'-0"
4-0" 42'-0" 19"-0
|—12"8 LOG
COLUMN, TYP
. a
¢ L0G |BEAM| 2
|
4-0"
rerrace Z\
Loc IBEA |
_ 8'-0" 13'-0" — 7 3
7 9
: ha | ;
a CONCEALED M Us | | a
So 3
PEPE Eg
+ 9 LT 0.c., TYP ©
q re)
“Te EXHIBITION HALL Z\, ol .
4 Z 5
= = aq
Th —
cic 9
co} .! we
s J CONCEALED IBEAM ail
tt}
4 -— —~ 8-0" =
a) orice A\ ap Po 3 ©
5] x 1
a IA r)
“| | LI
o
a)
2'-0" 9
io'-0" _|4'-0"|__ 8'-0" 8'-0"
_.| 2'-0" TYP
10’-0" 32'-0" 12'-0" 11-0"
TRUE, NORM
ROOF FRAMING PLAN NORTH y=
SCALE. 3/32”=T-O

3/8” PLYWOOD, 1” STRAIGHT SHEATHING, VIGAS, (LOG RAFTERS).
3/8” PLYWOOD, 1” STRAIGHT SHEATHING, 2x4 PURLINS, 1” STRAIGHT SHEATHING, VIGAS.
3/8” PLYWOOD, 1” STRAIGHT SHEATHING, 2x6 JOISTS, PLASTER & LATH CEILING.

>> >

FIG. S YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM



Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report » Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Grou
/ P

a more thorough analysis of the structure’s place within the context of rustic architecture and within the
development of interpretive buildings within the Park System.

The document defines the elements that give the Yavapai Observation Station its architectural character
and help convey its significance. The contents of this Historic Structure Report (HSR) are:

* a concise historic context associated with the building and its architect;

+ a detailed chronology of building development including alterations and maintenance through time:
a re-evaluation of the period of significance, historic integrity, and historic significance of

the structure;

an evaluation of building conditions;

a list of character-defining features;

updated existing conditions drawings; and

plans that identify the primary, secondary and tertiary spaces of significance within the building.

The historical research portion of the report is based primarily on existing historical source material at
the Grand Canyon National Park Archives and on other materials made available by NPS. Several NPS
staff members of the Engineering and Maintenance divisions of the Grand Canyon National Park were
consulted regarding the maintenance history of the building. Additional secondary research was con-
ducted using materials within the libraries of the University of California at Berkeley, the library at the
Grand Canyon National Park, the library at the San Francisco office of the National Park Service, at sig-
nificant Bay Area research collections, and in the ARG library. The level of research requested for this
report was "thorough" — one of three levels of investigation (exhaustive, thorough, and limited) as
described by NPS Director’s Order - 28. "Thorough" research is defined by DO-28 as follows:

For historical studies this means research in selected published and documentary sources of
known or presumed relevance that are readily accessible without extensive travel and that
promise expeditious extraction of relevant data, interviewing all knowledgeable persons who
are Teadily available, and presenting findings in no greater detail than required by the task
directive.

Administrative Data

Historic Name: Yavapai Observation Station or Trailside Museum

Common Name: Yavapai Point Museum

Park Structure Number: Building 110

Location: South Rim, Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino County, Arizona
USGS Map - Williams Quadrangle
UTM 339450 3991650

Executive SuMMary 3


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 55. - The image shows the interior of the observation room of the Yavapai Observation
Station. View is facing east to the foyer. Photo dated January, 1990 by Jacilee Wray.

APPENDIX E


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 25. This photo shows new landscaping and the steps to vista point at the Yavapai
Observation Station. Photo dated 1933. Photographer unknown.

i
APPENDIX E


ee _

ROSSI IR wrt einen eater

2 oheunae t
rere to are sua
seee GF geste Sess
Palen e"s tenon wai

PD Senne poured aunt ene
“warualec Temwemaneut!

rasidpnctunae eft
Watanuey Ovn@ion, MHPRe vanultese0,
Letnso Scie

©) setyemios soni, on rane servee camel

hee peusjnoteont To pt a
Kio oD soues ors ncimin #4 ton’ ony toe
cared cone. “uae sole Sacld eerwr
sone nan ne

¢ eed watoeveousrmened

| nemove vata. Ween
“a Goncony

eats eee

semis eurpent

= Bees wet stenagaag
DOPE ICIGY pan sonsee

i

: won et wl . i ;

i ot eee gS EXISTING SIEP DETAIL i bj | Tee
if - Oy aia } |

ras i ine

BANG ELEVATION YAVAPAI biG@eUY)

4 ov 3

|
or 134]



Yavapai Observation Station +» Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2007 ‘Architectural Resources Group

Figure 51. - The image shows the east elevation of the Yavapai Observation Station. Photo dated
February, 1989 by Jacilee Wray.

APPENDIX E


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6. 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 36. This photo depicts alterations in progress at the Yavapai Observation Station. The rehabilitation
involved a reduction of the roof overhang, raising of the parapet, and installation of glass in the window open-
ings. Photo is dated January 23, 1953. GCNPA Photo Number 2415.

APPENDIX &



—

somites

———nseesacei

— = —

ANYON NATIONAL: PARI



Yavapai Observation Station - Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Appendix Q. Plan of New Layout Information and Book Sales Area at Yavapai Museum
by National Park Service, filed February 2, 1974.



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 4. - The image shows the east side of the building under construction. In the foreground is the

ramp erected to take building stones to the top of the structure. GCNPA Photo Number 16794. Photo
dated 1928.

APPENDIX E



Yavapai Observation Station * Hist

Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Appendix E. Historic Photographs of the Yavapai Observation Station in Chronological
Order.



Observation Station + Historic Structure Report » Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

address persistent problems. The rehabilitation work was carried out by architect Kim Saunders.
Difficulties with the building were varied. The open terrace observation deck allowed the elements to
enter causing problems with heating and cooling. Snow drifted on the terrace, piled on the flat roof, and
melted to form slippery pools on the concrete floor (see Appendix E, Figure 28). The building was
not usable year-round. Seating space on the observation terrace for lectures was insufficient (see
Appendix E, Figures 23, 31, and 35).

To remedy these issues changes were made to the building. The window openings were enclosed in
glass to seal the building against the elements. The interior rock wall was removed and the floor plan
re-configured to increase seating space. And the exaggerated overhanging roof was reduced to form a
more uniform line and the parapet height was raised to accommodate the windows (see Appendix E,
Figure 36).

The original design’s defining feature and function related to the way the structure’s parapet wall and
exaggerated overhang together framed an expansive and specific panorama. This device maximized
wide vistas and created an unparalleled viewing experience. The alteration of this design feature result-
ed in the building’s most significant change and wholly transformed the visitor experience. Additional
works in 1978 further diminished the visitor experience, specifically, the replacement of the observation
deck windows with polarized tinted glass, among other changes.

Post War Changes within the Park System and Plans for the Yavapai Interpretive Facility

After World War II, Americans increasingly took to the highways to explore the nation’s points of inter-
est and traveled domestically rather than intemationally due to Post-War isolationism. With increased
park usage and popularity, a rehabilitated infrastructure within the parks became necessary. Conrad L.
Wirth, a landscape architect and planner who had Jed the Park Service's Civilian Conservation Corps
(CCC) program, became director of the Park Service in December 1951. Facing a system with a deteri-
orating infrastructure overwhelmed by the postwar travel boom, Wirth responded with Mission 66, a ten-
year financial program to upgrade facilities and park resources to coincide with the Service’s fiftieth
anniversary in 1966. A hallmark of the Mission 66 program was the park Visitor Center, a multiple-use
facility with interpretive exhibits, audiovisual programs, and other public services. Fifty-six new visitor
centers were open or under construction in national parks by 1960, the earliest of which was Grand
Canyon National Park Visitor Center designed by Cecil Doty, completed in 1957.

Forming a part of the history of the Yavapai Point Museum was the 1960s plan to locate a Mission 66

Visitor Center at Yavapai Point, to “replace the small, outdated Yavapai Museum on the rim.” 19
Tentatively titled the “Yavapai Interpretive Facility”, a project construction proposal for

HisToRICAL BACKGROUND 17

|



CRITICAL CONNECTION FROM INTERIOR

FIG. 13 YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM



ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP

REMOVE CONCRETE
RESTORE ORIGINAL STONE
WALL FINISH

ce)

OBSERVATION DECK

12)

tO REMOVE GARPET AND
REPAIR ORIGINAL SCORED
CONCRETE FLOOR “~~,

oO

I

REMOVE — NY
AIRLOCK ENTRY

|
!

VESTIBLE

ny
mz 7,
Za j STORAGE OFFICE )
bE /\
WA a Ai Ep Zj AALS 4) 4A Za Z

(TD) _ALTERNATIVE #3 - RESTORATION

Rion SCALE QO

4
cae as

”
: 4 4 HSR [ee
WH —

DEVELOPMENT JALTERNATIVES #3 - RESTORATION:

|
RECONSTRUCT PORTION OF STONE PARTITION WALL
BETWEEN OBSERVATION DECK ¢ EXHIBITS

REMOVE GLAZING AT OBSERVATION DECK ¢ INSTALL

GUARDRAIL |

REMOVE CONCRETE FINISH FROM NORTH WALL (AT
OVERLOOK) AND RESTORE ORIGINAL STONE FINISHES
AT INTERIOR

REMOVE GLAZI NG BETWEEN VESTIBULE AND
OBSERVATION DECK

REMOVE CARPETING AND REINSTALL SCORED
CONCRETE FLOG FR

REHABILITATE MATERIALS AS NECESSARY
|

DESIGNED: ‘SUG SHEET NO. TLE OF SHEET DRAWING NO,
ee YAVAPAI MUSEUM
RAN: DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 3

PKG.

Wars

Pe

o

PROJECT NORTH

OATE:
4/13/2001 GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK —|

> GS



ray Glazing:

During the 1953 renovation, the Terrace was enclosed with large plate glass windows. In
the 1978 renovation, these windows were replaced with the large lights of polarized glass that remain
in place to this day. It is unknown whether these lights are tempered in conformance with FEMA
310's evaluation statement. However, the geometry of this building is such that these panes of glass
do not pose a significant hazard. To reduce reflection and allow a superior view of the canyon, the
windows are tilted slightly outward at the top. Should the glass crack and fall from it's frame during
an earthquake, the broken glass would fall into the canyon, away from visitors. Thus the existing
windows pose little risk to building occupants.


ne

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP.

<.

OBSERVATION DECK

KEY:

|
T

VESTIBULE i PRIMARY SPACE
i

Oe SECONDARY SPACE

7 YY
SalaatenaianatenaTananananatatatatateiatatatateneatatatanal ‘an ZZ,
'
1
i
{
1
BOOK SHOP
1 =
1
1 |
1 i {
H |
1 l
H i
i
i
|
ae po THLE OF SHEET DRAWING NO
Ble PLAN - PRIMARY SPACES RAW H YAVAPAI MUSEUM
aR Scale @) 4 7 wet px.) SHEET
4 2 4 8 Teer, REVEW: | . HSR No.
scat D v4" = FO" DATE: ws |] ]
PROECTNORTH 1" 7/13/2001 GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK — or =.

oe ae ee oe



rN

April 11, 2001

10:31 am
North - South loading
LENGTH = 65
MODULUS OF ELASTICITY = 10000000
MOMENT OF INERTIA = 1.0000
SUPPORTS:
SUPPORT FLEXIBILITY COEFFICIENT FORCED
Name| Type Location Vertical Rotational |/Deflection Slope
Rs01|Simple 1.5000
Rs02 |Simple 5.5000 ———_
Rs03 |Simple 44.5000 —_——
Rs04 |Simple 63.5000 ———_
HINGES:
Name Location Rotation Stiffness
Hg01 5.5000
Hg02 44.5000
UNIFORM LOADS:
Name Start Location End Location Load
U£01 0.0000 4.0000 42.4000
UEOZ 4.0000 46.0000 101.0000
U£E03 46.0000 65.0000 42.4000
REACTIONS:
Name Location Vertical Moment
Rs01 1.5000 -176.8062
Rs02 5.5000 -2113.7938 -
Rs03 44.5000 -2454.2197 ———_—-
Rs04 63.5000 -472.3803 ————_—



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report +» Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 ‘Architectural Resources Group

Figure 24. This photo shows landscaping in progress and the completion of the rock wall at the
Yavapai Observation Station. Note curbing. Photo dated 1933. Photographer unknown.

APPENDIX E

ee ee eee ee ee ee ee


i Statement of Significance
ertifying official has considered the si, .cance of this property in relation to other pic,erties:

im nationally Oo statewide oO locally

i... Nationa! Register Criteria (JA [Ja [X]c [Jo

fe Considerations (Exceptions) [JA [Je Cle [jo [Mle Clr Cle

Areas of Significance (enter categories from instructions) Period of Significance Significant Dates
chitecture 928 to present 1928
Uther: NPS Interpretation 1953
1978

Cultural Affiliation

‘a | oe

ificant Person Architect/Bujlder,

lerbert C. Maier, Architect

va

rd

fe significance of property, and justify criteria, criteria considerations, and areas and periods of significance noted above.

Yavapai Point Museum is of national significance in National Park Service
architecture and interpretation. The Yavapai Point Museum was designed by an
architect who mastered designs that fit in with the wilderness setting of
national parks. His work was the foundation and inspiration for architecture
throughout the National Park Service and for CCC state park structures across
the nation. Herbert Maier’s work blended in with the landscape by using
native materials and low unobtrusive forms. His fea was to study nature in
situ, not “to bring the world in under one roof." ‘The observation station
was built on the brink of the canyon rim, actually following its contour (see.
sketch). It remains a classic example of NPS rustic architecture, enhanced by
incorporating the southwestern design elements that Mary Colter used in her
architecture at the Grand Canyon.

The Yavapai Observation Station was one of the first formal interpretive
structures in the National Park Service. The plan for interpretation at
Yavapai was the work of many influential researchers and scholars. Their
innovative interpretive philosophy was for the visitor to gain knowledge by
observation, utilization of the displayed geological information and
discovery. The structure was built on this particular point because so much
of the important geological story of Grand Canyon may be seen from here. The
Yavapai Observation Station became a model for interpretive structures in
other parks.

ARCHITECTURE:

The Yavapai Observation Station was designed by Herbert C. Maier, who also
supervised its construction. The Yavapai was built between September of 1927
and July of 1928, and was the third of Maier’s National Park museums. The
first two were in Yosemite; the Trailside Museum at Glacier Point Lookout
built in 1924, and the Yosemite Museum built in 1925. Maier also designed
three museums in Yellowstone in the late 1920s.

(see continuation sheet

lyps, Park Structures and Ranilitiee TAQ ner 1A1


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

july 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 18. This image illustrates the windows on the east side of the Yavapai interior, inside the foyer
entrance. The windows were installed in 1979, replacing the 1953 glazing. The windows look to the north.
Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F

|


Yavapai Observation Station « Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group July 6, 2007

When the Rockefeller money ran out, funding to complete the project came from a variety of places.
Merriam personally paid for one of the large windows (exactly which one is not discernible from park
records) and got a $3,000 grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York to finish the work. 7

At the building’s opening ceremony conducted by Park Superintendent M.R. Tillotson, John Merriam
addressed the audience and acknowledged the collaborative effort of various organizations and scholars
in establishing the museum. He explained the purpose of the building and how it would fit in with the
general educational program at the Grand Canyon National Park 8

The Yavapai Observation Station represents the coordinated efforts of scholars, scientists, curators and
researchers to fund the establishment of trailside museums and to carefully design their interpretive con-
tent. In a 1931 memo written by John Merriam regarding the use of Yavapai Station, he noted that in
using Yavapai Station, “it is important to bear in mind that nearly ten years work has been given by a
group of leading men of America to discover what of the multitude of things in the Canyon are of the
greatest importance and might be of the greatest interest to the visitor."° The trailside museum building
type illustrated the overriding belief that conservation of the natural environment was futile if it did not
facilitate the public’s use, understanding, and enjoyment of the parks.

Design for the Yavapai Point Museum

The Yavapai Point Museum, as it was originally known, was designed by Herbert C. Maier in the spring
of 1927 and completed in July, 1928. (see Appendix E, Figures 43, 44.) This structure was a signifi-
cant departure from Maier’s rather traditionally-shaped Yosemite Museum and presented a vastly differ-
ent design problem from that of Yellowstone. Drawing from the work of Mary Colter, Maier designed
the new museum along distinctly indigenous lines, especially striking in its emulation of rustic native
masonry techniques and the incorporation of native Pueblo patterns in the structure. Here he achieved
variations of form, texture, and line which assimilated the character of the surrounding canyon; he
experimented with the rough local rock as a material of beauty and interest. And although the use of flat
roofs was generally discouraged in wildemess areas, Maier incorporated one “in keeping with the

” extreme flatness of the canyon rim and the precedent of Pueblo architecture.” 10 For the Yavapai Point

Museum, Maier has been credited with developing a “unique design of uncommon quality.” u

Flat-roofed and built low to the ground with battered stone walls, the one-story pueblo-like structure was
designed to be particularly unobtrusive in its setting (see Appendix KE, Figures 11, 15 and 16). The
flat roof mimics the extreme flatness of the canyon rim and echoes the terraced, horizontal striations of
the peaks of the inner canyon. The large-roofed observation terrace was shaped to conform almost
exactly to the canyon’s rim. A defining feature and function of the design, though now altered, was the
way in which the structure, from the interior, framed an expansive and specific panorama between the

42 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND



Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Appendix G. Potential Seismic Hazard Assessment by Sato and Associates, dated October
1998.



= =

Grand Canyon National Park - Yavapai Observation Station

April 13, 2007

Area and Occupancy Matrix
occ.
LOAD
(SQ. FT/
AREA Occ.) | NO.OF | OCCU-
ROOM(S) (SQ. FT) USE OCCS._ | PANCY
exhibit 2041 exhibit 2041/15 136 A-3
office 124 office 124/100 1 B
Allowable Area / Height Matrix
ALLOWED ALLOWED
AREA HEIGHT / PERMITTED
ACTUAL (Type V-N (Type V-N OR NOT IN
BUILDING OCCUPANCY | AREA Const.) Const.) BUILDING
Yavapai A-3 2823 6000 1 Permitted
Museum

2) Type of Construction: The existing construction is type V, non-rated, as defined in

Chapter 6 of the UBC.

The following is a preliminary code analysis of the Yavapai Observation Station,
addressing only major code issues that have a bearing on facility planning issues and
including suggested resolutions to broad code issues:

UBC INCLUDING LIFE SAFETY/DISABLED
ACCESS REQUIREMENTS

RESOLUTION OF CODE ISSUES

Exit doors should swing in direction of travel

Two doors do not swing in the direction of travel.
UCBC 605.2 states that this requirement can be
exempted for historic buildings.

An accessible route must be provided to an
accessible entry

An accessible route is provided to three accessible
entries. Paving along these routes is buckling and
should be replaced.

According to UBC 1003.3.1.3, all exit doors must
be a minimum of 36” wide and 6’-8” tall.

All exit doors are greater than 36” wide. Two of the
exit doors are 6’-8” tall, and the third is 6-3”. As
only two exit doors are required from this building,
she shorter door will not be counted as an exit.

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP

Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc.



Yavapai Observation Station +* Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group July 6, 2001

Appendix L.

Appendix M.

Appendix N.

Appendix O.

Appendix P.

Appendix Q.

Appendix R.

Appendix S.

Appendix T.

Appendix U.

Alteration to Yavapai Station designed by K.M. Saunders, dated December 8,
1952.

Cases for Yavapai Observation Station drawn by K.M. Saunders, dated
April, 1954.

Proposed Reconstruction of Observation Area at Yavapai by National Park
Service Branch of Landscape Architecture, dated July 8, 1954.

Topographical Drawing by National Park Service Branch of Landscape
Architecture, dated January, 1961.

Proposed Seating Plan for Observation Station at Yavapai Point by National
Park Service Landscape Architectural Branch, dated May, 1963.

Plan of New Layout Information and Book Sales Area at Yavapai Museum
by National Park Service, filed February 2, 1974.

Window Glass Replacement and General Upgrade Drawings by National Park
Service Interpretive Design Center, Harper’s Ferry West Virginia, dated
December 1, 1977 and As Built Drawings (various details), Sheets 6-10, dated
June 6, 1978.

Floor Plan of Heat Duct Remodeling for Yavapai Museum by National Park
Service Denver Service Center, dated December, 1979.

Plan Showing New Opening in Division Wall at Yavapai Station, National Park
Service, undated.

Seismic Rehabilitation, Yavapai Observation Station by
JF. Sato Associates, dated July, 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS





ort + Grand Canyon National Park

apai Observation Station + Historic Struct

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Appendix T. Plan Showing New Opening in Division Wall at Yavapai Station, National Park
Service, undated.


Geotechnical Investigation and Assessment:

As noted in aD, there are significant concems with the integrity of the rock strata forming
the canyon rim below this structure. It is recommended that a qualified geotechnical engineer be
retained to assess the site. As a minimum, this investigation should include boring a hole or
removing some of the canyon wall masonry to determine the existence, extent, and condition of
the large void shown on the original floor plan (Figure 18). Long term monitoring of some cracks
may be required.

Based on our experience, a fee on the order of $5,000 can be anticipated for this
investigation.

Total Cost:

The total cost of the recommended geotechnical investigation and possible seismic retrofit
of the log columns for this structure is approximately $5,600.

This figure represents the cost of only the items noted above. It is possible the geotechnical
engineer will have further suggestions for subgrade stabilization that may considerably increase
this figure. In addition, if other renovations (as discussed below) are accomplished at the same
time, the total cost will increase.

Other Work:

It is our understanding that the Park Service is considering a major renovation of this
structure. Undertaking any required seismic retrofit work at the same time is a very good idea.
However, bear in mind that other structural repair and preservation work is required in addition to
the seismic work addressed by this report.

The reader is directed to the Yavapai Point Museum Historic Structure Report, prepared
by Architectural Resources Group, November 6, 2000. That report mentions quite a bit of required
work including, but not limited to:

* Replacement of built-up roofing.

+ Installation of new flashing, drains, and scuppers.

* Minor stone repointing.

* Repair and replacement of log vigas, where required.
+ Painting of all exterior wood.

If this work is undertaken, the opportunity to observe and record the concealed structure,
and verify the assumptions made in this report, should not be missed. In particular, when the
existing roofing is removed, it may be advisable to arrange a site visit by a structural engineer to
assess the condition of the previously concealed elements.



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report « Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001

Appendix J.

Architectural Resources Group

Copies of Original Drawings of Grand Canyon Observation Station by
Herbert Maier, dated July, 1927.


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001, “ Architectural Resources Group

Figure 16. - The image shows view of the east elevation of the Yavapai Observation Station from the
southeast. GCNPA Photo Number 9750. Photo dated July, 1930 by George Grant.

APPENDIX E

mime ee em eee


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Vv. Conpirions ASSESSMENT

Exterior

Exterior materials and features noted include stone, mortar, wood members, and paving. In general the
condition of the stonework is good though there is evidence of biological growth and efflorescence.
Given the nature of the use of native stone, it is not surprising that there is some minor cracking and loss
of material. Further attention should be given to the boulders at the base of walls where some materials
are missing. Exterior stones were originally laid with a mortar that was deeply raked to minimize the
visual effect of the mortar. The joints may have been painted with mortar colored slightly darker than
the stone. Some loss of mortar was noted. A general pattern of deterioration was noted at the exposed
log ends due to weathering and insect infestation. Originally wood elements were probably unfinished
or stained. Later painting of the wood elements has served to protect them. Some small window and
door frames exhibit delamination and flaking paint surfaces. Exterior doors, originals and replacements,
exhibit delamination and flaking paint surfaces. Paving stones are worn especially at building entrances
and at the south elevation. Weather-stripping and thresholds at door openings are worm. Exterior wood
benches are in fair to poor condition (see Appendix F, Figures 15-17).

Interior

As described above, the interior has been altered from its original condition and interior finishes are
largely replacements. The condition of the original, scored concrete floor (designed to imitate flagstone
paving) and extent to which original material remains after renovations undertaken in 1978 is not
known. The existing wall shelving and sales desk in the exhibit room area obscure any remaining origi-
nal finishes. Window openings have been altered and in-filled (see Appendix F, Figure 18).

Roof

The tar and gravel roof is in fair condition. Built-up roofing surfaces, excessive wiring, antennas, obso-
lete ducting have accumulated on the roof. The parapet shows evidence of mastic repairs along the base
and cement repairs along the top of the parapet (see Appendix F, Figure 19). Roof flashing, drains, and
scuppers are worn and in need of replacement. Should it be decided to remove glazing and leave win-
dow openings, further studies are required to assess structural issues.

Conpimions Assessment =. 27


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 14. This photo depicts a visitor to the Yavapai Observation Station. She is experiencing the open- air
terrace as was originally intended by Architect Herbert Maier. The photographer was George Grant and the
photo is dated June 17, 1930. GCNPA Photo Number 12405.

APPENDIX E


Jnited States Department of . : Interior
National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places
_ontinuation Sheet

section number __8 Page __4 _ ,

7

The Yavapai Observation Station was designed to be a focal point for Grand
Canyon’s entire interpretive program, and all exhibits, lectures and field
trips would relate to the orientation of the forces that created the canyon
presented there” using photographs, charts, models, telescopes and fossil
displays.

The Yavapai Observation Station was used as an example for other park museuns,
such as Crater Lake’s Sinnott Memorial (termed a miniature Yavapai) built in
1931 apd Olympic National Park*s Hurricane Ridge Observation Station built in
1954.

Herbert C. Maier was chosen by Bumpus to be the Executive Secretary of the
Committee on Outdoor Education of the American Association of Museums, as well
as their architect. The success of Maier“s two Yosemite museums generated
enthusiasm towards a movement to build a museum in every National Park.

Maier felt that in constructing park museums "we must always keep in mind that
our parks themselves are museums of natural history and the best museum
structure is that one which functions most efficiently as an interpretive
agent. They should never become mere repositories for curios and oddities."
The Carnegie Institution engaged Edwin McKee to prepare a relief map for the
observation station in 1927. McKee became the park naturalist at Grand Canyon
from 1929 to 1940. McKee also constructed a geologic rock column at Yavapai
illustrating the formations of the canyon. The column was built to the same
relative thickness and position as the geology of the Grand Canyon. McKee
quarried stones from the actual geologic strata tg illustrate the concepts of
“pages and chapters in the history of the earth.” This design was borrowed
by Mary Colter in the construction of the Bright Angel lobby fireplace in
1935. In fact, McKee assisted Ms. Colter with geological authenticity of her

Bansel F. Hall, “Report on the Development of Yavapai Station: June
1930-July 1931," unpublished, 1931, pg. 44. National Park Service,
Grand Canyon.

National Park Service, "Interpretive History Yavapai Museum: Planning;
General; 1920s to recent.” National Park Service files, Grand Canyon.

Brinda Wendel Greene, Historic Resources Study ~ Yosemite: The Park and
Its Resources, Vol. 2. National Park Service, 1987.

National Park Service, Park Structures and Facilities. United States
Department of Interior, Branch of Planning, 1935, p. 162.

“edwin D. McKee, November 4, 1978, letter to Merle Stitt,
Simerintendent. National Park Service files. Grand Canvon.

|


“===

Yavapai Observation Sta n + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 7. This photo depicts a lecture in progress. It is interesting to note that only three telescopes appear in
the photo. Soon after this photo was taken, the park received an additional 13 WWI battery commander tele-
scopes on loan from the War Department for use at the Yavapai Observation Station. Photo is dated June 16,
1929. GCNPA Photo Number 2820.

APPENDIX E


Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

MM. SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY EVALUATION

Statement of Significance

The Yavapai Observation Station is a spectacularly designed example of the Park Service’s pursuit of a
singular and aesthetically appropriate architecture for the park system. Within the context of the devel-
opment of rustic architecture, the Yavapai Observation Station best exemplifies the NPS philosophy of
melding the built environment into the natural landscape. Additionally, the museum is significant for a

wide range of reasons:

© the building is an excellent illustration of the characteristics of Pueblo architecture;

+ it is the work of a prominent architect, Herbert C. Maier with influences from Mary Colter;
«the stone work exhibits a high level of craftsmanship; and,

* it was among the earliest interpretive structures in the park system.

The Yavapai Observation Station has played an important role in the evolution of NPS architecture and
interpretative structures as the third of the national park museums. The preceding two were also built by
Herbert C. Maier. The two preceding structures were both located in Yosemite, the Trailside Museum at
Glacier Point Lookout (1924) and the Yosemite Museum (1925). The Yavapai Observation Station cap-
tures the essence of the Grand Canyon; it became a model for other interpretive structures in the parks in
the way it reflects the special qualities of the place. In his 1938, three-volume edition of Park &
Recreation Structures, Albert H. Good, an architectural consultant to the National Park Service noted:

In its architecture the park museum not only offers great opportunity for captur-
ing the spirit and character of an area or region, but it may be said to exist inno
small measure for that purpose. Unless there is the flavor of the locality in the
structure as well as in the material it houses, it has failed of its particular assign-
ment.

Period of Significance

The years 1928 through 1953 mark the period of architectural significance for the Yavapai Observation
Station. Designed and built in 1928 by the park service, construction was considered complete by 1930,
by which time the life-zone gardens had been planted and the straight-lines roof modified to reflect a
more naturalistic appearance. The building’s most important character-defining feature, the open view-
ing terrace under a deeply cantilevered roof, was altered in 1953, diminishing the architectural integrity
and tinkering with the visitor experience. The roof was pulled back to follow a more regular curve and
five single-pane windows installed along the elevated parapet. The 1953 campaign significantly affected
the structure’s architectural character so as to mark the end of the period of architectural significance.
While they tell part of the structure’s history, they in themselves are not considered historic.

The years 1928 through 1992 mark the period of significance for use as an interpretive facility. The use

SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY EVALUATION 19


Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July

, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Vil. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Introduction to Federal Projects and Historic Preservation
Law: Participants Desk Reference. January, 1993.

Albright, Horace M., and Robert Cahn. The Birth of the National Park Service: The Founding Years,
1913-33. Salt Lake City: Howe Brothers, 1985.

Albright, Horace M., and Marian Albright Schenck. Creating the National Park Service: The Missing
Years. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999.

Anderson, Michael F. Living at the Edge. Grand Canyon: Grand Canyon Association, 1998.

Carr, Ethan. Wilderness by Design. London and Lincoln: Bison Books, 1998.

Chappell, Gordon. “Railroad at the Rim.” Journal of Arizona History. Spring 1976.

Chappell, Gordon, Scott, Michael P., Jackson, Robbyn, Donahoe, Jamie, Begley, Susan, and Carr, Ethan.
National Historic Landmark Nomination. Grand Canyon Village. September 13, 1996.

Dana, William S. B. The Swiss Chalet Book. New York: W. T. Comstock Co., 1913.

Darling, F. Fraser, and Noel D. Eichhorn. Man and Nature in the National Parks: Reflections on
Policy. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation, 1969.

Dilsaver, Larry M., ed. America's National Park System: The Critical Documents. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield, 1994.

Everhardt, William C. The National Park Service. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press, 1983.

Foresta, Ronald A. America's National Parks and Their Keepers. Washington: Resources for the Future,
1985.

Good, Albert H. Park and Recreation Structures. Boulder: Graybooks 1991 (reprint of 1938 NPS ver-
sion).

Grand Canyon National Park Archives and Maintenance Records, including Grand Canyon museum col-
lections, historic photographs, vault files, clippings, and microfiche.

Grattan, Virginia L. Mary Colter: Builder Upon the Red Earth. Flagstaff: Northland Press, 1980.
Handlin, David P. American Architecture. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1985.

Hughes, J. Donald. Jn the House of Stone and Light: Introduction to the Human History of the Grand
Canyon. Denver: University of Denver and Grand Canyon National Park Association, 1997.

Ise, John. Our National Park Policy: A Critical History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1961.

BisuiccrapHy = 39


Building Assessment Report

Yavapai Museum
Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

Flack + Kurtz
Ref. No.: $00.02260.00
November 7, 2000

2: Electrical Panels

Site Photos


== oe

LS Continued:

Second, they show a local area of higher seismic risk centered very near the location of the Yavapai
Point Museum. And third, the 1997 map set includes 3 separate maps, one for the Maximum
Considered Earthquake, one for ground motion with a 2% chance of exceedance in 50 years, and one
for ground motion with a 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years. JFSA's proposal stated that we
would perform the evaluation for a Life Safety performance level for a BSE-1 earthquake, defined
in FEMA 273 as the ground motion with a 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years. To do this, the
evaluation must be based on the new maps, and the seismic coefficient calculated by the procedure
outlined in FEMA 310. To assure this produces reasonable values, approximate seismic coefficients
were calculated three ways and compared:

Analysis Ground Approximate

P i Moti Seismic Coeffici

FEMA 178 1988 (or earlier) maps: 0.11

FEMA 310 1997 10% chance in 50 years: 0.21. < Value used in this analysis
FEMA 310 1997 2% chance in 50 years: 0.47

The evaluation and analysis processes of FEMA 310 were followed when possible, as the
evaluation checklists have been revised to incorporate lessons learned from recent earthquakes, and
the analysis procedure contains the appropriate equations for use with the new maps.

However, as noted above, a few errors appear to have been incorporated when the
nomenclature of the equations of FEMA 178 Appendix C were modified to become,the special
procedure Section 4.2.6 of FEMA 310. These equations are corrected as outlined inQ\for use in
this report.

Finally, both FEMA 310, Section 4.2.6 and FEMA 178, Appendix C calculate a diaphragm
"Demand Capacity Ratio" (DCR), and base certain acceptance criteria on further calculations using
the DCR value. There are a few points of this analysis (discussed in detail inZ) that appear
illogical. Rather than blindly accepting this criteria, we have analyzed the structure using a
procedure following the load from source to ground as described i . This is used in conformance
with Section 2.9.3 of FEMA 273: "Nothing in the Guidelines should be interpreted as preventing
the use of any alternative analysis procedure that is rational and based on fundamental principles of
engineering mechanics and dynamics.” Section 1.3 of FEMA 178: "Nothing in this handbook should
be construed as preventing an engineer from making a properly substantiated evaluation using other
procedures.” And Section 1.1 of FEMA 310: "This Handbook does not preclude a building from
being evaluated by other well-established procedures based on rational methods of analysis in
accordance with principles of mechanics. . . .”

We feel that the analysis contained herein presents a logical, and internally self-consistent,
evaluation of this unreinforced stone masonry structure using the latest available probabilistic
earthquake ground motion and generally accepted linear static analysis procedure.


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 1. This photo depicts the construction crew in front of the Yavapai Observation Station during con-
struction in 1928. The curve of the open terrace is discernible in the background and the local stones that
form the walls are seen rising around the window openings. GCNPA Photo Number 16796.

APPENDIX E,


— oo mo

—_ =m

—_— uw

A\ Explanation of Analysis Procedure:

Anyone carefully following the calculations in this report will find the references to various
Codes, Guidelines, Handbooks, and analysis procedures to be somewhat convoluted. It is hoped that
this section will provide an explanation of the procedures used, and a road map to the various
references.

The original Request for Proposal from the Park Service requested that a recommended
rehabilitation solution be developed for the Yavapai Point Museum using the "latest building seismic
rehabilitation documents (ASCE/FEMA 273 Pre-standard)." FEMA 273 is the Federal Emergency
Management Agency report number 273, entitled National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program

, and published October 1997. In that report,
Chapter 7 addresses the "systematic rehabilitation” of masonry structures, but specifically states:
"Stone... masonry is not covered in this chapter."

For this reason, it was specifically agreed in JFSA's Proposal that we would perform an
evaluation based on the "simplified method" described in Chapter 10 of FEMA 273. This procedure
is summarized in Section 2.8.1 of FEMA 273 as, "A complete evaluation of the building is

performed t in accordance with FEMA us" " FEMA 178 is entitled National Earthquake Hazard
e ings, and was published

June 1992. ‘Appendix c of FEMA 178 addresses the evaluation of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings.

However, FEMA 273, Section 10.1 notes that "FEMA 178 is currently under revision
(October, 1997) and the revised version will be available soon." FEMA 178, Section 1.3 itself states,
",.. this handbook reflects the present state of the art and . . . new knowledge gained as a result of
research or damage investigations following future earthquakes may alter the recommendations
presented." FEMA 273 further notes, ". . . new national earthquake hazard maps were developed
in 1996 by the United States Geologic Survey... ." (Note that the publication date of FEMA 178
is 1992). The revision to FEMA 178 was published as FEMA 310, entitled Handbook for the
Seismic Evaluation of Buildings -- A Prestandard, January 1998. FEMA 310 adopted the analysis
method used in FEMA 273 (which is substantially different than that used in FEMA 178) for all
structures except Unreinforced Masonry buildings, for which it includes Section 4.2.6 "Special
Procedures," which are substantially the same as Appendix C of FEMA 178. Two important
advantages of FEMA 310 (over FEMA 178), are that it includes the new USGS earthquake hazard
maps based on the Open File Report 97-130 (1997), and that the Evaluation Checklists have been
updated to incorporate lessons learned during recent earthquakes. The unfortunate thing about
FEMA 310, is that it appears a few errors were introduced into the equations of Section 4.2.6 when
the terminology was updated from Appendix C of FEMA 178.

The maps of USGS Open File Report 97-130 are a significant improvement upon the maps
used by FEMA 178. The source of the FEMA 178 maps is not clear, but they appear to come from

at least as s far back as 1988, the Publication date of the Seine Remtions rer Bate

which i is frequently referenced by FEMA 178. The new maps have three important advantages over
the older maps: First, they are at a larger scale, and show contours at much more frequent intervals.

zo


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report ; . Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group July 6, 2001

Character-Defining Features

Many of the character-defining features of the Yavapai Observation Station are typical of the Pueblo
style. Elements of the design are taken from the geology of the Grand Canyon and indigenous building
traditions. As stated above, clever visual devices were incorporated into the design by the architect. All
these factors combine to make this a building of unique expression.

Exterior:

* canyon edge siting and screening

* a low silhouette and horizontal lines

* native Kaibab limestone walls, coursed rubble masonry color

+ — battered walls, buttressed comers

* flared out lower courses, splayed to avoid right angles and clean lines
* deeply raked joints in masonry

* jagged coursed stone parapet following the perimeter of a flat roof
* — flat roof in keeping with flatness of rim

* indigenous method of construction

* — projecting roof rafters, vigas, embedded into the stone

* unpainted posts

*  roughly-hewn stone window lintels and sills

* — deeply-set windows, small window openings

+ doors

+ life-zone gardens (no longer extant)

+ plantings meant to encroach upon the building to keep building as inconspicuous as possible

Interior:

* — open-air terrace, now infilled with single-pane windows

* native stone walls

+ — four large peeled log support beams

+ — log rafters

+ log purlins

* contour of the floor shaped to mimic the edge of the rim

* concrete floors scored to look like flagstone (no longer extant)
+ — load-bearing partition wall (no longer extant)

An analytical drawing identifying the primary and secondary spaces of significance within the building,
as determined by areas that retain historic fabric and those that reflect alterations is included in
Appendix C.

22 SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY EVALUATION

| * whole peeled logs used as lintel over the doors and cornice above



Inited States Department of . - Interior
ational Park Service

tational Register of Historic Places
_ontinuation Sheet

iection number

Page 2 4

of the structures that Herbert Maier had a hand in designing. These public-
ations set the standards for NPS rustic architecture seen in national and
state parks today. _

Maier’s work was also the first to house the then new concept of interpreta-
tion. Maier’s philosophy of architecture fit in well with the value of a
“natural” area. Maier said that “the exhibit rooms should afford an
occasional vista into the nearby woodland so that the visitor may have a
feeling of being in the midst of the subject matter that is being inter-
preted."

Maier felt that it was a shame to put any kind of a building in a national
park, but if you had to, “it must spring up out of the ground, “!8 and that the
“architecture of our park museums should, above everything else, reflect the
outdoors.

INTERPRETATION:

The Yavapai Observation Station is a type of trailside museum. The trailside
maseum can be accredited to Hermon C. Bumpus, chairman of the American
Association of Museum’s Committee on Outdoor Education. Bumpus believed that
conservation was futile uiless it was followed by a form of “public utiliza-
tion and enjoyment." The way to give the park visitor information was by
"labeling" the landscape, so to speak, in “convenjently situated “interpreter
houses*" which Bumpus termed “trailside museums.”

Bumpus and the American Association of Museums received funding from the Laura
Spelman Rockefeller Foundation for museums in several national parks. The
first was the Glacier Point Lookout Station at Yosemite National Park in 1924.
Following this was the large Yosemite Museum, which was not a trailside
museum. The Yavapai project was the second trailside museum in a national

Winterview with Herbert Maier, conducted by S. Herbert Evison, October
28, 1962. Harper’s Ferry Center History Collection.

Mid.
Bipid.
Stpia.

%termon Carey Bumpus Jr., Hermon Carev Bumpus: Yankee Naturalist.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1947, p. 103.

Dns one ina

_ a a


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 34. - The image shows the interior alteration to create a “sales booth” at the rear of the inte-

rior. Note north-south running logs in the ceiling remain. GCNPA Photo Number 2611. Photo dated
1953.

APPENDIX E


_

2

. n 4

r Lg

het 4
poo LF i
==0 — = = ==
SS

= ee eo



ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP

GLAZING

OBSERVATION DECK

BOOK SHOP

STUD WALL

L

EXTERIOR STONE WALL
ye ao

YW ri 4
LA
ALUMINIM/GLASS.
STOREFRONT
VESTIBULE 14
‘STONE BENCH
Yh
L,

REPLACEMENT WOOD DOOR

SOFFIT, ABOVE

OFFICE

ORIGINAL WOOD DOOR

LAI

ORIGINAL WOOD DOOR

SS SHEET NO. Tne OF SHEET DRAWING NO,
(TD) PLAN - EXISTING CONDITIONS YAVAPAI MUSEUM
SE scale D EXISTING CONDITIONS Lo
4 2 4 8 4 9 rect, REEW: | HSR No] eet
SCALE @ i i:
mre a: “a
PROJECT NORTH 11/13/2001 GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK Jor =



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 29. - The image shows a view of the eastern side of the building. Note curbing. Note flue which
is no longer extant. GCNPA Photo Number 1753. Photo by J. M. Eden dated 1949.

APPENDIX E


IN No geotechnical borings were performed. The building is situated at the south rim of the
Grand Canyon. The area is composed of Permian sedimentary rocks, primarily Kaibab Limestone.
Testing was not performed to measure wave propagation speeds, however, it has been assumed that
this strata can be classified as soil Class B: Rock with 2,500 ft/sec < d, < 5,000 ft/sec.

Tables 3-5 and 3-6 of FEMA 310 show F, and F, (respectively) to be 1.0 for all values of S,
for Site Classification B.


r

i

=

“estan section cast

nent

cas FRAME. oF wunonceD
Ace CumGA2 2 8E AO | GRADE,
Aecet eavonee

PAINTING ABT INCLUDED. |

a seygienss =

Ay plgty To BE FeaRweD AND cWUED

HALF=SIZE:HEPRODUCTION



a =

Summary of Evaluation Information:

BUILDING DATA

Year Built: 1928
Significant Modifications: 1953, 1978
Date of Site Visit: March 2001
Area: 2,700 sq. ft.

CONSTRUCTION AND STRENGTH DATA 4

Office Roof: 3/8" Plywood & 1” str. sheathing over 2x6 tafters, plaster & lath ceiling. 975 Ibs/ft
Exh. Hall Roof: 3/8" Plywood & 1" str. sheathing, 2x4 purlins, 1" str. sheathing over vigas. 1,275 Ibs/ft
Terrace Roof: 3/8" Plywood & 1" str. sheathing over vigas (log rafters). 975 Ibs/ft
Ground Floors: Concrete Slab on grade.

Exterior Walls: Ashlar stone masonry. 10 psi

SEISMIC PARAMETERS 5

Mapped Short Period Ground Acceleration (S.): 0.308 g

Mapped 1.0 Second Ground Acceleration (S)): 0.083 g

Building Seismic Coefficient (S,): 0.205 g

Soils Class: B

Site Coefficients Fa=1.0 Fv=1.0
Region of Seismicity Moderate

LOADS 7 & 8

Dead Loads:
Office Roof: 20.5 psf
Exhibition Hall Roof: 189 psf
Terrace Roof: 15.9 psf
Limestone Ashlar Masonry Walls 150 pef
Live Loads:
Roof Design Snow Load: 29 psf
Seismic Design Snow Load 0 psf

Unreinforced Masonry Evaluation:

FEMA 310 does not provide a checklist or a Tier 1 evaluation for Unreinforced Masonry
Bearing Wall Buildings with Flexible Diaphragms, but rather requires a Tier 2 evaluation be
completed following the Special Procedure of Section 4.2.6. A careful review of that Section
uncovered a number of discrepancies the reader should be aware of. These are discussed in detail
in 2 and 3 . A Subsection by Subsection summary of the evaluation process outlined in
Section 4.2.6, with the modifications discussed in 2 and 3 > appears below. In-depth
calculations or other information required to complete each subsection are included in Appendix
B under the indicated flag note.



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report » Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Appendix §. Floor Plan of Heat Duct Remodeling for Yavapai Museum by National Park
Service Denver Service Center, dated December, 1979.


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report +» Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 6. - The image shows figures on the open air deck of the Yavapai Observation Station. View
is of the eastern side of the building. Note roof overhang at north side of the building in its origi-
nal configuration before being cut back. GCNPA Photo Number 9765. Photo dated June 16, 1929.

APPENDIX E



Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

rchitectural Resources

Tuly 6 boot

Figure 30. - The image illustrates a view of the eastern side of the building. Parking lot was previ-
ously adjacent to the structure. GCNPA Photo Number 8473. Photo dated. 1952.

APPENDIX E


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 200 Architectural Resources Group

J
|
|
I
i
|
i
i
t
|

Figure 4. This image illustrates the west side of the Yavapai building. Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F

7
|


Aosusxone,
corseras
owe

pepe besa, etait

ofeirs

Ae BvILTS

gee

on

I
}
'
|
|
|
|
|
I
|
i
|
|

+
|
1

nee mee Ee eee eee


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Ganyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 7. This image illustrates the east elevation of the Yavapai Observation Station. View is look-
ing the northwest. Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F


nal Park

Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon Na

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Vil. TREATMENT AND USE

Introduction

This narrative discusses and analyzes the ultimate treatment and use of the structure as defined by the
Grand Canyon National Park. Recommended treatment in general is to preserve the extant historic
materials and features, but not to arbitrarily restore missing features unless they are highly characteristic
and in need of treatment for other reasons, such as severe deterioration. Any proposed rehabilitation
associated with new use will be carefully considered so that existing character-defining features of the
site and buildings are maintained.

Through the years, the use of the Yavapai museum has deviated from its original purpose. Originally
designed as an interpretive facility for the geology of the canyon, it now serves primarily as a bookstore
for the Natural History Association and as a viewing area. There is little interpretive information, only
that which keys the names of significant canyon features with the views one sees through the windows.
It is the desire of the park to restore the building to its original use as an educational and interpretive
facility. To meet these goals, the bookstore function will be removed from the building.

Exterior Rehabilitation

Exterior rehabilitation should be undertaken to restore all of the damaged exterior surfaces that con-
tribute to and define the historic character of the building. Exterior elements that detract from the his-
toric character, such as non-historic exterior doors, should be removed and replaced with elements more
in keeping with the original design, as evidenced by historic drawings and photographs. In the case of
excess roof equipment, antennas and the like should be obscured from view, either through relocation or
reduced scale.

Other exterior work should be limited to maintenance and replacement, in kind, of deteriorated historic

fabric. This work includes:

* Replacement of built-up roofing.

* Installation of new roof flashing, drains, and scuppers.

+ Cleaning of exterior stonework with a restoration cleaner to remove biological growth and efflores-
cence.

* Minor stone repointing, taking care not to overpack the joints. Mortar mixture proportions should
be verified with a sample of the existing mortar prior to any repointing work.

* Repair and replacement of log vigas. As much as possible, deteriorated log ends should receive
dutchman repair instead of complete replacement. All log elements, both old and new, should be

treated with a boratic preservative prior to painting to deter future biological growth.
+ All exterior wood elements should be repainted. Original drawings and photos indicate that all exte-

TREATMENT AND USE =. 33.



Building Assessment Report

Yavapai Museum

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

Vv. SITE PHOTOS

1: Conduit on Exterior Wall and Scupper

Flack + Kurtz
Ref. No.: $00.02260.00
November 7, 2000

Site Photos


Yavapai Observation Station « Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Appendix O. Topographical Drawing by National Park Service Branch of Landscape
Architecture, dated January, 1961.


Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001

PRoJect TEAM

Client
National Park Service
Denver Service Center
P.O. Box 25287
Denver, Colorado 25287
Paul C. Cloyd, Architect, Engineer

Grand Canyon National Park

P.O. Box 129

Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023
Harold Gibbs, Program Manager
E. Joanne Wilkins, Park Architect
Ellen C. Seeley, Interpretive Specialist

Consultants .
Architectural Resources Group, principal preparers
Pier 9, The Embarcadero
San Francisco, California 94111
Stephen J. Fameth, FAIA, Project Principal
Bruce D. Judd, FAIA, Associate Project Principal
Bridget Maley, Project Manager, Historian
Wendy Hillis, Architectural Designer
Katherine T. Petrin, Conservator and Historian
Rebecca Anicich, Editing and Production

Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing

Flack + Kurtz Consulting Engineers

343 Sansome Street

San Francisco, California 94104
Allan J. Montpellier, P.E.

Structural

SOHA Engineers

550 Keamey Street, Suite 200

San Francisco, California 94108
Karin N. Kuffel

Acknowledgments

Sara T. Stebbins, Research Librarian, Grand Canyon National Park
Mike Quinn, Museum Collection, Grand Canyon National Park
Colleen Hyde, Museum Collection, Grand Canyon National Park

NPS Indefinite Quantities Contract Number:
1443CX200098016
Task Order: 29

Architectural Resources Group

Executive SUMMARY

5



-

SEISMIC REHABILITATION:
YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .... 2.0... c ee eect cece cee cee cee eeneseneee 1
Introduction ©... 0. cece cence een cece cece eeneenneenes 3
Building Description ...... 2.0.0.0 e cece ccc cence cnet ee nee eee 4
Building Evaluation. ..... 00.0... o cece ccc cece nec e eevee eee ee eens 7
Summary of Evaluation Information ...........0..0000 cece eevee eee eees 8
Unreinforced Masonry Evaluation ............0..0.. 00 cece eee cece sees 8
Foundation and Geologic Checklist Evaluation ............ ...00cce cscs 10
Nonstructural Checklist Evaluation .........2...0.. 000 0c eee ee cece ee eeee 12
Summary of Deficiencies ........... 6... c ccc ce cece eee neces rere 16
Recommendations ......... 206.6. c cece cece cect eee eet n eee en ene teenees 16
Appendix A - Figures... 0... cece cee cece ence ene eteeeeenenes 18
Appendix B - Flag Notes / Calculations ...... 2.20.20... 0000 cece cece ececeeuees 38


AddressYaaoai Piat

ATC-21/ {NEHRP Map Arese 1.2 Low)

697

Rapid Visual Screening of

Grand Canyon, South Rim, Az Zip_ B6CAD

Other Kientifiers 1st Leffatier gas station of Way & €asl entance

No. Storlas 4. Year Bult 7/728

Inspector _“Jark wasinger

Date _5-/6- 76

Total Floor Area (aq. ft) Azo

Bulking Name Yavapai Observation Stat ian- Bldg #16

Use_Visiter /znh Coater [Observation Statiat

= A Large «Jindass

Ri
. 9 Te 1A! 13!
| 6s!
me 7
gy, fo oS SS SS OSA z
po ‘oot 7 Joo
Scale: 4"= 26's fescceseheessebinsiedemeectccenats
a
OCCUPANCY STRUCTURAL SCORES AND MODIFIERS
| identi BULDNG TYPE w si S293 S94 Ci C2 CRS
Resident INO. Persons OFF) em (sv) (RMN)
Gtied 0-10 Bask Score 8.5 3.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 3.0
< 11-100 | Hoh Ree wea 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5
Industrial 00s) Poor Concfiion 0.5 0.5 0.5 5 0.5 05
Pub. Assam Vert. Freguarty Db O08 06 1.0 0.6 -1.0
School Soft Story “1.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -1.0
Torsion 1.0 -2.0 -1.0 “9 19 -1-9
2 Plan rreguarty -1.0 0.5 -0.5 x 15 0.
Emer. Serv. Poundng wa 0.5 0.5 0.5 NA NA
Historic Bldg. Large Heavy Cladding WA -2.0 0 WA “1.0 NWA WA
Short Columms WA NA OWA “1,0 -1.0 -1.0
Non Structural %, 2.0 42.0 2
Falng d va 12 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0
DATA CONFIDENCE | sig 0.8 0.6 0.8 28 0.
ea Extinat SLS AB to 20 stores WA -0.8 -0.8 BO.
aioe
DNK = Do Not Know FINA. SCORE, 5”
° s This pertiat ay pareiniereed spore wall could Allon poeple Detailed ,
: Vaden lor iM valuatio:
iyi ‘yo f/0e wilding. derite an eariiig veke Required?
YES} NO



| States Department of . - Interior
National Park Service

ational Register of Historic Places

gontinuation Sheet

re number___8 Page __5__ ’

“rim to rin” fireplace"! McKee’s rock column and relief map were removed
during the interior renovation of Yavapai in 1978 to McKee’s great disappoint-
ment. a

McKee saw the observation station as a tool for introducing the great and
inspirational gopects of the canyon. He called the Yavapai the “key to the
Grand Canyon.” McKee said it is “not intended to be a museum where
collections of specimens and exhibits not related to the features selected as
most significant to the story would be displayed." The Yavapai was designed
to be an observatory of the Grand Canyon.

The Yavapai Observation Station was one of the first truly interpretive
structures in the National Park Service.. Some of the most renown people in
their fields worked very hard to make it a place where knowledge could be
gained by seeing the natural wonders of the Grand Canyon and bringing the
geologic story together with the beauty of observation. It can be put into
the best perspective by quoting Dr. John C. Merriam: “Yavapai is a particular
point of view and an instrument for obtaining this view.”

Jnetter to Edwin McKee, from Mary E. J. Colter, April 1, 1935, Bright
Angel Lodge History File, Park Library, Grand Canyon.

Ueawin D. McKee, November 4, 1978, letter to Merle Stitt, National Park
Service files, Grand Canyon.

Bipid.

Njohn C. Merriam, September 24, 1935, letter to Edwin Mckee. National
Park Service microfiche files, Grand Canyon.


= = eo me

a Review of, Commentary on, and Modifications to FEMA 310, Section 4.2.6:

An extensive review of Section 4.2.6, "Special Procedure" for Unreinforced Masonry
Structures with Flexible Diaphragms of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (F 'EMA) report
310, Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings -- A Prestandard, published in January 1998
appears to indicate some inconsistencies. This report is a revision of the FEMA report 178, NEHRP.

, published June 1992, and, in particular,
the provisions for unreinforced masonry were taken directly from Appendix C of this previous

report. The procedures in FEMA 178, in turn, were taken from the Uniform Code for Building
Conservation, and originally (it is believed) from the Los Angeles City code.

It should be noted that while extensive commentaries were provided in other Sections of
FEMA report 310, none was included in Section 4.2.6. Similarly, FEMA 178 provides no
commentary ¢ or logical reasoning. supporting the provisions of Appendix C. However, the NEHRP
1994, provides commentary
and cites research i in support of the body of FEMA 178, excluding Appendix C. Based on this, and
further arguments to be presented below, we propose that where disparities exist preference be given
to the other provisions of FEMA report 310 over Section 4.2.6.

Equation 4-21 (FEMA 310) and C-11 (FEMA 178):
The first equation to be reviewed is equation 4-21 from FEMA 310:
F,,= Sp, X (Wy, + 0.5.x Wy) 4-21

In this equation W,,, represents the weight of one wall, and 0.5 x W, represents the weight of 1/2 of
the diaphragm. For purposes of clarity we shall discuss only a one story structure such that
"diaphragm" and "roof" may be used interchangeably, and subscripts referring to the story under
consideration can only have one value. The upshot is this equation says the lateral shear in the walls
is equal to the mass times S,,. This appears immediately inappropriate for two reasons:

1) Sp; is not a seismic coefficient, it is merely the mapped 1.0 second Spectral Response
Acceleration multiplied by a factor to account for site geology and by 2/3 for use in existing
buildings (as opposed to new construction). The seismic coefficient, S,, which corresponds
to the accelerations felt by a structure, rather than the ground, is given in equation 3-4 as
S)/T. This i is s supported bys research y Seed, Ugas, and emer in oe and quoted i in the

2) The second discrepancy is that, in general, unreinforced masonry structures are low, wide,
stiff structures with a very high natural frequency, which is to say: a very short period. One
would anticipate the forces generated in such structures to be govemed by the short period
spectral response acceleration. This is again supported by equation 3-4, which limits the
seismic coefficient, S,, to S,, for short period structures.


Building Assessment Report Yavapai Museum

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

Wi. PLUMBING

A. DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEM

Existing Conditions

There is a % inch domestic water service entering the building
serving a single sink. No other plumbing serves this building.
Recommendations

Modify the current sink installation, which is draining into a bucket,
and connect to a sanitary line with required venting. Also verify
source of domestic water and ensure it is operational.

B. FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM

1.

Existing Conditions
There currently is no fire protection in the building
Recommendations

Provide a new 4 inch fire service and sprinkler protection of the
building with a wet fire sprinkler system. Also, provide a fire
department connection on the exterior of the building for the fire
department to connect to in the event of a fire.

Cc. SANITARY AND STORM SYSTEM

1.

Flack + Kurtz

Existing Conditions

There currently is no sanitary service to this building. The storm
water is collected on the roof and directed to perimeter scuppers

’ where it falls away from the building.

Recommendations

If a sink and/or toilet is added a sanitary line will need to be
installed. The roof drainage system appears to be in good condition
from a functional standpoint and recommend it stay in place.

Electrical

Ref. No.: $00.02260.00

November 7, 2000


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Appendix B. Drawings Illustrating Alternative Treatments by Architectural Resources
Group, dated April 13, 2001.


See ee ee ee

iN Continued:

In addition, the 2.5 factor is inappropriate, and should be 1.0, giving the equation:
DCR =S, x Wy/2v,xD 4-15 (revised)

The explanation for eliminating the 2.5 coefficient is rather long, but since it incorrectly increases
design loads by 250% it is important:

Referring to FEMA 178 equation C-5 we find exactly the same equation with A, in the place of Sp).
IfC, were simply substituted for A, while leaving the 2.5 factor in place the equation would appear
to give 2.5 x Lateral Load / Diaphragm Capacity as the Demand Capacity Ratio, which does not
make apparent sense. Recalling, however, that the fundamental period of most unreinforced
masonry structures is quite short, and therefore generally governed by A,, one might try substituting
the Peak Acceleration Coefficient, A,, for A, in equation C-5 giving:

DCR =2.5x A, x W,/2Zv,xD C-5 (revised)

This equation makes sense. The reader may notice that we have used an Acceleration Coefficient
rather than a Seismic Coefficient in this equation, in apparent contradiction to the arguments we
presented above. However, a review of equation C-5 explains that 2.5 x A, may be considered to
be the seismic coefficient:

C,= 0.85 x(2.5xA,/R) 2-5

Since the element under consideration is the diaphragm, the R factor for the balance of the building
may not apply (R = 1.0), and in any case, for unreinforced masonry construction, R is quite low (R
= 1.25 in Table 2.4.3.1). Further, the 0.85 factor is a reduction for existing structures from the
limiting value of equation 4-3 of the 1988 NEHRP Recommended Provisions. Removing both of

these factors gives:
C,=2.5x A,

Thus equation C-5 (revised) above is approximately correct, and substituting A, for A, would be an
easy mistake to make in typesetting.

It appears that equation C-5 was simply copied from FEMA 178 to equation 4-15 of FEMA 310 and
A, modified to $,, to agree with the new terminology. However, if the tenm in equation C-5 should
have been A,, and been replaced by S,, the 2.5 factor should have been removed since it was
incorporated into the 1997 maps of S,. (This is easily verified by comparing the same region on the
FEMA 178 and USGS 1997 maps. This reveals, in general (though much more detail and many
more contours are included on the 1997 maps) that S, = 2.5 x A,. (Note that this comparison should
be made in areas of relatively uniform ground motion, as the improved resolution of the 1997 maps
leads to significant local variations in areas of high ground motion gradients.) Using S, in equation
4-15 of FEMA 310 rather than S, has the additional advantages of including the site specific geology
factor (F,) and the 2/3 reduction for existing structures.


survival of the structure itself, The American Society of Civil Engineers recognized that many
existing structures were not designed to meet modern earthquake codes, and that the cost of the
retrofits required to meet such codes would, in many cases, exceed the replacement cost of the
structure. For this reason, the philosophy was adopted that the risk of catastrophic failures which
could result in serious injury or death should be minimized, but that the risk of the structure itself
being unusable after a major seismic event is acceptable. FEMA 310 itself includes in its definition
of life safety performance level: "Building performance that includes significant damage to both
structural and nonstructural components during a design earthquake...”

This report delineates the rehabilitation needed for this structure to meet the requirements
of Executive Order 12941, which requires Federal agencies to evaluate and mitigate seismic
hazards in their owned and leased buildings.

Building Description:

The Yavapai Point Museum is a single story unreinforced stone masonry structure of
approximately 2,700 square feet perched on the very rim of the Grand Canyon. The original (1928)
configuration of the structure consisted of basically three rooms: At the south was a small
Laboratory room. Just north of that was a larger Exhibition Hall. North of that, and separated by
a masonry wall with a single doorway, was the Roofed Terrace, originally open at the north for
viewing the canyon. In 1953 the Terrace roof was trimmed slightly, and windows were installed
to enclose the space. Also during this remodel, the majority of the wall between the Exhibition
Hall and the (former) Terrace was removed to create a single large space. Further renovations in
1978 modified the entryways, replaced the windows, and set the building layout basically as it is
today. The southernmost portion of the building contains a small office and an entry foyer for the
main space. A bookshop occupies the former Exhibition Hall area, which remains open to the
former Terrace. South facing entry doors both north and south of the Exhibition Hall open to the
Terrace area, directly at the west, and though a foyer at the east. Although the terms may not
designate the current uses, for consistency throughout this report, the three main areas of this
structure will be referred to as the Office, Exhibition Hall, and Terrace. See photographs, Figures
1 & 2, and Plan and Elevation, Figures 3 & 4.

In addition, there is a small space below the structure built into a cavity in the face of the
canyon wail that may, from time to time, be referred to as the Basement. Structurally, this area is
not a part of the building, but may be considered a weakness in the strata underlying the
foundation. This is discussed further in the Foundation and Geologic Checklist and 12 of
Appendix B.

This building was in use at the time of the site visit. The nature of the construction,
architectural finishes, bookstore racks, and interpretive displays limited access to portions of the
structure. In addition, in order to keep the building in operation, and because of the historic nature
of this museum, the Park Service prohibited "invasive" investigation. As such, the details of some
elements of the existing structure have been assumed based upon the available sheets of the as-
built, construction, and renovation drawings, as well as historic data and information regarding
typical construction practices in the Canyon area.


a

oH
—
9’-0”
10°-0”
7
mm
tel

WINDOW A
WASHING PLATFORM CANYON. WALL LARGE
IMPROVED. WITH CRACK

MASONRY ‘N o
t
lo
ayestone |
LAYER

NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE” 1/8"=1'—

BASEMENT
DOOR

FIG. 4 YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM



Yavapai Observation Station » . Historic Structure Report . (Grand Canyon National Park

‘Architectural Resources Group ‘July 6, 2001

Cultural Resource Data

The Yavapai Observation Station was nominated to the National Register of Historic Places in 1990.
The significance of the Yavapai Observation Station in relation to its role in the development of interpre-
tive structures within the park system is such that its eligibility as a National Historic Landmark should
be further studied.

The original drawings for this building are on microfiche at the NPS Denver Service Center. If there is
not a copy of the drawings in the Grand Canyon National Park Archives at the South Rim, a copy
should be placed with that collection. There are a number of historic photographs of this structure with-
in the collection of the Park Archives. The Park Archives collection is an appropriate location for these
items.

4 Executive Summary


Eee
TELL,

an

PORTION OF ORIGINAL FLOORPLAN SHOWING VOIDS BELOW STRUCTURE

FIG. 18 YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

x ENDNOTES

! Director’s Order 28.
2 The information on native peoples of the Grand Canyon is taken from Michael F. Anderson’s Living at the

Edge, 1998.

3 Information on Spanish exploration of the canyon is summarized from Michael F. Anderson’s Living at the
Edge, 1998.

4 Tweed, Wm. C.,Soulliere, Laura E., and Law, Henry G., National Park Service Rustic Architecture: 1916-
1942, NPS Westem Regional Office, 1977. p. 23.

5 McClelland, Building the National Parks, p. 291.

6 Bumpus, H.C. Jr., Hermon Carey Bumpus, Yankee Naturalist. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1947, p. 104.

7 Lewis, "Museum Curatorship in the National Park Service," p. 53. 20 Ibid., p.54.

8 “Museum at Grand Canyon”, Coconino Daily News, 1931. (page and column reference unknown)

9 Merriam, John C. Memo Regarding the Use of Yavapai Station, 1931.

10 McClelland, Building the National Parks, p. 407.

1) NPs Rustic Architecture: 1916-1942, February, 1977 p. 55.

12 McClelland, Building the National Parks, p. 408.

13 “fuseum at Grand Canyon”, Coconino Daily News, 1931. (page and column reference unknown)

4 Shellbach, Louis. Memo for the Superintendent Regarding Conditionof the Telescopes at Yavapai Station,
September 14, 1944.

15 ibid.

16 Merriam, John C. Memo Regarding the Use of Yavapai Station, 1931.

17 Soulliere, L. Architecture in the Parks, National Historic Landmark Theme Study, November, 1986. p. 6.

18 McClelland, Building the National Parks, pp. 398-399.

19 NPS, Yavapai Interpretive Prospectus, 1964.

20 Project Construction Proposal for Yavapai Interpretive Facility, document undated (but most likely to be circa

1966).
21 ibid.
22 Good, Albert H. Park and Recreation Structures, Volume Up. 171.


=

Yavapai Observation Sta

July 6, 2001

tion + Historic Structure Report » Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group

Figure 3. This image illustrates the entrance on the south side of the building. Photo

dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F



— = = a om

Foundation and Geologic Checklist Evaluation:

A reproduction of the Geologic Site Hazards And Foundations Checklist from Chapter 3
of FEMA 310 follows, comments or related information as they pertain to each question are
included in Appendix B of this report under the appropriate flag note.


Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group July 6, 2007

a replacement building was a well developed concept and nearly became a reality. Plans for the pro-
posed Yavapai facility were prepared by Cecil Doty, architect of the Grand Canyon South Rim Visitor
Center. (see Appendix E, Figures 46, 47) It was thought that a new interpretive facility was needed to
accommodate an increasing numbers of visitors, approximately 15,000 persons a day, and that the only
solution was new construction on the same site, as opposed to expansion or alteration of the existing
building. The proposed Yavapai Interpretive Facility was intended to provide restrooms, a lounge, a
lobby, auditoriums, indoor viewing of the Canyon year-round, minimal office and storage space, and
information services. The Construction Proposal went on to state:

Yavapai Point and the facilities here discussed will be devoted to presenting the Grand
Canyon Story of deposition, uplift and erosion, fossil records of life through the ages
and the Colorado River and its role in the formation of Grand Canyon. Several interpre-
tive approaches to understanding the Grand Canyon must be provided. Two auditoriums
[providing nearly identical views of the Canyon and] capable of holding 200 and 400
people respectively and commanding spacious views of the complete stratigraphic
sequence shown from rim to river in the Canyon walls are a must.

It was anticipated that Cecil Doty’s 1957 Visitor Center at the South Rim would continue to function as
an interpretive facility addressing “secondary” themes of history, prehistory and biology and would con-
tinue to house the research library, scientific study collections, and the administrative offices of the
Superintendent and staff, while the Yavapai Interpretive Facility would be the primary educational facili-
ty at the Grand Canyon.?! The scale of the Mission 66 project proved to be excessive and a lack of

funds prevented its construction.

18 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND



Observation Station » Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group

parapet wall below and exaggerated overhang above to create an unparalleled viewing experience and to
maximize wide vistas. (see Appendix E, Figures 5-8).

Maier not only designed the building but oversaw its construction, actively choosing the rocks to be
quarried from the canyon and instructing the masons where each stone was to be laid. (see Appendix
E, Figures 1-4). In later years, when looking back at his completed works, Maier criticized his choice
of rock sizes in the walls of the Yavapai Observation Station as having been too uniform and regular, not
varied nor naturalistic enough.

Measuring approximately 3,000 square feet, the interior was initially laid out as two distinct spaces with
different purposes, characteristics and light-reflecting qualities: the open-air viewing terrace and the
exhibit room for focused, close-up study. The interior spaces, one open, light and airy, and the other
closed, dark and cave-like, afforded a contrasting device that distinguished the two spaces and highlight-
ed their distinct purposes of viewing vast distances and closely examining rock specimens. From inside
the treatment of finishes on the observation terrace mimicked the canyon character: rough-hewn wall
surfaces, the low rocky parapet and an east-west running load-bearing rock wall contributed to a feeling
of outdoorsy ruggedness. The interior served to mirror the craggy interior of the canyon.

From the exterior, the two rooms read as separate volumes: the taller boxier exhibit room with small
window openings and the flatter semi-circular observation deck, more generously punctuated. The
exhibit room was accessed by a door in the chunky rock wall partitioning the spaces, and could be
closed when unstaffed. By contrast, the terrace was never closed or locked and functioned more like a
porch or deck, freely accessible to visitors at all hours,

The shapes of the two spaces also differed in plan (see Appendix E, Figure 45). The unenclosed roofed
observation terrace was originally configured to follow the irregular curving line of the canyon rim
below. The semi-circular shape was divided into segments that directed visitors to view selected fea-
tures of the canyon; its loose, free lines were meant to encourage spiritual contemplation. The sharply-
delineated rectangular exhibit room, with straight lines and comers, was the area set aside for logical
thinking and study. Perhaps Maier was trying to convey, in the plan of the building, something of the
essence of the canyon and our intellectual relationship to it.

A singular and distinguishing building feature was the open terrace (see Appendix E, Figures 13, 14).
Though visually interesting, this element proved problematic as it allowed snow to enter and settle on
the terrace floor. Window openings at the east, west and south elevations were small and deeply set in
keeping with indigenous architecture. Other window openings contained modestly-sized panes since
Maier felt glass was out of harmony with rock structures. 12

Historica. BackGRouND = 13


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE DATA

Built in 1928 expressly for observing and understanding the geology of the Grand Canyon, the Yavapai
Observation Station (also known as the Yavapai Point Museum) is a spectacularly designed example of
the Park Service’s pursuit of a singular and aesthetically appropriate architecture for the park system.
Within the context of the development of the rustic style, the Yavapai Observation Station best exempli-
fies the National Park Service philosophy of melding the built environment into the natural landscape.
Apart from this, the museum is significant for a wide range of reasons: The building, an excellent illus-
tration of the characteristics of Pueblo architecture, is the work of a prominent architect, Herbert C.
Maier, who was inspired by the ideology of architect Mary Colter: The warm golden-colored stone
work exhibits a high level of craftsmanship. And, the building was among the earliest interpretive struc-
tures in the park system. Above all, the Yavapai Observation Station has long been a favorite of Grand
Canyon visitors , a place at once welcoming and exciting, intimate and instructive (see Appendix E,
Historic Images).

Exhibiting indigenous materials and an intimate scale, the museum compares favorably with the archi-
tecture of the Grand Canyon Village, but it sits, somewhat isolated on a prominent point to the east, the
area’s best vantage point. Dramatically poised on the perimeter of the South Rim, the building’s sensa-
tional siting on the canyon edge is integral to its design and expression. Flat-roofed and built low to the
ground with battered stone walls, the one-story structure was designed to be particularly unobtrusive in
its setting. The plane of the roof mimics the extreme flatness of the canyon rim and echoes the horizon-
tal striations of the inner canyon, while the jagged outline of the observation terrace was shaped to con-
form almost exactly to the canyon rim. The original design’s defining feature and function was the way
in which the structure, from the interior, framed an expansive and specific panorama between the para-
pet wall below and exaggerated overhang above to maximize wide vistas and create an unparalleled
viewing experience. The purpose of this design feature is not as effective as it was intended to be, as the
cantilever roof has been cropped and tinted window panes installed, resulting in the building’s most sig-
nificant change and wholly altering the visitor experience. Given the numerous alterations to the build-
ing’s interior and exterior, landscaping and road configuration, the Yavapai Observation Station retains a
fairly high degree of historical and architectural integrity.

Though the building was constructed in 1928 as a museum and viewing platform, it has performed a
unique function over time; the building itself acts as the interpretive feature perhaps even more than the
exhibits it houses. Historical documents associated with the building reveal decades of debate and dis-
cussion about the content of the displays explaining the geology and geography of the Canyon, but more
than exhibits, it is the structure itself that recounts the canyon’s story. Constructed of local Kaibab lime-
stone, the museum merges with the rim, opening the canyon to visitors and offering pivotal views,
shade, shelter, and a place for contemplation.

Executive SuMMarRY 1



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 ‘Architectural Resources Group

Figure 15. This detail image illustrates a fracture that runs the length of a boulder
near a small window opening on the east elevation. The fracture may be the result of
a natural cleft in the stone or it may be due to stresses on the rock. View is looking
toward the north. Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2003 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 54. - The image shows the bench on the south wall in the east foyer of the Yavapai
Observation Station. Photo dated January, 1990 by Jacilee Wray.

APPENDIX E



mu wee we He ew ee

Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2007 ‘Architectural Resources Group

Figure 13. This photo shows park naturalist Edwin McKee (second from right) discussing the canyon
with visitors on the open terrace of the Yavapai Observation Station. Photo dated 1930. GCNPA Photo
Number 5829.

APPENDIX E


a a ae a a

Introduction:

The Grand Canyon exposes a billion years of geologic history, the Park encompasses
several ecologic zones throughout its varied elevations, it was the site of early human habitation,
and later exploration and rediscovery. The area has a rich history, but for most of the Park's five
million annual visitors...

It's all about the view!

And one of the finest views around, easily accessible from Grand Canyon Village, is at
Yavapai Point. To bring a little comfort to the viewing, and provide housing for interpretive
displays, the Yavapai Observation Station was constructed at this location in 1928.

This structure has been renovated numerous times throughout the last 73 years, and now
bears the name Yavapai Point Museum, but it remains the Park's main interpretive center. It
attracts visitors by the thousand with its displays, bookstore, and, of course, the view.
Unfortunately, there is a hidden danger here. Although northern Arizona is not the hotbed of
seismic activity that coastal California is, it does have its share of earthquakes, and unreinforced
masonry structures such as the Yavapai Point Museum often perform poorly in seismic events.

The high occupancy of a potentially dangerous building, as well as impending possible
renovation and restoration, has made it appropriate that this structure be evaluated for seismic
hazards to determine the required rehabilitation measures. With that in mind, this report has been
prepared to evaluate the potential earthquake related risk to human life, and to recommend retrofits
to mitigate those hazards, per the guidelines set forth by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) in their report 273, the NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings, October 1997

The Park Service selected a Rehabilitation Objective consisting of providing a Life Safety
performance level (3-C) for ground motion equivalent to a Basic Safety Earthquake 1 (BSE-1), as
defined in FEMA 273. That report provides two alternative analysis procedures which may be
used to determine the required retrofits: The Simplified Method and the Systematic Method. For
unreinforced stone masonry structures with flexible diaphragms (such as the Yavapai Point
Museum), FEMA 273 recommends the use of the Simplified Rehabilitation approach described
in Chapter 10. That chapter presents the Simplified Method for use on a selected group of simple
buildings being rehabilitated to the Life Safety performance level and ground motions described
in FEMA 178, the NEHRP Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, June 1992.
To complicate matters, FEMA 178 was revised and republished as FEMA 310, the Handbook for

= , January 1998. The reader is encouraged to
refer to note (1\ of Appendix B for an in-depth explanation of the process followed, but in general:
An evaluation based on FEMA 310 was performed, deficiencies were identified, and retrofits to
correct those deficiencies were developed.

While reviewing this report, it is important to bear in mind that the emphasis of the Life
Safety performance level is to reduce the life safety risks to occupants of the building by meeting
a minimum performance objective of a low "risk for life-threatening injury and entrapment," not


Yavapai Observation Stati

toric Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 200 Architectural Resources Group
Iv. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Site

Situated on a prominent point on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, the building’s dramatic siting on
the Canyon edge is integral to its design and expression (see Appendix F, Figure 1). Flat-roofed and
built low to the ground, the one-story stone structure was designed to be particularly unobtrusive in its
Canyon rim setting. The structure is located two miles north of the South Entrance Station and half a
mile east of the Grand Canyon Village.

Construction

The structure’s walls and foundation are principally constructed in native Kaibab limestone boulders.
The roof is tar and gravel. Wood is used throughout, in the timber beams, projecting rafters and carved
doors rough cut wood siding, laid vertically around the entrances. There are four exterior doors to the
building (see Appendix F, Figures 2, 3).

Exterior General

The building is one story and irregularly shaped with a semi-circular observation terrace on the north
side. Measuring approximately 40’ x 65’, the building has a low profile and a flat roof with parapet
walls. The principal character-defining feature of the building’s exterior is its battered walls and but-
tressed corners made of uniformly-sized limestone boulders which give the building a rich variation in
form, texture, and line. Visually, the splayed lower courses of the building merge into the curbing,
paving stones, and landscaping to blur the lines between the built fabric and the natural environment.
Other typical Pueblo characteristics are protruding wood vigas on the exterior, small window openings,
and timber doors.

West Elevation

The west and east elevations nearly mirror each other. The south-facing door at the west entrance leads
directly into the main space of the interior. The interior spaces can be read from the exterior, the lower
observation deck at the western half of the building and the former exhibit space toward the rear.
Moving back from the rim, the part of the building that houses the exhibit room rises above the lower
observation deck. Window treatments at the west elevation differ in accordance with the interior spaces
they corresponded to, small openings for the exhibition space and larger openings for viewing. A metal
catwalk, used as a service access, rings the west elevation below the window line (see Appendix F,
Figures 4-6).

East Elevation

One of two principal entrances, the east entrance leads into a foyer with two windows, one on the east
wall and a larger one on the north wall. A steel-frame window and doorway separate the foyer from the
observation room. The south wall of the foyer has a stone bench built into it. The east elevation has

Puysical Description 23



NPS Form 10-0008 (Oui aperowes Mo 1026-0018
(08)

United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places
continuation Sheet

8 1
Bsection number ____+=»s Page ____

Maier*s work on the Yavapai differed somewhat from his Yosemite work as the
Yavapai was designed along “distinctly Indian lines."!! The pueblo like
features include; a masonry parapet around a flat roof, battered native
limestone walls, buttressed corners, vigas, and tiny window openings.

The structure is a liaison with its setting on the edge of the Grand Canyon as
the large observation terrace is shaped to conform almost exactly to the
canyon rim. Maier chose the native rocks to be quarried from the canyon, as
well as supervising where each stone was laid by his mason. According to
Maier’s widow, he wanted his structures to blend with their surrounding, yet
“he didn“t want them to be diminutive. Nature is so grand ype don“t want to
take little stones. So hed get the biggest ones he could." Maier was so
attuned to the environmental setting he included a tree-well in the southwest
corner of the building for a small pinyon growing there.

Maier studied architecture at the University of California at Berkeley. In
1923 he worked for Ansel Hall and the Western Museum Laboratory at the
University of California and then became the Executive Agent and Architect for
the American Association of Museums.!! It was during this time that he
designed the Yosemite, Grand Canyon, and Yellowstone museums.

Maier became District Officer for the National Park Service Emergency
Conservation Work Program in 1933. He later became Associate Regional
Director for the Southwest and then Western Region of the National Park
Service. Maier received the Distinguished Service Award in 1961 for his
contributions to park architecture.

His work served as a teaching tool for Park Service architects in the work
relief programs of the 1930s, as his style was appropriate for the wilderness
setting of our parks. The 1935 publication Park Structures and Facilities,
and the later 1938 edition, Park and Recreation Structures contain a majority

Mwilliam C. Tweed, Laura E. Soulliere, Henry G. Law, National Park

Service Rustic Architecture:1916-1942. National Park Service, 1977,
p. 41.

Interview with Susan Maier, conducted by Jacilee Wray, February 25,
1990. Grand Canyon National Park Oral History Files.

Brpid.

Minterview with Herbert Maier, conducted by S. Herbert Evison, October
28, 1962. Harper’s Ferry Center History Collection.

Wraura Soulliere Harrison, ni ; . oo

Landmark Theme Study. National Park Service. 1986.


LARGE CRACK IN STRATA BELOW STRUCTURE

FIG. 17 YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM



Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2003 Architectural Resources Group

quarter of the nineteenth century, it was not until 1901 that visitors could arrive directly to the South
Rim by rail. Until then, hardy visitors withstood the laborious journey by horse-drawn stagecoach lines
or wagons. In the early 1880s, Captain John Hance built the first hotel, in the form of a small cabin, on
the canyon’s rim near today’s Grandview Point. Hance was a storyteller, tourist guide, trail builder, and
miner who discovered that tourists were a source of greater profits than mining activities.

The arrival of rail service spawned.the transformation of the small village into a more sophisticated
resort under the aegis of a concessionaire, the Fred Harvey Company, which was allied with the
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway. Fred Harvey established resorts to accommodate rail travelers
throughout the west. The Fred Harvey facilities at the South Rim ranged from the luxurious to the eco-
nomical, from the sumptuous E] Tovar Hotel (1905) to the Bright Angel tent cabins (no longer extant).
The lodgings spawned other tourist-related businesses and structures, such as the Hopi House (1905),
Verkamp’s Canyon Souvenir Shop (1905), Mule Barns (1907), Rail Station building (1907), and the
Lookout Studio (1914), creating a bustling arrival point for visitors.

An Appropriate Style of Architecture for the National Park System

From its inception in 1916, the National Park Service sought to define an appropriate architecture for
buildings constructed within parks, some of the most scenic locations in the United States. The first
directive issued by the new agency stressed that “particular attention must be devoted always to the har-
monizing of these improvements with the landscape.” 4 when the Grand Canyon officially became a
National Park in 1919, the National Park Service Landscape Engineering Department teamed up with
the Santa Fe Railroad and the Fred Harvey Company to plan development in the park. Concessionaires
like the Fred Harvey Company had created structures in a variety of architectural styles, from buildings
inspired by native construction techniques to those that evoked the imposing European chalet tradition.
The early National Park Service architects and landscape architects, by contrast, pursued an architectural
style that provided greater harmony with the natural surrounding and employed a generally smaller
scale. The most influential and important designer working in the Grand Canyon prior to federal gov-
ernment stewardship was Mary Colter. Her collaboration with the NPS favorably influenced the archi-
tectural future of the natural landscape at the Grand Canyon.

Influence of M.E.J. Colter, Architect

Mary Elizabeth Jane Colter, architect and interior designer for the Fred Harvey Company and designer
of many of the Grand Canyon Village buildings, forged her own unique expression, synthesizing Arts
and Crafts ideals and indigenous architecture of the Southwest. Colter was not involved in the Yavapai
Observation Station design; however, her influence is so directly read in the building’s form and expres-
sion that a discussion of her oeuvre is merited here. Colter, a Minnesota native, received her architectur-
al training in San Francisco in the 1880s. She was inspired by pueblo construction, Mesa Verde cliff
dwellings and extant Hopi communities. Favoring indigenous-looking stone buildings, she became one

Historical BACKGROUND 9


xe”
| Vaited States Department of the Interior

National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places

Registration Form

This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations of eligibility for individual properties or districts. See instructions in Guidelines

for Completing National Register Forms (National Register Bulletin 16). Complate each item by marking “x” in the appropriate box or by entering

the requested information. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for “not applicable.” For functions, styles, materials,
| and areas of significance, enter only the categories and subcategories listed in the instructions. For additional,space use continuation sheets

(Form 10-900a). Type ali entries.

_ 41. Name of Property

historic name

Yavapai Observation Station

| other namesi/site number Yavapai Point Museum

LCS number 07661, see.#9, Major Bibliographical References

2. Location
street & number Yavapai Point, Grand Canyon National Park L_Jnot for publication
city, town Grand Canyon LJ vicinity
t state AZ code_ AZ county Coconino code AZ005 zip code 86023

3._ Classification

Ownership of Property

Category of Property Number of Resources within Property

QO Private building(s) Contributing Noncontributing
(2) public-tocat Ddistrict 1 1 buildings
(_] public-State Csite sites
public-Federal Cl structure 7 1 structures
CJobject objects

i Name of related multiple property fisting:

8 Total
Number of contributing resources previously
listed in the National Register

4. State/Federal Agency Certification

As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, | hereby certify that this

numination Crequest for determination of oligibitity meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the
National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
In my opinion, the property CJ meets does not meet the National Register criteria. See continuation sheet.

Signature of certifying official Date

State or Federal agency and bureau

In my opinion, the property O meets (does not meet the National Register criteria. see continuation sheet.

Signature of commenting or other official . Date

State or Federal agency and bureau

5. National Park Service Certification

t, hereby, certify that this property is:
Clenterea in the National Register.

See continuation sheet.

(Cldstermined eligibte for the National

Register. CJsee continuation sheet.

ma determined not eligible for the

(removed from the National Register.

| ea (explain:)

National Register.

Signature of the Keeper Date of Action



one Use pegboard trem cl Visiter Canter
awa uate Sega an cg Sas
b < "Zo ,
A i
i wags 5
7 ty
t Soo Wefweed | fs
Ait
h |
News Weed ding
Boor wy leng devica 1
= 7
. a Paes , lal
/ es eee! “ts ances L : |
Plan of New Layout Flictne Powe "Avarteble
Yavapa\ Museum
“Seale Hetror Li
Lm Busting, Light

Folding Door

Baler Display

7 eect

I] Peigematien

fo

a

io Peat

Elevation

Section A-A

ao mt ‘aergend mous

“Section RB

4° Prywoed "= 28% Framing:

Book Wales Peet,
Sedla "tO"

Wor

Ff IE

Siete ey Tend =
ing. counter er
Nava eo,

=57

OEE FPP
Serene SiR TERIOR

OUSALES NEEK “[

ea goa Pam



Yavapai Observation Station . * Historic Structure Report « . Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group “July 6, 200

+ Reroofing.

+ Installation of catwalk at north facade,

¢ Partial removal of interior partition rock wall.

+ Installation of thermostat controlled hot air heating plant (used to circulate air dur-
ing the summer as well).

+ Installation of fuel oil storage tank on west side of building, enclosed within mason-
ry wall, connected to the structure.

1954 Original, wood exhibit cases replaced with “standard” exhibit cases.
1959 Ancillary building added - comfort station.
1960 Original (1928) comfort station removed.
1966 New Yavapai interpretive facility, designed by Architect Cecil Doty, proposed for site
(never executed).
1977 Interior drinking fountain removed.
1978 $200,000 renovation project. Work includes:
+ Replacement of observation deck windows with polarized, tinted glass, new
mullions.
+ — Installation of painted graphic panels below the windows.
+ Reconstruction of interior partition wall in rough textured plaster.
* Door to work room from rear of exhibit room sealed to make an unbroken wall.
+ Replacement of principal entrance doors, east and west facades.
+ Installation of bronze metal thresholds and foot grilles with carpeted treads at
doors. .
* Construction of a steel-frame window and doorway to separate foyer from
observation terrace.
+ Original scored concrete floors grouted and covered with carpet.
+ Installation of two television screens, supported on concrete stems rising from
the floor, in the observation deck area.
+ Removal of auditorium seating.
1983 New roof installed.
1992-93 Design and installation of fullsize bookstore, further diminishing the perception of the
building as a museum.
1999 Antennas and dishes near the north edge of the roof installed for Y2K. Antennas to be
relocated when building is rehabilitated.
Undated Alterations

+ Mounted binoculars for viewing from interior parapet wall removed. It is unclear as to whether or

not this was part of the 1953 works.

30 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE


k 7 . .

- SER



REDUCED’ SIZE REPRODUCTION

eivting site senovnw 4
fumaitg veer ere f

ous
do wile

YiVAPAL MUSEUM

rouat aan.

deo cour nan

“lor 10 x

2 ERT PS



As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our
nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water
Tesources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural
values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor
recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their
development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in
their care. The department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for
people who live in island territories under U.S. administration.

NPS D-553, May 2001



4s Continued:

Given the relatively low amplitude of the anticipated ground motion in this region, and the
criteria of a Life Safety performance level, it is felt that the existing roof to wall connections are
adequate.

A comment should be added regarding the criteria in FEMA 310. Section 4.2.6.6 in fact
addresses the anchorage of the walls to the diaphragm. As we have seen, the walls of this structure
are self supporting, and require no support by the diaphragm, thus the criteria of this section is
inapplicable. The calculations above, and those of, 2 follow the actual loads generated in the roof
diaphragm, through connections, to their reaction in wall elements. As such, these calculations
supplant those of Section 4.2.6.3.6 of FEMA 310, which addresses transfer of shear forces from the
diaphragm to the walls.


Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

'
\

Figure 42. This image illustrates the interior of The Lookout by Architect Mary Colter and is dated circa 1914.
The similarities in function, layout and materials to Yavapai are striking. Colter employed the overhang as a
device to frame the vista and Maier appears to have borrowed this successful idea from her. Image from

Grattan, Virginia. Mary Colter, Builder Upon the Red Earth. p. 34.

APPENDIX


Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Appendix H. National Register Nomination for the Yavapai Observation Station, dated
April 13, 1990. (Due to document length, only the Statement of Significance
is included.)


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2007 , Architectural Resources Group

Figure 35. - The image shows the main support beam of the interior and the newly opened interior.
Partition wall has recently been removed in this photograph. The view is looking toward the
northwest. GCNPA Photo Number 2686. Photo by Steve Leding dated January, 1954.

APPENDIX E


ce) NC NA

Building Contents and Furnishing
TALL NARROW CONTENTS: Contents with a height-to-depth ratio greater than 3 for Immediate

Occupancy and 4 for Life Safety shall be anchored to the floor slab or adjacent walls. (Tier 2: Sec.
48.111)

Mechanical and Electrical Equipment

EMERGENCY POWER: Equipment used as part of an emergency power system shall be mounted
to maintain continued operation after an earthquake. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.12.1)

HEAVY EQUIPMENT: Equipment weighing over 20 Ib that is attached to ceilings, walls, or other
supports 4 ft. above the floor level shall be braced. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.12.2)
Piping

FIRE SUPPRESSION PIPING: Fire suppression piping shall be anchored and braced in accordance
with NFPA-13 (NFPA, 1996). This statement need not be evaluated for buildings in regions of
moderate seismicity being evaluated to the Life Safety Performance Level. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.13.1)

FLEXIBLE COUPLINGS: Fluid, gas and fire suppression piping shall have flexible couplings.
This statement need not be evaluated for buildings in regions of moderate seismicity being
evaluated to the Life Safety Performance Level. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.13.2)

Hazardous Materials Storage and Distribution

TOXIC.SUBSTANCES: Toxic and hazardous substances stored in breakable containers shall be
restrained from falling by latched doors, shelf lips, wires, or other methods. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.15.1)


dew pede ool

(row eatawens Ef.
eoenug ereuate

vats race mate

SE eeet

extern 7*

Penman

Rely mae ign Os
‘* we Pooit ante colon wo wats

ERLUSITY BASS

Se eRe Speer 0 ao ue

pare
1 pana a ae PW Hag mates)
faa
tot fen ee :
Fon porgebes yoaeeem oman
riots
errant pero ois agate wet eon
’ eee igo nscoaus
fevce «3 amp wan: Se eae
Repetentete fir . >
Peak, TL dL mtn ane er arte. “etcaue sone
(24 eens
ree i U s oe
+4 v oes
- ita =

BECTON ¢ winiDen) Ce

NeW PRB HnG ge wroow es, 4 2b 118. Ckeeae Otnery ANGLE MOUNT NG Ce piL_
hte Peary
Me Built rod 8 .
YAVAPAL MUSEUM
Gat pir [6



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group July 6, 2007

of the foremost designers to seek harmonious solutions for inserting the built environment into the natur-
al landscape. Colter’s philosophy influenced the designs of the National Park Service and had far-reach-
ing influence on subsequent development at the Grand Canyon. Her work at Hopi House (1905)
Hermit’s Rest (1914) Lookout House (1914) Phantom Ranch (1921) Desert View Watchtower (1932)
and Bright Angel Lodge (1933-35), all substantially influenced design in the national parks for more
than two decades. Colter worked closely with the National Park Service engineers and designers,
including Charles Punchard and Daniel Hull! who emulated Colter’s architectural themes with regard to
the use of wood and stone materials and the bold siting of structures (see Appendix E, Figures 38-42).
Colter’s work fused cultural influences, including the Spanish colonial, a pioneer spirit, the Arts and
Crafts, and Southwest settlement.

Grand Canyon Village and the General Plan

Ranging in date from the 1890s to the mid-1930s, the structures that comprise the Grand Canyon Village
Historic District stretch along the South Rim extending from the canyon edge into the ravines and hills
to the south. Rugged and rustic, the historic district retains a cohesive architectural character, consistent
with the early twentieth century establishment of the park. The Grand Canyon Village was first estab-
lished in the 1880s as a stop serviced by horse-drawn stagecoaches, and over time developed into a nat-
ural focal point for visitors. Shortly before the Grand Canyon officially became part of the United States
Department of the Interior’s National Park Service, a 1918 statement of policy of the National Park
Service called for planning before design and construction.) Because the Grand Canyon Village had
begun to grow organically at the end of the nineteenth century, the need for a general plan was especial-
ly pertinent. Beginning in 1918, the National Park Service hired landscape architects to plan and design
park villages, campgrounds, road and trails, and facilities and to provide advice on issues affecting the
scenery of the parks. The 1918 plan for the Grand Canyon Village attempted to impose order upon the
village and to create a more pronounced town focal point, organized around a central civic space. Later
Daniel Hull expanded upon the 1918 plan. In 1923, Hull spent two weeks at the Grand Canyon collabo-
rating with Colter, drawing up schemes that met NPS requirements and were compatible with the exist-
ing concessionaire buildings. The plan entitled the Grand Canyon Village Area was adopted and imple-
mented in 1924, calling for harmony between building and landscape and incorporating a variety of
building types: public buildings around the village plaza, a post office, the Babbitt general store and a
planned, but unrealized, museum. A museum was recommended as a high priority in the 1924 compre-

hensive plan for the village.

Although a museum would have worked well as a centrally-located visitor amenity within the Grand
Canyon Village, the purpose of the Yavapai Observation Station as a means for observing and under-
standing the Grand Canyon geology meant that is had to be located at the canyon rim. Yavapai Point, to
the east of the village, was chosen as the area’s best vantage point, a somewhat isolated but prominent

10 HisTORICAL BACKGROUND:



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 41. This photo shows The Lookout by Mary Colter in its original form. The photo was taken in 1914. The
building epitomizes Colter s approach to siting and use of local stone as a building materials, a both ideas which
were highly influential on NPS architects, especially Herbert Maier, architect of the Yavapai Observation Station.
The building, now altered, exhibits the same jagged roofline, flat overhang, materials and merging with the sur-
rounding landscape as Yavapai. Image from Grattan, Virginia. Mary Colter, Builder Upon the Red Earth. p. 33.

APPENDIX E



un ITER! ERIOR PA LE reac tocar on
Tie SCHE CU Ea)

(Ret J[ecrese rweee reer r aie ~ ao
! ol sss ae, | Sem | i i
geare } ae
: Sapte { et ee ee
a | = cemeelpy Ul Eales
i Sass. Pr F
i ive merrast exdere | ae oreeer— NC Mmm
: H saad eee
: soeaner | oan | seer veane “faye
© | eS | oti caee a
cielo *
i suas
i- AINITIN CITES mis"
. Lanse TR werd we Toma,
: Pen eee ye .
f . = Se en aaa) False Duct CHASE -SECTION
| : Regs isipiesnbalcakapoakesilonooabal
Sopeircereiloineal
Hl cores 1 ene te Se cnagice oem onatane Caras aa
1 4 MOTROTON Fo RmwTIUA epee wine Srnih OF PReviewm, ky
J reap peverenmene eae mS, i
: rags na pandrag wane ore 7 ACT Weer BUTRANcE plans CryejcoL) E
SPA : ore id :
‘ j
t

| REMOVALS
i

ipa anor errata, we ee nt pe
me peace tees teria Ato erie yo reaver onlas Prones sean

je mScponk SOS pretarwa evieine,

2 Seepua onninalg monn wir wipro € oe
i ternal stern oe eeorer entage eguuacmant:

- “enapere me sora CD roe. wrk d wana
“aarp res
woe

Prwiaresvrisnenlinnesis
411 ty wows wine Mal psipaatG bane vit

DOT YAVAP AL

' Ramos vantoa

i
Fyste e i a



Yavapai Observation Station +» Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2007 “Architectural Resources Group

ae
og oie webne pow ee

enpanaees |

Penzzamen ro AB OaBRL cna SE
__ es
Seed

precece

Le
Fiosa Biba Penn

Tepe T Sew trade

Figure 46. The image illustrates elevations, a section and a floor plan by Architect Cecil Doty for the pro-
posed construction of the Yavapai Interpretive Facility, a Mission 66 facility, dated 1966. The proposed proj-
ect was intended to be sited at Yavapai Point on the location of the existing Yavapai Observation Station, but
was never realized. GCNP Archives.

APPENDIX E


¥

wee

ELEVATION LOOKING NORTHEAST

FIG. | YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM



a

IE BOLT UR. WwOGR: BEANE
Bed LAR RUE

hs -
WEN RIM, : a BACK WEE,
: WEED PITTS tac Goat”
ba!
i i,
|
|
i
- . SECTION THRY.OPG) ©
REALS Feroe <7 ATES EAM TALTERA ATE Ty
yon “32 opcume
rs
x a . ote
i eee ° ‘ Z :
som &: :
pT Ge TE RETERIOR |S mee
7 age e

POD



|
1

BEER HE HE eee ee SB ee eee eee eel

ye

fo ~f att
i -

i | ke

ee
Ss
ly |
ioe fy

ia
PL wements |
|



= = a

Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001

Architectural Resources Group

Figure 1. This image illustrates the unique relationship between the Yavapai building and
the canyon below. Antennas and dishes on the roof were installed as part of Y2K compli-
ance but are temporary and will be moved when the building is rehabilitated. View is look-
ing down at the eastern corner of the north elevation. Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F


Yavapai | Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

july 6, 2001 “Architectural Resources Group

Figure 9. - The image shows naturalist staff of the Grand Canyon National Park in front of the
Yavapai Observation Station: (I-r) Dr. Fred Wright, Edwin McKee, Vernon Bailey, and Glen
Sturdevant. Note rough stonework in the background that is characteristic of the building. GCNPA
Photo Number 17577. Photo dated 1929.

APPENDIX E


oa ma om

PEeEeBPEEPPEPRPPPEE

Appendix B

Flag Notes / Calculations

Explanation of Analysis Procedure

Review of, Commentary on, and Modifications to FEMA 310, Section 4.2.6
Comments on Demand Capacity Ratios and "Actual" Diaphragm Loads
Calculation of Diaphragm and Shear Wall Strengths

Calculation of Seismic Coefficients

Comments on Site Geology

Calculation of Out-of-Plane Wall Loads and Capacities

Calculation of Roof Loads

Calculation of Diaphragm and Shear Wall Loads

Comments on Roof to Wall Connections

Comments on Wood Column Connections

Comments on Slope Failure and Surface Fault Rupture

Comments on Glazing

es +5—— — es


m= m= ee ee

Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2002 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 15. This photo shows the newly constructed Yavapai Observation Station before alterations to add a
serrated line to the parapet. View is of the south and east elevations. The photo is dated September 13,
1930. GCNPA Photo Number 16791.

APPENDIX E


ee

In ONAN wa
CED ekuz ae

oh eae h

: cour tas
PLAN yea se Hho

’

whee mea? le =

swe re a Re

z

2:9.

a

| 33.8 by

SECTION TARG 29g,
2 Fee Mato"

(i WOH BUT UR wasd. wean.
yaa Race BEAM. 4 pes ZeiM'n IH

920-7

we 7 AP Stee ts use:

+ PORE BEAM, UTES E,

at

FoR BT omEUE » eee ane BEAN UBT,

Lavoe Fis
in a teem € Koen

peas, otras, #7

rare)



Yavapai Observation Station » Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

pose, bringing together regional flora and continuing the informative exhibits from the interior, but the
gardens and paths became an integral part of the building's design and expression.

Ancillary Structures

When the building was completed in 1928 it did not contain a restroom facility. A comfort station was
added as an outbuilding at the time of the original construction. In 1959, the original comfort station
was removed and replaced with a new separate building (see Appendix E, Figure 27).

Herbert C. Maier, Architect

Architect Herbert C. Maier had a long career in Park Service construction and management, but began
his association with the Park Service designing innovative museums. He eventually played a central
role in promoting NPS design as the spokesman on the subject of parks structures.

Maier studied architecture at the University of California at Berkeley. In 1923, he worked for Ansel
Hall and the Western Museum Laboratory at the University of California and then became the Executive
Agent and Architect for the American Association of Museums. It was during this period that he
designed the Yosemite, Grand Canyon, and Yellowstone museums for the National Park Service.

Maier became District Officer for the National Park Service Emergency Conservation Work Program in
1933. He later became Associate Regional Director for the Southwest and then Western Regional Office
of the National Park Service. Maier received the Distinguished Service Award in 1961 for his contribu-
tions to park architecture. Maier’s buildings set the standards for NPS rustic architecture in national and
state parks.

Maier’s museums were unusual in that they incorporated elements common to the residential building
type, the bungalow, including battered stonework, clipped gables, and low horizontal lines, However, he
left many materials in a natural condition that reflected the scale and roughness of the surrounding land-
scape. His buildings responded to their sites in their low shapes and appropriately fit the contours of the
site. Maier’s buildings were perfect solutions for an architecture appropriate to the outdoors: informal
through their use of natural materials and horizontal lines, but fused with a strength of design.!7

Herbert Maier admired Mary Colter and had a special interest in her ability to position buildings on the
edge of natural canyons, and to successfully blend native stone buildings with natural rock formations.
Maier’s respect for Colter’s work and anthropological interest in the indigenous architecture of the
Southwestern Native Americans is evident in his design of Yavapai.

In 1935, he addressed the conference of state park officials, instructing them in principles of site selec-

tion, harmonizing design, and other aspects of construction. Many of Maier’s ideas were incorporated
into the three-volume work Park Structures and Facilities edited by Ohio architect and advisor, Albert

Historical BackGRouno =. 15



EHA)

ENGINEERS

Yavapai Observation Station Structural Assessment
Grand Canyon National Park October 31, 2000

Yavapai Museum

Existing Conditions

The Yavapai Museum was built in approximately 1928. The building is a single story structure with a
small storage room, accessible only from the cliff side, below the main floor. The roof is flat with a tar
and gravel topping. A portion of an interior bearing wall was removed in 1953 and replaced with a beam
and column support system. The available drawings of the building depict only a very limited portion of
the structural system.

The storage room appears to occur in a natural pocket in the rock face of the cliff. Rather than infilling
the pocket in the rock below, the main floor was framed above the pocket and the space was closed off
with a door at the exterior. The remainder of the main floor is a concrete slab-on-grade.

The building consists of mortared, solid stone masonry bearing walls at the perimeter and one interior,
solid stone masonry bearing wall, which originally separated the open-air observation deck from interior
space. The stone appears to have been quarried, with relatively large individual pieces. Over the smaller
window and door openings, longer, single-piece stones were placed as lintels. The walls at the cliff edge
appear to have been constructed on top of the existing rock, which acts as the foundation of the building.
In several locations around the perimeter, stones are noticeably missing from the walls. These gaps occur
primarily near the base of the walls.

At some time after the observation deck was enclosed, the original door opening in the interior stone
masonry wall was enlarged to create a 24-foot clear span opening. The wall support was replaced with
two parallel beams and two sets of columns at each end. Although the beams and columns are
architecturally enclosed, an available drawing shows two 6x8 wood columns at 12” on center at each end.
The columns support two beams, side by side. The drawing shows options of either built-up 4-2x14
wood beams or W14x30 steel beams.

Four round timber columns, approximately 12”, in rough diameter, provide roof support in the
observation deck area. There appear to be two.square concrete columns, supporting a concrete beam, in
the partition wall between the gift shop and park service office space. The concrete columns seem to be a
later addition to the building, although the time period of the installation and their purpose is not readily
discernable.

The roof framing members, as well as the large window lintel members, are round timbers. All round
timber members in the building are rough finished. Where the timbers bear directly on the stone masonry
walls, most rest in partial grout beds and usually protrude through the thickness of the wall. Where
timbers bear on other timbers, the upper timbers are usually either notched or rest in wood bearing
cradles. At the roof corner conditions, where members meet at 45-degree angles, nailed connections are
visible. The timber joists support straight sheathing at the roof.


New Materials or Configurations of Materials

Useable Values “7

Horizontal Plywood sheathing applied directly over existing 675 lb/ft

Diaphragms | straight sheathing with ends of plywood sheets
bearing on joists or rafters and edges of plywood
located on center of individual sheathing boards,

Cross Walls | Plywood sheathing applied directly over wood studs; | The value specified in the 1988
no value should be given to plywood applied over NEHRP Recommended Provisions
existing plaster or wood sheathing.

Drywall or plaster applied directly over wood studs The value specified in the 1988
NEHRP Recommended Provisions

Drywall or plaster applied to sheathing over existing | 50 percent of the value specified

wood studs, in the 1988 NEHRP
Recommended Provisions ©

Tension Bolts extending entirely through unreinforced 5,400 Ib/bolt

Bolts masonry wall secured with bearing plates on far side
of a three-wythe minimum wall with at least 30 2,700 Ib for two-wythe walls
square inches of area. °°

Shear Bolts | Bolts embedded a minimum of 8 inches into The value for plain masonry
unreinforced masonry walls; bolts should be specified for solid masonry in the
centered on 2-1/2 inch diameter holes with dry-pack | 1988 NEHRP Recommended
or nonshrink grout around the circumference of the | Provisions; no value larger than
bolt. those given for 3/4 inch bolts

should be used.

Combined Through Bolts--Bolts meeting the requirements for | Tension--same as for tension bolts

Tension and | shear and for tension Shear--same as for shear bolts

Shear Bolts | bolts, 45°
Embedded Bolts--Bolts extending to the exterior Tension--3,600 Ib/bolt
face of the wall with a 2-1/2 inch round plate under | Shear--same as for shear bolts
the head and drilled at an angle of 22-1/2 degrees
to the horizontal; installed as specified for shear
bolts, ¢

Infilled Reinforced masonry infilled openings in existing Same as values specified for

Walls unreinforced masonry walls; provide keys or dowels | unreinforced masonry walls
to match reinforcing.

Reinforced Masonry piers and walls reinforced per the 1988 The value specified in the 1988

Masonry NEHRP Recommended Provisions. NEHRP Recommended Provisions

Reinforced | Concrete footings, walls, and piers reinforced as The value specified in the 1988

Concrete specified in the 1988 NEHRP Recommended NEHRP Recommended Provisions

Provisions and designed for tributary loads.

FEMA 178 Table C6.1.1B

Fig. 10: STRENGTH VALUES FOR NEW MATERIALS
USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH EXISTING CONSTRUCTION



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 43. This image depicts Herbert C. Maier, architect of the Yavapai Observation Station, at
the time of the building's construction. Photo dated 1928. Image from: Lewis, Ralph H. Museum

Curatorship in the National Park Service, 1904-1982. Washington, D.C.: NPS, 1993.

APPENDIX E


Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report » Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group July 6, 2002

of the Yavapai Observation Station was modified in 1992 and has served primarily as a bookstore since
then.

The Yavapai Observation Station is included on the NPS List of Classified Structures and was nominat-
ed to the National Register of Historic Places in 1990. The significance of the Yavapai Observation
Station in relation to its role in the development of interpretive structures within the park system is such
that it may be eligible as a National Historic Landmark.

National Register of Historic Places Boundary

The boundary of the Yavapai Observation Station historic property encompasses a perimeter 25 feet
around the building. It also includes a corridor that follows the rim for 130 feet to the west (encompass-
ing two log benches), 25 feet to the south and returns to the building perimeter. A second corridor fol-
lows the rim for 240 feet to the east (encompassing three log benches, the stone wall and vista point), 25
feet to the south and retums to the building perimeter.

Evaluation Of Integrity / Condition

Eligibility for the National Register hinges on both significance and historic and architectural integrity.
Integrity is the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of
characteristics that existed during the resources period of significance. Integrity involves several aspects
including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. These aspects
closely relate to the resource's significance and must be primarily intact for eligibility. Integrity must
also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is eligible for inclusion in

the National Register.

The Yavapai Observation Station is not in a dilapidated state, but the building has acquired certain fea-
tures over time that detract from its richness, such as: tinted single-pane windows on the north eleva-
tion, visually heavy window frames, an interior altered in plan and function, excess and obsolete wiring
visible on the exterior, accumulated equipment on the rooftop, uninspired landscaping, worn paving
stones and steps, and weathered wood benches. Decisions related to maintenance have, in general, not
been wholly destructive, but have had a somewhat detrimental effect over time. Overall the exterior of
the Yavapai Observation Station retains a high level of integrity.

The location of the Yavapai Observation Station has remained unchanged since construction; the build-
ing sits in its original footprint and the surrounding natural environment is largely as it was at the time
of construction. No other structures impinge on the building. The most significant exterior change to
the building is the loss of the life-zone gardens and landscaping which has diminished the integrity of

the setting. The installation of tinted single-pane windows, visually heavy window frames, and the

20. SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY EVALUATION



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report » Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Appendix C. _ Plans Illustrating Primary and Secondary Spaces of Significance within the
Building, dated April 13, 2001.


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 39. This image illustrates the exterior of Mary Colter ’s Hermits Rest, 1914. Hermits Rest was
designed to look like a dwelling constructed with local materials by an untrained frontiersman. The exterior
was meant to resemble a haphazard jumble and its roofline inspired the jagged profile at Yavapai. Image
from Grattan, Virginia. Mary Colter, Builder Upon the Red Earth. p. 28

APPENDIX E


nee SEU Re ES SSP RS SS SES SS ES SS

BASEMENT, SHOWING CONTINUING CRACK AND WOODEN WEDGES

FIG. 16 YAVAPAI POINT MUSEUM



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon Nationa! Park

July 6, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

Teviewed for compliance with the GMP, NEPA, Section 106 of the NHPA, and all applicable codes and
standards required by law and NPS policy. The building codes used for analysis include the 1997
Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1997 Uniform Code for Building Conservation (UCBC), and Uniform
Federal Accessibility Standards.

The treatments recommended in this report will have effects on the cultural resource; however, it is
intended that the treatments will result in benefits giving a higher level of preservation of the resource
than is now provided. Some proposed work will include actions that could be considered to have nega-
tive effects. One of the most important design criteria, however, is that the modifications be designed to
minimize these effects, both physically and visually. Those negative effects will be mitigated by provid-
ing an improved environment for the preservation of the building and the safety of its users. Further
evaluation will be necessary when the recommendations are developed to a level of design detail specif-
ic enough to definitively identify specific building fabric impacts.

Accessibility
With the exception of buckling, irregular asphalt pavement along the accessible path of travel, the build-
ing meets all accessibility requirements. Exterior paving should be replaced to provide a smooth, code-

compliant surface.

Human Safety (Egress)

Because the building is one story, without any ramps or stairs (the one set of stone steps at the south side
of the building leads to an inoperable door), it meets most code-mandated egress requirements. The one
exception is the height and swing direction of a few of the exit doors, issues that can be exempted with
use of the UCBC (refer to the code analysis section of this document for further discussion).

Fire and Lightning Protection

The building is not equipped with a fire detection or sprinkler system. The installation of neither system
is required by code, but it is NPS policy to sprinkle historic buildings when they are rehabilitated.
According to NPS Director’s Order 50B, section 12, article 12.2.A.6, “ ... buildings undergoing renova-
tion ... will have automatic sprinkler system protection and automatic fire detection”. Depending on the
degree of restoration of interior finishes, sprinkler pipes may be concealed above the ceiling or the use
of a pressurized water tank or other type of automatic suppression may be considered. A dry pipe sys-
tem is recommended due to the potential for pipe freezing. Due to the absence of an attic or soffit
space, exposed pipes will have to be run throughout the building. The building has been hit by lightning
several times. Due to this, six lighting rods are currently extant at the roof. All rods should be inspect-
ed and reinstalled once the building is reroofed.

TREATMENT AND USE 35



7 . ; M,

(ts =

LAT Pom hie

oTy an: Degengrey wee
. aR He. @ ORM ot
sVbane Bethe

rains carrer -Sakidovi Pare



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 16. This image illustrates a severely deteriorated log end on the south side of the building.
Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F

|

|


Yavapai Observation Station . * Historic Structure Report « . Grand c nyon National Park

‘Architectural Resources Group “July 6, 2001

H. Good, and published as a comprehensive statement of NPS design principles. Today, Maier’s speech
remains the definitive and most detailed explanation of park service design of the 1920s and ‘30s, illus-
trating practical and aesthetic principles that had evolved out of the formative years of NPS landscape
design. In his speech, Maier outlined the basic tenets of park design, emphasizing schemes that were
unique yet unified by principle. Experimentation was encouraged, as was innovation, refinement and
above all, a steadfast search for sensible, simple, and pragmatic solutions. Maier defined six simple
measures for making structures inconspicuous:

* screening ~ the siting of structures behind existing plant material
or in a secluded nook in the terrain;
* the use of indigenous and native materials;
* adaptation of indigenous or frontier methods of construction;
* construction of buildings with low silhouettes and horizontal lines;
* avoidance of right angles and straight lines; and,
* elimination of the lines of demarcation between nature and built structures.

All six of these principles were fully and successfully incorporated into the design of the Yavapai Point
Museum.

According to Linda Flint McClelland in Building the National Parks, Maier’s greatest contribution to
park design was his mastery of rockwork, assimilating both the landscape gardener’s emphasis on natu-
ralism, and the architect’s vision of the material’s construction potential. He recommended the use of
naturalistic and natural rockwork to eliminate lines of demarcation:

One of the principal phases of park development which may be an indicator of appreci-
ation of good installations is the rockworking in general. The rock selected should first
of all be proper in scale, that is the average size of the rocks employed should be suffi-
ciently large to justify the use of masonry. In rockwork it is better, due to the scale of
the nearby natural features, to oversize rather than undersize. Whether in Tetaining
walls or in buildings, or bridges, it is usually better to employ rough rockwork or rub-
ble, if properly done, than cut stone, and the weather faces of the rock should, of
course, be exposed. Rock should be selected for its color, and for the lichens and moss-
es that abound on its surface as well as its hardness.

Maier stressed the importance of all elevations in park buildings because the public would view and
approach these buildings from various directions, a particular concern at the very exposed site of
Yavapai Point.

Yavapai Design Altered

The Yavapai Observation Station’s first change soon after construction (see Appendix E, Figures 15,
21-22). In 1930, the parapet’s straight roofline was altered to achieve a more serrated and naturalistic
profile. The buidling remained as it was for two decades until 1953, when‘alterations were made to

16 HistoricaL BACKGROUND


Yavapai Observation Sta + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 5. This photo shows the western elevation of the Yavapai Observation Station. The overhanging roof
was a more dramatic defining feature before alteration. Photo dated June, 1929. Photographer George Grant.
GCNPA Photo Number 9766.

APPENDIX E



3.9.1

Basic Nonstructural Component Checklist

This Basic Nonstructural Component Checklist shall be completed when required by Table 3-2.

Each of the evaluation statements on this checklist shall be marked compliant (C), non-compliant (NC), or
not applicable (N/A) for a Tier 1 Evaluation. Compliant statements identify issues that are acceptable
according to the criteria of this Handbook, while non-compliant statements identify issues that require

further investigation. Certain statements may not apply to the buildings being evaluated. For non-compliant

evaluation statements, the design professional may choose to conduct further investigation using the
corresponding Tier 2 evaluation procedure; the section numbers in parentheses following each evaluation

statement correspond to Tier 2 evaluation procedures.

io)
Zz
fo)

©® ©

fo}
Zz
a

a
Zz
4

@)

N/A

® ©

® © ©

Partitions

UNREINFORCED MASONRY: Unreinforced masonry or hollow clay tile partitions shall be
braced at a spacing of equal to or less than 10 feet in regions of low and moderate seismicity and 6
feet in regions of high seismicity. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.1.1)

Ceiling Systems

INTEGRATED CEILINGS: Integrated suspended ceilings at exits and corridors or weighing more
than 2 ib/ft? shall be Jateraily restrained with a minimum of 4 diagonal wires or rigid members
attached to the structure above at a spacing of equal to or less than 12 ft. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.2.1)

LAY-IN TILES: Lay-in tiles used in ceiling panels located at exitways and corridors shall be
secured with clips, (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.2.2)

SUPPORT: The integrated suspended ceiling system shall not be used to laterally support the tops
of gypsum board, masonry, or hollow clay tile partitions. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.2.3)

SUSPENDED LATH AND PLASTER: Ceilings consisting of suspended lath and plaster or
gypsum board shall be attached for each 10 square feet of area. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.2.4)

Light Fixtures

INDEPENDENT SUPPORT: Light fixtures in suspended grid ceilings shall be supported
independently of the ceiling suspension system by a minimum of two wires at diagonally opposite
comers of the fixtures. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.3.1)

EMERGENCY LIGHTING: Emergency lighting shall be anchored or braced to prevent falling or
swaying during an earthquake, (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.3.2)

Cladding and Glazing

CLADDING ANCHORS: Cladding components weighing more than 10 psf shall be anchored to
the exterior wall framing at a spacing equal to or less than 6 ft. for Life Safety and 4 ft. for
Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.4.1)

CLADDING ISOLATION: For moment frame buildings of steel or concrete, panel connections
shall be detailed to accommodate a drift ratio of 0.02 for Life Safety and 0.01 for Immediate
Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.4.2)

MULITSTORY PANELS: For multistory panels attached at each floor fevel, the panels and
connections shall be able to accommodate a drift ratio of 0.02 for Life Safety and 0.01 for
Immediate Occupancy. (Tier 2: Sec. 4.8.4.3)


Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001

Architectural Resources Group

Figure 13. This image illustrates the landscaping and paving leading to the west
side of the building. Benches are in poor condition. Photo dated May, 2000.

APPENDIX F


Yavapai Observation Station ° Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2001 _ Architectural Resources Group

Figure 58. - The image shows the exterior of the north elevation of the Yavapai Observation
Station from below the catwalk. Photo dated February, 1989 by Jacilee Wray.

APPENDIX E


AN Continued:

Beameval was used to calculate the shears and reactions developed by this loading, (see & ).

Maximum shear in the Terrace roof, 1,506 Ibs, occurs just north of the north most supports where the
diaphragm is 42 feet deep..

V := 1506 Max. diaphragm shear load, see &. (Ibs).
Vv
v= D v = 35.857 Max diaphragm shear stress (Ibs/ft).

Maximum shear in the Exhibition Hall roof, 1,837 Ibs, occurs just south of the north wall where the
diaphragm is 40 feet deep..

V := 1837 Max. diaphragm shear load, see &, (Ibs).
vis = v = 45.925 Max diaphragm shear stress (Ibs/ft).

The maximum diaphragm shear stresses are well below the allowable diaphragm shear stresses
(see uN ). Thus the diaphragms are adequate.

The maximum reaction occurs at the north most supports where 3,045 labs is reacted by two masonry
columns. As all other reactions are lower, and all other shear walls are longer, these are obviously the
critical "shear walls" in this structure.

These columns are roughly 4' wide and 3' deep. With this loading they gre being loaded in their weak
direction. This loading adds to the "out-of-plane" loading calculated in .

P:= as P= 1522.5 Load on one column from diaphragm (Ibs).

hw :=7 Height of column from base to bearing of log beam (ft).

wie4 Width of column perpendicular to loadirig (ft).

m:= 17343 Allowable moment at base of column (ft-Ibs/ft), see &.

me := 2260 Moment at base due to self weight inertial loads (ft-Ibs/ft), see QB.

M := (m- mc)-w M = 60332 Total remaining moment capacity of column (ft-lbs).
Md = 10658 —_‘ Total base moment resulting from diaphragm load (ft-lbs).
Shear in column due to self weight inertial loads (psi), see a.
v = 2.381 Total shear stress in column (psi).
The maximum column bending moment, 10,658 ft-lbs, is well below the allowable value of 60,332
ft-lbs. In addition, the column shear stress, 2.4 psi, is below the allowable shear stress, 10 psi.

Therefore, the column is adequate as a shear wall. As this column was identified as the critical
shear wall in this structure, all other shear walls may be assumed to be adequate.

cr


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

july 6. 2007 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 60. - The image illustrates an aerial view of the Yavapai Observation Station. Photo taken
by Greg Probst dated May 1998.

APPENDIX &


L\ Continued:

Equation 4-19 (FEMA 310) and C-9 (FEMA 178)
The final equation to be reviewed is equation 4-19 from FEMA 310:

Va= 15x Sp XC, x Wy 4-19
This equation is a calculation of the required capacity of the shear connectors between the diaphragm
and the shear wall. It is obvious that this value should be related to the load in the diaphragm itself.
In fact it is: The load in the diaphragm is given by the numerator of equation 4-15:

=2.5 x Sp, x Wy Numerator of 4-15
And equation 4-19 is simply 60% (to account for any accidental eccentricity) of this total load
applied to one shear wall, multiplied by a factor which, presumably, accounts for energy dissipation

in different types of diaphragms.

Clearly, the same modifications made to equation 4-15 must be made to equation 4-19 to maintain
consistency. This results in:

Vy = 0.6 x S, x C, x Wy 4-19 (revised)
A similar modification would be made to FEMA 178 equation C-9, giving:

V=15xA, xC,x Wy 4-19

Material Strengths:

A final note should be made regarding the commentary at the beginning of Chapter 4 of FEMA 310.
There it states: "The procedures for evaluating potential deficiencies have been completely revised
from FEMA 178. .. . The lateral forces related to each of these approaches is radically different and
cannot be directly compared."
As we have seen above, this is not the case with the provisions for unreinforced masonry. The
formulas and procedure have been taken directly from Appendix C of FEMA 178 with modifications

of terminology only. Review of selected points on the maps (in regions of relatively uniform ground
motion) show:

A, (FEMA 178) = S, (USGS 1997)
2.5 x A, (FEMA 178) = S, (USGS 1997)

Thus similar, if not identical seismic coefficients are calculated.


Yavapai Observation Station . Historic Structure Report . Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group “July 6, 2001

The Yavapai Observation Station currently serves as a bookstore as much as a means for viewing the
canyon. The building is not in a dilapidated state, but has been subject to treatment that has, over time,
diminished its richness. Decisions related to maintenance, use, and landscaping have, in general, not
been wholly destructive but have detracted from the building’s original expression. Although the build-
ing today is commonly referred to as the Yavapai Observation Station, it does not, despite the presence
of displays and exhibits, immediately convey a museum quality. Rather, the building’s interior imparts a

distinct sense of commerce.

In subtle ways, key aspects of Maier’s design intent are no longer present. When constructed the open
observation terrace exuded a feeling of outdoorsy ruggedness and elevated airiness over the canyon rim.
The closeness, presence, and immediacy of the canyon’s grandeur below the building’s perch lent an
almost daring quality to the visitor experience. The first-hand viewing experience of the canyon is no
longer the focus. The principal goal of the planned work is to restore and preserve the structure to its
original use as a geological interpretive facility. To encounter the Grand Canyon from the open-air per-
spective is integral to reviving the building’s spirit and integrity.

The 1999 NPS task directive identified the parameters of the rehabilitation scheme for the Yavapai Point
Museum with the principal goal as the retum of the structure to its original integrity and purpose as a
geological interpretive facility. Other design and construction work planned includes:

* the removal and replacement of the roofing system with new flashing, drains, and scuppers;
* repair and replacement of deteriorated vigas;

° tuckpointing to native stone masonry;

* repair to exterior doors including replacement hardware and weatherproofin ing;

* restoration and repair to windows and openings;

* repainting of interior and exterior trim and woodwork,

* — restoration of original concrete floors and removal of carpets;

* upgrade of electrical, HVAC, and fire sprinkler systems;

+ landscaping and signage; and,

* re-design and installation of interpretive / educational exhibits.

In addition to the task directive, users of the building and park administrators have expressed the need to
upgrade mechanical, electrical, and telecommunications systems.

The information presented herein provides the basis for evaluating future alterations that may be pro-
posed for the Yavapai Observation Station and will aid in the rehabilitation and stabilization of this sig-
nificant park structure. As this building has been well-documented in the past for National Register eli-
gibility and as a significant project within the portfolio of Herbert Maier, no significant new information
tegarding the architectural significance of the building has been found. The project team has developed

2 Executive SuMMaRY



Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2007 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 37. - The image shows the Yavapai Observation Station in a winterscape. Note paths to the
building are blocked with snow. The view is looking north toward the south elevation. Note snow
built up on exposed log ends. GCNPA Photo’ Number 3246. Photo dated January, 1957.

APPENDIX E


Yavapai Observation Station * Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

Architectural Resources Group July 6, 2001

James, George Wharton. Arizona: The Wonderland. Boston: The Page Company, 1917.
James, George Wharton. Grand Canyon and How to See It. Boston: Little Brown & Company, 1910

Lewis, Ralph H. Museum Curatorship in the National Park Service, 1904-1982. Washington, D.C.:
NPS, 1993.

Madrid, Christine L. The Mission 66 Visitor Centers 1956-1966: Early Modern Architecture in the
National Park Service. Master’s Thesis University of Virginia, School of Architecture, May 1998.

Manns, Timothy and Elizabeth Dillon Smith. A Guide to the Grand Canyon Village Historic District.
Grand Canyon Natural History Association, no date.

Mather, Stephen T. Progress in the Development of the National Parks. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1916.

McClelland, Linda Flint. Building the National Parks: Historic Landscape Design and Construction.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1998.

McClelland, Linda Flint. “Thomas Chalmers Vint.” in Pioneers of American Landscape Design: An
Annotated Bibliography. edited by Charles A. Bimbaum. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service,
1995.

Merk, Frederick. History of Westward Movement. 1978.

Merriam, John C. Memo Regarding the Use of Yavapai Station. Park Records. 1931.

Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973.

Newton, Norman T. Design on the Land: The Development of Landscape Architecture. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1971.

Olmsted, Frederick Law, Sr. “The Distinction between National Parks and National Forests.”
Landscape Architecture 6, no. 3 (1916): 115-16.

Pray, James Sturgis with Robert B. Marshall. “The American Society of Landscape Architects and Our
National Parks.” Landscape Architecture 6, no. 3 (1916).

Rifkind, Carole. A Field Guide to American Architecture. New York: The New American Library,
1980.

Shellbach, Louis. Memo for the Superintendent Regarding Condition of the Telescopes at Yavapai
Station, September 14, 1944.

Soulliere, L. Architecture in the Parks, National Historic Landmark Theme Study, November, 1986.

Swain, Donald C. Wilderness Defender: Horace M. Albright and Conservation. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1970.

40 BIBLIOGRAPHY

eee eee eee eee


Building Assessment Report

Yavapai Museum
Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

3: Domestic Water Line

Flack + Kurtz
Ref. No.: $00.02260.00
November 7, 2000

4: Smoke Detector

Site Photos

|


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report * Grand Canyon National Park

July 6, 2007 ; Architectural Resources Group

Figure 8. This image illustrates the lower northern side of the Yavapai exterior.
Photo dated March, 2000.

APPENDIX F

nage mm EE a

=


Yavapai Observation Station + Historic Structure Report + Grand Canyon National Park

july 6, 2001 Architectural Resources Group

Figure 44. This image illustrates Herbert Maier ’s original schemes for the Yavapai Observation Station, dated
1927. Mater’s primary concern with siting, the landscape and the way the building is perceived from a distance
are evident in his drawings, as is the influence of Mary Colter. GCNP Archives.

APPENDIX E



Appendix A. Existing Conditions Drawings of Plans, Elevations, and Section, by
Architectural Resources Group, dated April 13, 2001.