Performance audit, State Parks Board

              PERFORMANCE AUDIT
STATE PARKS BOARD
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
January 1987
87- 1
STATE OF ARIZONA
DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
January 12, 1987
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Evan Mecham, Governor
Don Charpio, Director
State Parks Board
Elizabeth A. Drake, Chairman
State Parks Board
Transmitted herewith i s a report of the Auditor General, A
Performance Audit of the State Parks Board. This report is in
response to the July 26, 1985 resolution of the Joint Legislative
Oversight Committee.
This report addresses several deticiencies i n the State Parks s y s t e ~
and the State Parks Board statutes. We found that the growth ot the
current parks system has not kept up w i t h Arizona's dramatic
population growth. The system i s not only small , h u t some exi sting
parks are not sites of statewide i~ portartce that ~! ould justif. y their
designations as state parks, while other important sites are not
state parks. To improve the parks system, the Parks Board should
develop information which noulc help the Board improve park site
selection, including information about user needs and future
population needs. The Boarc should a1 so develop a long- range park
system plan based on such intormation. In addition, the Board
should idznti fy potential funding sources to suppl event General Fund
appropriations to facil i tate expans1 on and development of the parks
system. To allow the Board to more effectively manage i t s land, the
Legislature should consider providing statutory authority to the
Board to dispose of land.
Ply staff and I will be pleased t o discuss or clarify items in the
report.
Respectful 1y submitted,
~ d u u fs?. \! orton
Awdi tor General
Staff : Wi 11 i am Thornson
Mark Fl eming
Jayne M. Hewitt
Vivian A. Look
Mark J. Syracuse
Tamra L. Adams
2700 NORTt- 1 CENTRAL AVE. @ SUITE 700 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 ( 602) 255- 4385
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
Arizona State Parks Board in response to a July 26, 1985, resolution of
the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. This performance audit was
conducted as part of the Sunset Review set forth in Arizona Revised
Statutes ( A. R. S. ) SS41- 2351 through 41 - 2379.
The State Parks Board was established by the Legislature in 1957. The
Board manages 23 state parks, including eight historic parks. The State
Parks Board ( SPB) i s also responsible for the State Historic Preservation
Program, the Natural Areas Program and the State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Pl an.
The Arizona State Parks S- v stem Is Too Small
70 Meet The Needs Of A Rapidly Growing Population
( see pages 13 through 201
Arizona's state parks system is not large enough to meet the needs of a
growing state. Arizona's population has increased dramatical ly during the
past 30 years, b u t the state parks system has grown slowly and the amount
of parkland has actually declined relative to the s t a t e ' s population. The
state parks system is also one of the smallest in the United States.
Arizona ranks 49th in the number of state parks - only Delaware has fewer
state parks. Arizona ranks 45th in total state park acreage and only
three states have less park acreage per 1,000 people than Arizona. Even
some smaller states such as Maryland, Vermont and Connecticut have five to
more than six times more acreage than Arizona. The state parks system i s
small, in part because previous Boards did not actively pursue parks
system expansion and development. Previous Boards did not anticipate
needs that would be generated by future population growth nor did they
actively attempt to expand the system.
The Arizona State Parks System Does Not Adequately
Serve The Pubiic ( see pages 2i through 28j
The state parks system does not adequately serve the public. The system
includes some parks that are not of statewide or regional significance.
As a result, some parks have low visitation, such as McFarland which
averages 12 visitors per day. Other parks, such as Roper Lake, reportedly
attract only local visitors. Also, the state parks system does not
incl ude some signi ficant sites that are considered outstanding potential
park sites. In addition, SPB has only one park primarily intended to
protect outstanding natural resources, even though more than 50 of 125
significant natural sites have been identified as endangered and Arizona
residents consider conserving natural and scenic resources the most
important Board mandate.
The Board has not developed a system responsive to pub1 ic needs because it
has inadequate data for ranking potential park sites. SPB has recently
completed some studies b u t i t s t i l l lacks a prioritized inventory of
potential historic, recreation and natural sites because information has
been col lected piecemeal. SPB a1 so has incomplete park user information.
The State Parks Board Needs To Pursue Additional
Fundi nq Sources t'or Acaui ri nq And Devel o. p i nq-
State Park Resources ( see pages 29 through 35)
The State Parks Board should pursue funding sources in addition to the
General Fund for financing the expansion of the state parks system.
General Fund appropriations may be inadequate to meet the high costs of
land acquisition and site development. For example, one 43- acre site
reportedly required a $ 3.76 mil 1 ion General Fund appropriation in fiscal
year 1985- 86. However, only 13 percent of Board requests for land,
building and improvement projects were funded between fiscal years 1983
and 1987.
A combination of funding sources such as those used by other states could
provide ~ rizona's state parks system with acquisition and devel opment
funds. The results of a recent survey indicate that Arizonans would
support additional funding methods for state parks, if additional funding
were necessary, such as: 1 ) earmarking funds for parks from lottery
revenues ( 87 percent), 2) allowing taxpayers t o contribute all or a
portion of their tax refund t o s t a t e parks ( 82 percent), and 3) increasing
user fees ( 51 percent).
State Parks Planning Should Be
Strengthened ( see pages 3/ through 42)
The Parks Board should improve parks system planning. The Parks Board
made minimal planning efforts until 1980, when the State Parks Plan was
published. However, that plan is inadequate because i t lacks essential
information for decision- making and i s now o u t of date. For example, the
plan is not based on a needs assessment or user data. The plan i s a1 so
too general to guide future park selection and acquisition. Without an
adequate plan, the Board 1 acks the basis for systematical ly acquiring
desirable sites, rejecting inappropriate park s i t e s , and informing
legislators and other interested groups about the future of the state
parks system.
The Board should develop a long- term parks system plan, which includes
specific goals and objectives and i s based on studies of projected
population needs, user needs and evaluations, and a prioritized inventory
of potential park sites. The Board should also evaluate the adequacy and
organization of i t s current pl anni ng resources.
Statutory Changes Are Needed To Allow
The Parks Board To tffectively Manage
Its Land ( see page 43)
The State Parks Board currently lacks authority to dispose of unneeded
land. Without such authority , the Board cannot exchange properties on the
periphery of a park for privately owned land within a park, nor i s the
Board able to dispose of sites that no longer meet the state's needs.
Authority to dispose of sites is an accepted land management practice. A t
least one other state parks agency has this authority. Arizona state
agencies that manage or deal with land, such as the State Land Department
and the Arizona Department of Transportation, also have this authority.
The Legislature should consider amending A. R. S. $ 41.51 1.05 to a1 1 ow the
State Parks Board to dispose of lands no longer needed for the parks
system and t o t r a d e unwanted parklands t c acccmplish Beard g o ~ l s .
t n n ! r nr rnrl- rrri- rr
IHDLL Ur LUI\ I LI\ I3
Page
1
7
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUNSETFACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING I: THE ARIZONA STATE PARKS SYSTEP! IS TOO SMALL
TO MEET THE NEEDS OF A RAPIDLY GROWING POPULATION. . . . . . . .
System Has Not Kept
Up With Population Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~ r i z o n a ' s System I s Smaller
Than Other State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Previous Boards Did Not Actively Pursue
Parks System Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING 11: THE ARIZONA STATE PARKS SYSTEM DOES NOT ADEQUATELY SERVE THE PUBLIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Parks System I n c l udes Inappropriate S i t e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Some Important Sites Are Not State Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The State Parks Board Does Not Have A Basis For Establishing P r i o r i t i e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING 111: THE STATE PARKS BOARD NEEDS TO PURSUE ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR ACQUIRING AND DEVELOPING STATE PARK RESOURCES. . . . 29
Acquisition And Devel opment Funds May Not Be Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Additional Funding Sources
Should Be Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FINDING IV: STATE PARKS PLANNING SHOULD BE STRENGTHENED . . . . . . 3 7
Parks Board Does Not Have
An Adequate Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Board Needs To Develop
A S t a t e Parks Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2
FINDING V: STATUTORY CHANGES ARE NEEDED TO ALLOW THE
PARKS BOARD TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE ITS LAND . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3
OTHER PERTINENT INFORI- IATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
AREAS FOR FURTHER AUDIT WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7
A G E N C Y K E S P O N S E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
APPENDIX
S t a t e Parks Study
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1 - Arizona State Park Revenues From Fees
Fiscal Year 1985- 86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
TABLE 2 - State Parks Board Expenditures
Fi scal Years 1985 Through 1987 ( unaudited) . . . . . . . . 5
TABLE 3 - Comparison Of Selected Measures
Of Federal Holdings And Parks System
Size Between Arizona And Other Western States. . . . . . . 17
TABLE 4 - Contribution Of State Parks To The State's
General Economy ( unaudited) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4
TABLE 5 - Public Awareness Of
Arizona State Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - Arizona State Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FIGURE 2 - State Park Acreage
Per 1,000 Persons - 1965 To Present . . . . . . . . . . . 14
FIGURE 3 - LB& I Funds Requested And Received
Fiscal Years 1983 Through 1987 ( unaudited). . . . . . . . 30
FIGURE 4 - Distribution Of General Appropriations Bi 11
By Function Of Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
Arizona State Parks Board. This audit was conducted in response to a July
26, 1985, resol uti on of the Joint Legi sl ati ve Oversi g h t Commi ttee. Thi s
performance audit was conducted as part of the Sunset Review set forth in
Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S. ) $ 541 - 2351 through 41 - 2379.
Historv And Pur~ ose Of Arizona State Parks Board
The Arizona State Parks Board ( SPB) was established by the Legislature in
1957. Attempts to create a Parks Board began in the early 1 9 5 0 ~ w~ he n
1 egi sl ators introduced several b i 11 s. The f i r s t attempt to establ i sh a
state parks agency was made i n 1951, and four additional efforts were made
in the following five years. In 1956 pub1 ic interest increased after some
newspaper articles pointed out that Arizona was one of the few states with
no state parks department, resul t i ng in vandal ism of historic 1 andmarks
and scenic areas. This public interest led to the formation of an
association which successfully lobbied the Twenty- Third Legislature to
establish the State Parks Board.
The purpose of the Board is to " select, acquire, preserve, establish and
maintain areas of natural features, scenic beauty, historical and
scientific interest, and zoos and botanical gardens, for the education,
pleasure, recreation, and health of the people, and for such other
purposes as may be prescribed by law." The Board consists of seven
members appointed by the Covernor, and must include the State Land
Commissioner, at least two representatives of the 1 ivestock industry and
one individual professional ly engaged in general recreati on work.
Ma. ior Res~ onsbii 1 i ties
SPB i s responsible for a variety of recreation, preservation and
conservation programs. The Board's operations are organized into four
sections with these major activities.
Operations and Development - This section has 129.35 full- time
equivalent ( FTE) positions and is responsible for overseeing the 23
state parks i ncl udi ng eight historic parks, covering approximately
36,600 acres.* All b u t three parks are open for pub1 ic use. Oracle,
Pendley/ Sl ide Rock, Homolovis and the Lower Oak Creek sites are not
yet staffed nor ready for full public use. Operations and Development
i s also responsible for park master planning and park exhibit
development. Figure 1 shows the location of Arizona's parks.
FIGURE 1
ARIZONA STATE PARKS
SLIDE ROCK / RIORDAH
LOWER OAK CREEK
------ HOMOLOVIS
/ FORT VERDE
LAKE IIAVASU
ALAMO LAKE
UUCKSKIli hIOUNTAIt1
PAINTED ROCKS
BOYCE TllOMPSON
ARBOlitTUld
PICACIIO PEAK..
- McFARLAI( D
YUMA TERRlTOlllAL
QUARTERMASTER DEPOT
, TUBAC PfiESlDlO
, TOMOSTOI. IE COUII1 IIOUSE
STATE PARKS - PATAGONIA LAKE
Source: Prepared by State Parks Board staff.
3c A t the time of this report, SPB had not received t i t l e t o one
additional s i t e , Yuma Crossing, b u t expected t o shortly. This s i t e is
not included in the 23 parks.
Historic Preservation - This program is administered by the State
Historic Preservation Officer ( SHPO). The program has eight FTEs who
oversee Federal grants used to conduct archeological surveys, 1 imi ted
restoration of historic buildings and planning. The SHPO a1 so reviews
construction impacting historic sites, and administers the State and
National Registers of Historic Pl aces, the Certified Local Government
Program, the Federal and State Tax Incentives for Historic Properties
Program, and the Public Archaeology and Public Education programs.
@ Statewide Planning and Coordination - This section was established in
1984 when Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission staff
were combined with the SP6. The program's seven FTEs are responsible
for evaluating grant applications for the Federal Land and Water
Conservation Fund, the State Lake Improvement Fund, and the Boating
Law Enforcement Safety Fund. The section i s also responsible for park
system planning and activities re1 ated t o the State Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan and oversight of the s t a t e ' s Natural Areas
Program.
Administrative Services - This section has 11 FTEs who provide support
services to all other sections and administer grants for the various
grant- in- aid programs for which the Board i s responsible.
Park Revenues
A. R. S. $ 41- 511.05.7 authorizes the Board t o collect fees. Fees are
charged for daily use of recreation and historic parks, and for the use of
camping areas and cabanas. In addition, the Board collects revenues from
various concessionaires operating at the parks. A1 1 revenues received by
the Board are deposited in the state General Fund. In fiscal year
1985- 86, more than $ 1.1 mil 1 ion was collected from park fees, as shown in
Table 1 ( page 4). Approximately $ 215,000 was collected from
concessionaires during this same time period.
TABLE 1
ARIZONA STATE PARK REVENUES FROM FEES
FISCAL YEAR 1985- 86
( unaudited)
- Park Revenue
A1 amo Lake
Boyce Thompson
Buckskin Mountain
Catal i na
Dead Horse Ranch
Fort Verde
Jerome
Lake Havasu
Lost Dutchman
Lyman Lake
McFarl and
Painted Rocks
Patagonia Lake
Picacho Peak
Riordan
Roper Lake
Tombstone Courthouse
Tubac Presidio
Yuma Territorial Prison
TOTAL
( 1 Boyce Thompson is operated in cooperation with the University of
Arizona and the Boyce Thompson Arboretum Board. Entrance fees
from this park go to the University of Arizona.
Source: Compiled by Auditor General staff from State Parks Board 1985- 86
Revenue and Attendance Report.
Staffinq And Budqet
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1986, the State Parks Board had an
estimated 138.25 authorized FTEs. SPB received the majority of i t s
funding from the General Fund; however, 6.5 FTEs were funded from the
State Lake Improvement Fund. In addition, the Board has seven
nonappropriated positions funded from the Federal Historic Preservation
Fund, and 2.5 FTEs funded from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
administrative Surcharge. Table 2 ( page 5) details actual and estimated
expenditures for f i sca1 years 1984- 85 and 1985- 86, respectively, and
approved expenditures for fiscal year 1986- 87.
TABLE 2
STATE PARKS BOARD EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEARS 1985 THROUGH 1987
( unaudited)
Actual ( l ) Estimated Approved
1985 1986 1987
FTE Positions 126.5 138.25 149.85
Personal Services
Empl oyee Re1 ated
Professional and
Outside Services
Tra ve 1
In- State
Out- of- State
Other Operating
Equipment
TOTAL $ 3,935,600 $ 4,908,300 $ 5,725,900
( 1 In August 1984 the Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating
Commission's budget and s t a f f were combined with SPB.
Source: Compiled by Auditor General s t a f f from the State o f Arizona
Appropriations Report f o r f i s c a l year 1987- 88.
Audit Scope And Purpose
Our audit addresses issues set f o r t h by the 12 Sunset Factors i n A. R. S.
$ 41 - 2354. Additional detai l ed work was done t o eval uate the f o l l owing
issues.
0 Whether the size o f the state parks system has kept up with needs
generated by the s t a t e ' s growing popul ation.
0 Whether the state parks system i s adequately s e r v i n g t h e p u b l i c .
Whether a d d i t i o n a l funding sources are needed f o r parks a c q u i s i t i o n
and devel opment.
0 Whether parks p l anni ng shoul d be improved.
e Whether s t a t u t o r y changes are needed t o allow the Parks Board t o
manage i t s land more e f f e c t i v e l y .
kle also developed other pertinent information regarding the general public
awareness of state parks and SPB'S limited efforts to promote State
parks. Due to time constraints, we were unable to address all potential
issues identified during our prel iminary audit work. The section Areas
for Further Audit Work describes these potential issues.
This audit was conducted in accordance with general ly accepted
governmental auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the staff and
members o f the State Parks Board for their assistance and cooperation
during the course of our audit.
SUNSET FACTORS
In accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S. ) $ 41- 2354, the
Legislature should consider the fol1 owing 12 factors in determining
whether the Arizona State Parks Board should be continued or terminated.
1 . The obiecti ve and purpose in estab] i shins the Board
The Legislature established the State Parks Board ( SPB) on March 25,
1957. According to A. R. S. S41- 511.03, the purpose of the Board i s
" to select, acquire, preserve, establ ish and maintain areas of
natural features, scenic beauty, historical and scientific interest,
and zoos and botanical gardens for the education, pleasure,
recreation, and health of the people, and for such other purposes as
may be prescribed by 1 aw."
Pursuant to A. R. S. $ 41 - 51 1.04. A, the Board's duties incl ude:
0 planning and administering a statewide parks and recreation
program;
0 preparing and maintaining a comprehensive plan for the
development of outdoor recreation resources of the state;
coordinating recreational plans and developments of Federal ,
state, county, city, town and private agencies; and
administering the State Historic Preservation Program.
2. The effectiveness with which the Board has met i t s objective and
purpose and the efficiency with which the Board has operated
The Board has not been completely effective in meeting i t s prescribed
objectives and purpose. Although Arizona has a system of 23 state
parks, the system is too small and not well balanced. The state
parks system has not kept up with needs generated by the s t a t e ' s
population growth and is one of the smallest in the United States
( see Finding I , page 13). In addition, some park sites such as
McFarland State Historic Park and Lyman Lake State Park are not of
sufficient significance t o be designated as state parks. Other sites
that would be outstanding state parks, and outstanding natural
resource areas are not part of the system ( see Finding 11, page 21).
To effectively meet i t s mandate, SPB may need supplemental funding
sources for acquiring and developing additional park sites ( see
Finding 111, page 29). SPB a1 so needs to develop an effective
long- range plan for the system to ensure that i t i s able to meet
Arizona's future state park needs ( see Finding IVY page 37).
3. The extent to which the Board has operated within the public interest
Generally, SPB has operated within the public interest by operating
and maintaining the state parks system. However, SPB needs to adopt
a more aggressive acquisition and development program if the system
is to keep pace with population demands ( see Finding I , page 1 2 ) .
Further, until recently, SPB has made limited efforts to acquire
sites for ensuring the conservation of the s t a t e ' s scenic and natural
resources ( see Finding 11, page 21 ).
4. The extent t o which rules and regulations promulgated by the Board
are consistent with the legislative mandate
The Board has prorriulgated rules and regulations that are consistent
with i t s 1 egislative mandate. For example, the Board has established
a fee schedule and reviews i t annually. Further, the Board has
adopted rules t o protect the parks and their users. For example, SPB
rules and regulations prohibit the discharge of firearms and
explosives without special permit and make i t unlawful t o deface,
injure, destroy, remove or use without authority wil dl ife, plants,
historical, archaeological or geological objects in a park.
5. The extent t o which the Board has encouraged input from the pub5c
before promulgating i t s rules and regulations and the extent to which
i t has informed the public as t o i t s actions and their expected
impact on the public
SPB has encouraged input from the public before promulgating i t s
rules and regulations. The Board follows the requirements of the
Administrative Procedures Act before promulgating rules and
regulations. Recently, the Board used public service announcements
to obtain public input on the parks system before beginning a process
which will result in the development of a long- term parks system
plan. In addition, dead1 ines and guide1 ines for grant appl ications
are communicated through professional groups, pub1 ic notice,
correspondence and postings in public buildings.
6. The extent to which the Board has been able to investigate and
resolve com~ al ints that are within i t s . jurisdiction
This factor i s not applicable since SPB i s not a regulatory board.
7. The extent to which the Attorney General or any other applicable
agency of state government has the authority t o prosecute actions
under enabl i ng 1 egi sl ation
This factor i s not appl icabl e since SPB i s not a regulatory board.
8. The extent to which the Board has addressed deficiencies in i t s
enabl ing statutes which prevent i t from ful fi 11 ing i t s statutory
mandate
SPB has not requested that legislation be introduced to address
deficiencies identified in i t s enabling statutes. In 1980 the Board
developed draft legislation t o establish a State Parks Real Property
Acquisition Fund. Proceeds derived from a1 1 SPB activities,
including fees, were to be placed in the Fund and remain under the
Board's control. The bill was never introduced because of the
Board's concern that if fees were retained, General Fund
appropriations coul d be reduced.
9. The extent t o which changes are necessary in the laws of the Board t o
adequately comply with the factors 1 isted in the Sunset Law
Based on our audit work, we recommend that the Legislature consider
adopting a1 ternate funding sources for state park acqui si t i on and
devel opment, in conjunction with General Fund appropriations. The
Parks Board should review funding alternatives used by other states
and make recommendations t o the Legislature on their feasibility ( see
Finding 111, page 29). In addition, SPB currently has no express
authority to dispose of lands, which limits i t s ability to
effectively manage i t s land. The Board i s currently formulating a
proposal that would allow the Board t o dispose of lands. Our audit
work supports the need for the Board to have this authority ( see
Finding VI, page 43).
10. The extent to which the termination of the Board would significantly
harm the pub1 ic health, safety or welfare
Terminating the Board itself would not significantly harm the public
heal t h y safety or we1 fare because the parks system could be manaoed
by agency staff. However, terminating the Board would eliminate i t s
contributions to the parks system. Board meetings are a public forum
for discussing actions contemplated by the agency, and Board members
provide varying perspectives for evaluating policies t o be taker] by
the agency.
A1 though el iminati ng the actual Board would n o t significantly harm
the public health, safety and we1 fare, eliminating the agency known
as the State Parks Board rvould affect the public welfare. The
Board's primary responsibi 1 i ty is t o acquire, preserve and maintain
areas of natural features, scenic beauty, and historic and scientific
significance for the education, pleasure, recreation and health of
the people. Lack of a state agency to carry o u t these activities
~ ould limit ~ r i z o n a ' s ability t o establish i t s own priorities for
meeting these objectives.
11. The extent t o which the level of regulation exercised by the Board is
appropriate and whether less or more stringent levels of regulation
would be appropriate
This factor i s not applicable since SPB i s not a regulatory board.
12. The extent to which the Board has used private contractors i n the
uerformance of i t s duties and how effective use of urivate
contractors coul d be accompl i shed
According to the Board's Director, SPB uses private sector
contractors for a variety of services. For example, SPB contracts
with food and beverage concessionaires. A1 so, private contractors
perform some maintenance activities and park improvement projects.
In addition, SPB has used private contractors to conduct planning
studies and develop site plans.
FINDING I
THE ARIZONA STATE PARKS SYSTEM IS TOO SMALL
TO MEET THE NEEDS OF A RAPIDLY GROWING POPULATION
Arizona's s t a t e parks system i s n o t l a r g e enough t o meet the needs of a
growing state. The system's size has not kept up w i t h the demand
generated by ~ r i z o n a ' s population growth. I n addition, ~ r i z o n a ' s system
i s one of the smallest i n the United States. The s t a t e parks system i s
small p a r t l y because previous State Parks Boards ( SPB) d i d not a c t i v e l y
pursue parks system expansion and development.
System Has Not Kept
Up With Population Growth
A1 though Arizona ' s popul a t i on has i ncreased dramatical ly d u r i n g t h e past
30 years, i t s s t a t e parks system has grown much more slowly. The amount
of parkland has a c t u a l l y decl ined re1 a t i v e t o the s t a t e ' s population.
Growth i n urban areas i n p a r t i c u l a r increases the need f o r a d d i t i o n a l
state parks.
Parks system growth slower than population growth - Parks system growth
has not responded t o the demands generated by Arizona's population
growth. Population growth i s one f a c t o r t h a t increases the demand f o r
recreation areas, and Arizona i s c u r r e n t l y one o f the f a s t e s t growing
states i n the nation. Population increased by 53 percent from 1970 t o
1980, and by 16.7 percent between 1980 and 1985. In addition, s t a t e
population i s expected t o continue growing from approximately 3.2 mil 1 ion
residents i n 1985 t o more than 6.1 m i l l i o n by t h e y e a r 2010.
By comparison, over the 1970 t o 1980 period, Arizona state park acreage
increased by less than 20 percent; and from 1980 t o 1985, park acreage
increased by about 23 percent. Because population growth has exceeded
parks system growth,* recreation park acreage per 1,000 persons has
x A7 though parks system growth exceeded population growth from 1980 t o
1985, it did not make up f o r the slower growth from 1970 t o 1980,
when the s t a t e ' s population was increasing r a p i d l y .
generally declined since 1969, as Figure 2 shows. Several park additions
have stemmed the decline, b u t at no point has recreation park acreage per
1,000 persons come close to the peak attained in 1969. Thus, the growth
of Arizona's state parks system has been inadequate as the state has grown.
FIGURE 2
STATE PARK ACREAGE PER 1000 PERSONS ( 1)
1965 To Present( 2)
I
5.0
65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85
YEAR
( 1 1 The national average in 1981 was 40 acres per 1,000 persons.
( 2 1 Auditor General staff cal cul ated recreation park acreage per
1,000 persons from 1965, after the State Parks Board's f i r s t
major recreation park acquisition, t o the present. We looked
specifically a t recreation parks because population size
influences the need for recreation parks t o a greater extent than
other types of parks.
Source: Prepared by Auditor General staff from population s t a t i s t i c s
provided by the Department of Economic Security and park acreage
data from SPB files.
Parks have not met urban population needs - The parks system's small size
limits i t s ability t o adequately serve the recreational needs of Arizona's
urban popul ati ons . Urban popul ati ons apparently have greater recreational
needs than rural populations, due in part t o higher incomes and more
leisure time. Population growth in urban counties i s comparable to the
state as a whole. Between 1970 and 1980, Maricopa County and Pima County
had population increases of 51 and 55 percent, respectively. However,
even though in 1980 75 percent of Arizona's population 1 ived in these
urban counties, only five of the s t a t e ' s 23 parks are within 50 miles of
Phoenix or Tucson, and only 11 are within 100 miles.
A1 though urban residents are will ing to drive several hours t o participate
in recreational activities, national forest use data indicate they prefer
destinations closer to home. Data from the Behavior Research Center*
indicate that residents of urban counties are willing to drive up to three
hours for day trips and five hours for weekend trips to participate in
recreational activities. However, national forest use data indicate that
two of the three the most heavily used forests are those closest to
Arizona ' s urban popul ation centers .** Coronado National Forest, the
national forest closest to Tucson,*** ranked in the top 35 ( 1 983 and 1984)
for use nationwide, of a total of 157 national forests. Tonto National
Forest, located an hour from Phoenix, was used more than any other
national forest in the nation. The 1986 Governor's Task Force on
Recreation on Federal Lands concluded that Tonto National Forest, with
only 679 campsites, " cannot begin t o meet visitor demands. "****
* Under contract with the Auditor General, Behavior Research Center,
Inc. assessed public awareness, usage and perceptions of the Arizona
state parks system by conducting a telephone survey of 803 Arizonans
in August 1986.
** The third National Forest is Coconino National Forest, near
Flagstaff.
*** Coronado National Forest is one t o two hours from Tucson, depending
on initial destination within the forest.
**** Despite this pressing need, only four of the 23 state parks are
located near Coronado National Forest, and only two of the 23 state
parks are near Tonto National Forest. Of the seven additional park
sites that have been recently authorized b u t not yet acquired, none
are near Tonto National Forest, and the two sites near Coronado
National Forest are potential historic, rather than recreation or
natural areas, parks.
Arizona ' s System Is Small er
lhan Uther State Systems
A further indicator of the Arizona state parks system's inadequacy i s that
it is one of the smallest systems in the United States. Virtually all
measures show that Arizona's system i s small relative to most other
states. The system i s also small compared to other western states which
( 1 ike Arizona) have a high percentage of Federal land.
Parks system i s smaller than those in other states - A1 though Arizona i s
described as an outdoor recreation state, Arizona's parks system i s small
compared to other states' park systems. The 1982 Governor's Task Force on
Parks and Recreation noted t h a t Arizona's 1 i festyl e i s characterized by
abundant opportunities to pursue recreation in a variety of settings,
making Arizona a highly desirable place to live and visit. However, such
opportunities are limited within the state parks system, partly because of
i t s size. Using virtually any measure of parks system size, ~ r i z o n a ' s
parks lag behind those of almost all other states.
a Number of parks - Arizona ranked 49th in number of state parks,
accord1 ng to National Association of State Park Directors ( NASPD) data
for fiscal year 1984- 85. Only Delaware had fewer state parks.
a Total park acreage - Arizona had less total state park acreage than
all b u t five other states, according t o NASPD data for fiscal year
1984- 85. Even some smaller states such as Maryland, Vermont and
Connecticut, had five t o more than six times Arizona's park acreage.
a Park acreage per 1,000 population - Only Georgia, i4ississippi and
Louisiana had 1 ess acreage per 1,000 peopl e than Arizona, according to
1981 data compiled by Resources for the Future, Inc. Arizona had only
ten acres per 1,000 people, compared t o a national average of 40.
Federal lands - ~ r i z o n a ' s parks system i s also smaller than other western
states. Most western states have significant amounts of Federal land and
Federal recreation acreage. However, regardless of whether other western
states have more or less Federal acreage than Arizona, all of the ten
states we surveyed have larger state parks systems t h a n Arizona. Arizona
ranks last in number of state parks, total state park acreage, and total
state park acreage per 1,000 people ( Tab1 e 3, page 1 7 ) .
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF SELECTED MEASURES OF FEDERAL HOLDIbIGS
AND PARKS SYSTEM SIZE BETWEEN ARIZONA AND OTHER WESTERN STATES
Arizona
Cal ifornia
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New F, lexi co
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
Average for
western states
Federal Total State Park
% Feder 1 Recreatio # State State Park Acres/ l 4? O0
Lands f1 ) Acreage 12) ~ a r k s ( 3 ) ~ c r e s ( ~ ) Peopl e
( 1
( 2 )
Figures are for fiscal year 1983- 84.
Federal recreation acreage includes total acreage represented by
National Park Service lands, U. S. Forest Service lands and Bureau
of Land Management recreation acreage for fiscal years 1983- 84.
( 3) Figures are for fiscal year 1984- 85. Acquisitions after fiscal
year 1984- 85 have increased the total number of parks to 22 and
( 4)
total acreage to approximately 36,600.
These 1981 figures are taken from a report by Resources for the
Future, Inc. Comparable data was not readily available for more
( 5
recent years. However, in 1985 Arizona's ratio remained at ten.
BLM recreation acreage is not included for Oregon and Washington
because figures were not given separately for each state.
Source: Cornpi1 ed by Auditor General staff from Annual Informati on
Exchange 1986 ( National Association of State Park ~ i r e c t o r s,)
Statistics on Outdoor Recreation ( Resources for the Future,
Inc.), and Public Land Statistics 1984 ( U. S. Department of the
Interior).
Previous Boards Did
Not Actively Pursue
Parks System Devel opment
Arizona's system i s inadequate partly because previous Parks Boards did
not actively pursue parks system development. Prior Parks Boards did
not a n t i c i p a t e t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l needs o f a growing population, nor did
they a c t i v e l y attempt t o expand the parks system.
SPB d i d not determine growing r e c r e a t i o n a l needs - Previous Parks Boards
f a i l e d t o p r o j e c t recreational needs t o be generated by a n t i c i p a t e d
population growth. Our review o f Board e f f o r t s t o i d e n t i f y p o t e n t i a l
s i t e s revealed no apparent attempt on SPB's p a r t t o determine how
a n t i c i p a t e d population growth and d i s t r i b u t i o n would a f f e c t f u t u r e park
acreage needs. For exampl e, the fi r s t s i t e s were i n i ti a1 l y i denti f ied
mainly through a survey o f county Boards o f Supervisors. One o f the more
recent l i s t s o f desirable s i t e s was i n i t i a l l y generated mainly through
i n p u t from community groups.
I n c o n t r a s t , t h e Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department
recognized t h a t f u t u r e growth would r e q u i r e an expanded parks system. The
Parks Department h i r e d consultants i n the e a r l y 1960s who used 1980
population p r o j e c t i o n s t o analyze how growth would a f f e c t park needs. The
consultants also examined the influence o f population density, age,
income, education, occupation, l e i s u r e time and other f a c t o r s on the
p u b l i c ' s recreational needs f o r the next 15 years. The consultants noted
t h a t even more important than demographic f a c t o r s was access t o
r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s . They added t h a t ". . . i f f a v o r i t e recreational
f a c i l i t i e s are w i t h i n easy access, people are more l i k e l y t o make time
a v a i l a b l e by abandoning other a c t i v i t i e s . " As a r e s u l t , the county's 18
regional and serriiregional parks were located accessible t o a1 1 segments o f
the population, i . e., i n c i r c u l a r fashion around Maricopa County's tr~ ajor
popul a t i o n center, the Phoenix metropol i tan area. Today the county's
101,198- acre park system i s reportedly one o f the l a r g e s t county parks
systems nationwide, and served 2,885,459 v i s i t o r s i n f i s c a l year 1985- 86.*
* However, a l a r g e county parks system does not preclude the need to
provide s t a t e parks accessible t o urban populations. Maricopa
County's Regional Park System Plan s p e c i f i c a l l y stated t h a t county
parks are intended t o " f i l l the gap between urban day use areas and
State and Federal vacation parks. "
SPB did not actively expand parks system - Not only did previous Boards
not anticipate future needs, they did 1 i t t l e t o expand the parks system.
We were unable to positively document that any parks were created because
of concerted Board efforts. To the extent that Board members or SPB staff
have been instrumental in creating state parks, they were often acting in
other roles.* Because the Board may have acted only when prompted by
others, interest groups, other government agencies, and 1 ocal and state
political representatives, among others, have worked to make specific
s i t e s s t a t e parks.
@ Catalina - This site apparently became a state park because a Tucson
citizens' group wanted to prevent development of the land. A t the
group's urging, the Legislature made this site a state park, even
though SPB previously went on record opposing i t s creation as a state,
rather than a county, park.
e Boyce Thompson Arboretum - Boyce Thompson reportedly became a state
park because the University of Arizona was having di fficul ty getting
fl nancial support for i t s activities there. The University approached
SPB for support, to which the Board agreed.
e Painted Rocks ( lake unit) - Local residents, political
representatives, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers favored making
this site a state or county park. SPB rejected the site in 1966 and
deferred making a decision because the site was not of statewide
significance. However, peopl e representing 1 ocal interests bypassed
the Board and convinced legislators to make this s i t e a state park.
Because of Board inaction, policy makers have n o t always relied on the
Board when they wanted to actively expand the parks system. According to
knowledgeable people, the 1982 Governor's Task Force on Parks and
Recreation and the Parklands Foundation were created because of
displeasure over the Parks Board's re1 ative inactivity. The Task Force
mission was t o develop a statewide parks and recreation pol icy to guide
future parks activity in Arizona. The Governor stressed the urgency of
the task, stating that ~ r i z o n a ' s recreation options would be severely
- s For example, the State Land Commissioner, who i s also a statutory
member of the State Parks Board, has taken action on a couple of park
sites in his capacity as Land Commissioner.
l i m i t e d i n ten t o 20 years unless a future- oriented p o l i c y was developed
and immediately implemented. Among i t s actions, the Task Force supported
expanding the state parks system and proposed developing new funding
sources f o r state park acquisitions. This proposal was soon imp1 emented ;
not through SPB, but through creation o f the Parklands Foundation i n
1982. The Parklands Foundation i s a p r i v a t e n o n p r o f i t organization which
s o l i c i t s p r i v a t e donations f o r purchasing parklands. The Foundation's
primary mission i s t o speed a c q u i s i t i o n by acting as a repository f o r
funds. I n the past, the Foundation has purchased lands and held them
u n t i l the Arizona Legislature was able t o appropriate monies f o r t h e i r
purchase as s t a t e parks.
CONCLUSIONS
The Arizona s t a t e parks system i s too small . The system's size has not
kept up with state population growth. I n addition, the parks system i s
small compared with other state systems. The system i s small because
previous State Parks Boards d i d not a c t i v e l y pursue parks system
expansion.
RECOMMENDATION
SPB should determine t o what extent the parks system should be expanded.
In looking a t park expansion, SPB should:
e consider population p r o j e c t i o n s f o r the s t a t e and urban areas;
e use p r o j e c t i o n s o f population s i z e , d i s t r i b u t i o n and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
t o determine recreation uses; and
i d e n t i f y acreage and regional d i s t r i b u t i o n .
FINDING I1
THE ARIZONA STATE PARKS SYSTEM
DOES NOT ADEQUATELY SERVE THE PUBLIC
The Arizona state parks system does not adequately serve the public. The
system includes some parks that do not meet the criteria for a state
park. A t the same time, several highly desirable sites have not been
acquired for the system. The poor development of Arizona's parks system
has resulted from the State Parks Board's ( SPB) failure t o comprehensively
evaluate potential park sites and set priorities for acquisition.
Parks System Includes
Inappropriate Sites
The Arizona parks system is not only small , b u t some existing park sites
are poor examples of state parks. A t least four state parks do not meet
essential criteria for designating or evaluating State parks. The 1982
Governor's Task Force on Parks and Recreation defined a state park as a
". . . site of regional or statewide significance available for public
use." California, cited by diverse sources as having excellent state
parks,* emphasizes that state park sites should be outstanding examples of
natural areas or best represent a historic era. According to SPB s t a f f ,
one objective indicator of the extent of a park's value or importance i s
park attendance .** b! ore si gni fi cant sites general ly attract more visitors
and attract visitors from more than just the local area.
Former and present SPB staff, one Board member, and a Governor's Task
Force member consistently identified four Arizona state parks that are not
* Sources include the President of the Eilational Association of State
Park Directors, present and former SPB s t a f f , and the Conservation
Foundation, which has reviewed and evaluated U. S. park1 ands and
recreational resources.
** An SPB member, as well as an Arizona historian who has studied
Arizona parks, note that attendance also reflects accessibility to a
park. However, these same individuals add that people may v i s i t
re1 atively inaccessible sites ( e. g., Tombstone) if they perceive
them as significant.
s u f f i c i e n t l y s i g n i f i c a n t t o be s t a t e parks. Three s i t e s a r e r e c r e a t i o n
parks which comprise a t o t a l o f 4,079 acres, approximately 12 percent o f
Arizona's s t a t e recreation park acreage. The f o u r t h s i t e i s one o f seven
s t a t e h i s t o r i c parks.
Painted Rocks ( lake u n i t ) - SPB r e j e c t e d t h i s s i t e i n 1966 because
the lake was not o f statewide significance. A l a t e r SPB f e a s i b i l i t y
r e p o r t concl uded t h a t the devel opment o f recreation f a c i 1 i t i e s was
not economically f e a s i b l e due t o the lack o f e x i s t i n g potable water,
the marginal f i s h i n g p o t e n t i a l , the widely f l u c t u a t i n g l e v e l s o f the
lake, and the existence o f higher p r i o r i t y projects.
Roper Lake - SPB s t a f f note t h a t v i s i t o r s a t Roper Lake are mainly
l o c a l residents. For t h i s reason, present and former SPB o f f i c i a l s
s t a t e t h a t t h i s s i t e may have been more a p p r o p r i a t e l y designated a
county r a t h e r than a s t a t e park.
Lyman Lake - This s i t e became a s t a t e park because the Parks Board a t
the time thought t h a t " water areas o f any reasonable s i z e should be
considered among the prime r e c r e a t i o n a l resources o f the state. "
A1 though the Board considered Lyman Lake " most adaptable" for day and
overnight use, the Lake i s over f o u r and one- ha1 f hours away from the
Phoenix area and nearly f i v e hours from the Tucson area, and has had
t h e l o w e s t average attendance o f recreation parks i n t h e p a s t four
f i s c a l years.
o ClcFarland - McFarland State H i s t o r i c Park has ranked l a s t i n annual
attendance f o r a t l e a s t the l a s t f o u r years, i n s p i t e o f i t s
proximity t o the Phoenix area ( approximately one hour). Annual
average paid attendance a t McFarl and f o r f i s c a l years 1982- 83 through
1985- 86 was 4,304. ( This t r a n s l a t e s t o an average d a i l y attendance
o f 12 v i s i t o r s . ) I n comparison, average paid attendance f o r other
h i s t o r i c parks i n the same period ranged from 18,817 ( Tubac) t o
134,824 ( Yuma Prison), f o r an average o f 69,682, o r 191 v i s i t o r s per
day .*
Overall s t a t e park v i s i t a t i o n may not have reached i t s p o t e n t i a l , p a r t l y
because the s t a t e parks system does not meet p u b l i c needs. V i s i t a t i o n
data reveal t h a t o v e r a l l s t a t e park attendance increased s t e a d i l y u n t i l
1979, peaking a t approximately 2.52 nil 1 ion annual ly. Since 1979,
v i s i t a t i o n has not reached t h i s peak again and instead has f l u c t u a t e d
* Attendance f o r two h i s t o r i c parks, Painted Rocks ( h i s t o r i c u n i t ) ,
and Riordan, i s not included. Painted Rocks attendance records do
not separate attendance a t the h i s t o r i c u n i t from attendance a t the
lake u n i t , and Riordan was not open t o the p u b l i c during 1982- 83.
between 1 .91 mi 11 ion and 2.35 mi 11 ion per year. In the same 1980 t:, 1985
time period, Arizona experienced steady popul ati on growth, and overall
visitation t o National Park Service sites in Arizona increased by more
than 30 percent.
Some Important Sites
Are Not State Parks
The adequacy of the Arizona parks system is also diminished because some
significant sites are not state parks. Also, the Board has failed to meet
i t s mandate of conserving natural areas.
Sianificant sites are not state parks - The Board has not made some
significant sites state parks. For example, Tonto Natural Bridge and Bull
Pen Ranch are considered examples of outstanding potential state park
sites. According to SPB staff, Tonto Natural Bridge i s one of the most
interesting geological features in Arizona. SPB eval uations of Tonto
Natural Bridge note that the site i s known for i t s spectacular scenery and
natural beauty, and a wide variety of plant and animal l i f e is in the
area. SPB evaluations also describe Bull Pen Ranch as situated d t the
entrance t o one of the most scenic canyons along the Mogol lon Rim, and as
the site of one of the larger and more unspoiled mountain streams in
Arizona. Indeed, SPB staff ratings* showed that only three of 19 existing
parks currently open t o the public ranked higher than Tonto Natural
Bridge, and only four ranked above Bull Pen Ranch. Although SPB has
identified these and at least 11 other sites as desirable s i t e s , until
recently, the Board made few efforts t o make such sites State parks, and
* lie asked SPB staff to rank current parks using a rating system
developed for assessing the desirability of potential park sites.
The ranking system resulted in numerical ratings which could be used
to rank the sites. Approximately 20 of more than 200 potential
sites had actually been ranked using this instrunlent a t the time o f
this report.
only in the case of Tonto Natural Bridge did past Parks Boards make
extended efforts to acquire the site.*
Failure to acquire such sites before they become imminently desirable for
other uses may ultimately result in higher acquisition costs or loss of
the site for publ ic use. For example, the present owner would like to
develop Bull Pen Ranch commercially or for residential purposes. The only
reason the s i t e has not been developed i s the National Forest Service's
reluctance to grant an easement for electrical service. In addition,
while Tonto Natural Bridge would have cost $ 300,000 to $ 400,000 in 1969,
the site is currently valued in the millions.**
SPB has conserved few natural and scenic resource sites - SPB has also
inadequately met 1 egis1 ative and publ ic expectations for conserving
natural and scenic resources as required by law. SPB has three primary
statutory mandates. The Board is required to: 1 ) select, acquire and
maintain natural and scenic resources ; 2) sel ect, acquire and maintain
historic sites ; and 3) select, acquire and maintain outdoor recreation
sites. Of these three mandates, SPB's role in conserving natural and
scenic resources i s viewed by the publ ic as the most important: 43 percent
of the Arizonans surveyed by the Behavior Research Center ( see Appendix)
believed that conserving natural and scenic resources was the most
important mandate.***
* Past Boards failed t o acquire this site. P. fter several unsuccessful
attempts t o reach an agreement with the owners on an acceptable
purchase price, the owners sold the s i t e to another party. Shortly
after the site was sold, questions arose regarding i t s rightful
ownership. The Board subsequently made no further attempts to
acquire Tonto Natural Bridge until 1985 and 1986, when the Parks
Board supported two parks expansion bills which included Bull Pen
Ranch as well as Tonto Natural Bridge as proposed parks. A modified
version of these bills passed in 1986, which authorized several new
park sites.
** SPB requested that the speci fic projection remain confidential ,
since public disclosure may inflate the asking price for the
property in the future.
*** The other two mandates receive roughly equal support. Tcventy- six
percent thought historic site preservation was most important, 28
percent thought provision of outdoor recreation areas was most
important, and 3 percent were unsure or considered the three equally
important.
Although conservation of natural and scenic resources has been a Board
mandate since i t s inception, no state parks were primarily created to
conserve natural and scenic resources until SPB acquired Oracl e ( Wi l dl i fe
Refuge) earlier this year. Yet, the Natural Areas Program* has identified
125 natural resource sites that may require protection. According to a
conservative estimate by SPB's Natural Areas Coordinator, 53 of these
areas are endangered by threats that are imminent or will cause the areas
to steadily deteriorate. For example, the Coordinator identified the
500- acre Mammouth Mesquite Bosque as one of the l a s t remaining extensive
forests of large mesquite in Arizona. Mesquite stands in this privately
owned wooded area are 20 to 30 feet high, in contrast to the ten feet
height of most mesquite in Arizona. These trees are being cut down for
development and t o conserve the water wanted by surrounding agricultural
interests.
The State Parks Board Does Not Have
A Basis tor Establishing Priorities
SPB has been unable to develop a system responsive to public need because
i t does not have a basis for establishing priorities. The Board i s unable
to set priorities because i t 1 acks adequate information for identifying,
selecting and setting priorities for potential park sites. Other parks
departments have developed information to assist them in setting
priorities.
Board lacks needed information and ~ o l i c i e s - SPB is unable to set
priorities because i t has inadequate information and lacks specific
pol icies t o guide decisions. While SPB has completed several studies that
provide the basis for setting priorities, these studies represent a
1 imi ted inventory and assessment of potential sites.
SPB has completed several studies that provide some information for
setting priorities.
* Since 1976 Arizona has had a Natural Areas Program under the
auspices of the State Parks Board. This program identifies sites
that are unique because of their natural or geologic features. In
addition, the program identifies endangered or rare species.
A study of Colorado River recreation opportunities, which evaluated,
rated and ranked specific sites along the Colorado River as future
parks.
0 An inventory of faci 1 i ties and recreation opportunities at Arizona's
central 1 akes.
A prioritized l i s t of potential parks on Bureau of Land Management
1 ands.
A l i s t of potential park sites statewide, for which criteria were
developed to classify the sites.
User data for some parks.
SPB a1 so plans to complete an Arizona rivers study. In addition, SPB has
access to a listing of sites identified by the Natural Areas Program as
requiring protection.
Despite these studies, the Parks Board s t i l l does not have adequate data
to prioritize potential park sites. With the exception of the Colorado
River Study, the Board has not identified and ranked the desirability and
potential of these sites using objective technical criteria in conjunction
with SPB staff and experts such as recreation consul tants, archaeologists,
historians with expertise in Arizona history and natural ists. Even with
such a l i s t , the Board also lacks sufficiently specific policies t o
facilitate final decisions as to which specific sites t o acquire. In
contrast, Cal i fornia ' s pol icies emphasize providing parks in and near
metropol i tan areas t o save val uabl e energy resources, and providing parks
accessible t o the economically and physically disadvantaged. California
has a1 so developed a1 1 ocation gui del i nes regarding the proporti on of funds
going to acquiring and developing parks fa1 ling under each of i t s three
missions: 15 percent of i t s funds are t o go t o cultural heritage
( historic, archaeological ) preservation, 35 percent t o natural heritage
( natural areas) preservation, and 50 percent to recreation.
In addition, SPB lacks adequate user data t o establish priorities based on
what users want in the way of parks and where they want them. User
surveys have been completed for only five state parks and survey data
compiled only for three. SPB did not consistently survey winter as well
as summer users, who may have d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Information
regarding the income l e v e l s o f i t s users, an important f a c t o r i n s e t t i n g
pol i c i es regarding fees, i s a1 so omitted.
Other parks agencies have developed information - I n c o n t r a s t t o Arizona,
other parks agencies have developed information needed t o plan f o r parks
system development. As noted i n Finding I ( page 13), Maricopa County
assessed future population needs f o r parks by p r o j e c t i n g population size,
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and d i s t r i b u t i o n through 1980. Utah, Oregon and
C a l i f o r n i a have done user studies t o determine v i s i t o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and
preferences. This information was used extensively i n determining what
s i t e s would become s t a t e parks. For example, Utah found through i t s
survey t h a t parks i n northern and central Utah were used mostly by
residents, who p r e f e r water based a c t i v i t i e s , whereas those i n southern
Utah were used mainly by nonresidents, who p r e f e r t o v i s i t natural and
h i s t o r i c s i t e s . As a r e s u l t , Utah planned park a c q u i s i t i o n and
development t o meet user demands f o r each p a r t o f the state. C a l i f o r n i a
recognized energy conservation needs and developed a p o l i c y t o encourage
park designs t h a t mi nimi ze dependence on motor vehicl es. Cal i f o r n i a a1 so
i d e n t i f i e d how energy conservation would a f f e c t f u t u r e park s i t e
selection, urging " more recreation c l o s e r t o home . . . w i t h i n the
' one- ha1 f t a n k f u l ' range." F i n a l l y , Cal i f o r n i a i d e n t i f i e d and p r i o r i t i z e d
specific p o t e n t i a l s i t e s by planning d i s t r i c t using base1 ine information
and s p e c i f i c parks pol i c i e s .
CONCLUSIONS
Arizona's s t a t e parks system does not adequately serve the p u b l i c . The
system includes some parks t h a t a r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t enough t o be
designated s t a t e parks. A t the same time, desirable s i t e s have not been
acquired f o r the system. The poor development of Arizona's parks system
has resulted from the Board's f a i l u r e t o evaluate p o t e n t i a l park s i t e s and
set p r i o r i t i e s f o r a c q u i s i t i o n .
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. SPB should take steps t o develop information to assist i n adequately
identifying, selecting and ranking potential park sites. Such
information should include a survey o f current park users, a
comprehensive inventory of potential historic sites, recreation
sites, and sites of outstanding natural and scenic features, and
projections of future population and statewide needs for state
parks.
2. SPB should establ ish priorities for acquisition, taking into account
i t s mandate to preserve recreation, natural areas and historic
si tes .
FINDING I11
THE STATE PARKS BOARD NEEDS TO PURSUE ADDITIONAL FUNDING
SOURCES FOR ACQUIRING AND DEVELOPING STATE PARK RESOURCES
The State Parks Board ( SPB) should pursue funding sources in addition to
the General Fund for financing the expansion of the state parks system.
Sufficient acquisition and development funds from current revenue sources
may not be available. As a result, additional funding sources for
financing the system should be considered.
Acquisition and Devel opment
Funds May Not Be Avai lab l e
Funds from SPB's current sources may not be adequate to finance the
expansion and development of the state parks system. Land acquisition and
site development can require substantial capital. As a result, SPB's
primary reliance on the General Fund could limit the Board's ability t o
expand the state parks system. To some extent, decreasing Federal funds
coul d a1 so curtai 1 parkl and acquisition and development.
Purchasing and developing park resources can require substantial sums of
money. For example, according to SPB s t a f f , the acquisition of the
Pendley property adjacent to Slide Rock required a $ 3.76 million General
Fund appropriation in fiscal year 1985- 86. Further, according to SPB's
five- year capital improvement plan, the Board has earmarked more than
$ 39.2 mil 1 ion for parkl and acquisition, devel optnent and renovation
projects in fiscal years 1988 through 1992. However, there i s no
guarantee that General Fund appropriations will be made t o finance those
acquisition and devel opment projects.
SPB has had 1 i t t l e success in obtaining General Fund monies for park
acquisition and devel opment in recent years. Between fiscal years 1982- 83
and 1986- 87, SPB requested nearly $ 21 .3 mil 1 ion for 1 and, bui 1 ding and
improvement ( L B & I ) projects. However, only 13 percent of the Board's
requests were funded.* F i g u r e 3 shows requests and appropriations f o r the
past f i v e f i s c a l years.
a
FIGURE 3
LB& I FUNDS REQUESTED AND RECEIVED
FISCAL YEARS 1983 THROUGH 1987
( unaudited)
$ RECEIVED
8 3 84 8 5 8 6 87
FISCAL YEAR
Scurce: Compiled by Auditor General s t a f f from SPB Budget Requests f o r
( rd
f i s c a l years 1983 through 1987, and the State o f Arizona
Appropriations Reports f o r f i s c a l years 1983 through 1987.
* An a d d i t i o n a l $ 7,490,000 t h a t SPB d i d not request was appropriated f o r
s i t e a c q u i s i t i o n s during t h i s period. 3
The Board's limited success i n obtaining General Fund monies is more
pronounced because the Board depends primarily on the General Fund. Whi 1 e
park sites have been acquired through donations, State Land Department
leases, and the Bureau of Land Management's Recreation and Public Purpose
Act, money for purchasing and developing sites most often comes from the
Genera1 Fund. However, competition among state agencies for General Fund
appropriations 1 i m i ts the funds available for parks. Agencies that
provide correctional, educational and public welfare programs receive a
much larger proportion of the General Fund budget, compared to the 1.4
percent received by natural resource agencies such as parks, as shown i n
Figure 4. Arizona state park officials as well as officials from a t least
two other western state parks departments* identified competition for
funds as a major concern.
FIGURE 4
DISTRIBUTION OF GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL
BY FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT
INSPECTION & REGULATION 1.9%
ALTH k lRELFARE
K- 12/ OTHER ED
GENERAL GOVT. 6.2%
NATURAL RESOURCES 1.42
TRANSPORTATION 5.3%
ROTECTION & SAFETY
HICEER EDUCATION
FISCAL YEAR 1007
Source: State of Arizona, Appropriations Report fcr fiscal year ending
June 30, 1987.
* Other western states contacted i ncl ude Cal i fornia, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, New Mexico, Oregon and Utah.
3 1
SPB's reliance on the General Fund has become even more pronounced since
Federal grants under the Land & Water Conservation Fund ( LWCF) have
declined since 1979.* The LWCF was established in 1965 to help state and
1 ocal governments buy and devel op parkl ands. Since the Fund ' s inception,
Arizona state parks received an average of approximately $ 75,000 annually
from the LWCF. However, the future of the LWCF is uncertain since
congressional authorization for the Fund expires in 1989.
Additional Funding Sources
Shoul d Be Considered
Funding sources i n conjunction w i t h the General Fund may be needed to
develop an adequate state parks system. A combination of funding methods
such as those used in other states could provide Arizona's state parks
system with acquisition and development funds. A1 though park acquisition
and development can be expensive, state parks make a positive contribution
to a s t a t e ' s economy and i t s residents.
Funding alternatives - Other states use a combination of funding sources
to finance parkl and acquisition and development. For example,
California's state parks system is funded in part from bond issues, the
General Fund, private foundations and user fees. However, SPB relies
mainly on General Fund appropriations for acquisition and development
funding.**
The results of a recent survey indicate that Arizona residents would
support the foll owi ng methods i f addi t i onal funding were necessary.
* SPB has received funding from the the Land & \ dater Conservation Fund
grant program. However, the Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordination
Commission must approve SPB's grant applications. SPB competes with
the Game & Fish Department, and various counties and cities for LIdCF
monies.
** The State Parks Acquisition and Development Fund was established by
H. B. 2391 in May 1985. The Fund consists of monies appropriated by
the Legislature for park acquisition and development, and of
unconditional gifts and donations.
Lottery - Eighty- seven percent of Arizonans surveyed support use of
lottery revenues for park acquisition and development. For example,
Colorado earmarks 3.5 percent of i t s lottery revenues for state
parks. If a similar proportion of Arizona lottery revenues were
dedicated t o funding state parks, more than $ 4,200,000 would have been
made available for state parks during fiscal year 1986.
Income Tax Check- Off - Providing an opportunity for taxpayers to
voluntarily contribute a portion of their tax refund t o state parks i s
becoming a popular funding a1 ternative. Adding a check- off for parks
to the state income tax form was favored by 82 percent of survey
respondents. However, this a1 ternati ve may provide a 1 imi ted amount
of funds. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1986 Arizona taxpayers
donated $ 260,616 for the prevention of child abuse and $ 228,176 for
the preservation of Arizona ' s wi 1 dl i fe. Giving taxpayers another
option could also reduce donations to existing causes.
Fees - Most respondents ( 51 percent) favored increasing fees.
Presently, SPB must remit the fees i t collects to the General Fund.*
SPB has remitted an averaae of approximately $ 857,000 per year from
fiscal years 1982 through 1986. User fees are retained by several
state parks agencies to fund capital development, 1 and acquisitions or
operations. As park resources are used, i t becomes necessary to
maintain and replace them. Earmarking user fees for state parks keeps
park revenues in the system for maintenance and replacement.
o Documentary Stamp Tax - A tax on real estate transactions that are
recorded on pub1 ic records could be a viable revenue source for state
parks. his' method is used by Florida on the premise that as new
residents immigrate t o the state, a tax on such transactions ensures
that they help finance the state parks system. Florida raised more
than $ 50.8 million in fiscal year 1986 through this tax. Forty- two
percent of survey respondents approved of this alternative.
Severance Tax - Because mining activities are usual ly environmental 1y
d i s r u p t i v e , e use of severance tax proceeds t o acquire and preserve
natural areas nay be an appropriate dedicated revenue source for state
parks. A number of states, including Florida, lfiichigan and Montana,
earmark a portion of severance tax proceeds for their state parks
systems. Severance taxes in Arizona are presently allocated t o
counties, municipal i t i e s , the General Fund and pub1 ic education.
Thi rty- nine percent of survey respondents favored a1 1 ocating a
* SPB staff drafted a bill t o establish a State Parks Real Property
Acquisition Fund in 1980. Proceeds derived from all SPB activities,
including fees, were to be placed in the Fund and remain under SPB's
control . SPB administrators, after discussions with legislators and
their staff, decided against introducing the b i l l . SPB staff were
concerned that if fees were retained, General Fund appropriations
could be reduced, resulting in no net gain.
portion of severance taxes to state parks. If the severance tax rate
on mining a c t i v i t i e s were increased from 2.5 percent to 2.75 percent
and the increment earmarked for state parks, $ 1.4 million would have
been made avail able to fund the system during fiscal year 1985- 86.
Parks make a positive contribution - Although acquiring new parklands can
be costly, state parks make noticeable contributions to a s t a t e ' s economy
and i t s residents. A 1985 study by the Council of State Planning Agencies
reported that state parks have direct impact on a s t a t e ' s economy,* as
shown i n Table 4. While the contribution that s t a t e parks make to
Arizona's economy has not been documented, the report stated that more
than $ 4 billion was spent on recreational a c t i v i t i e s i n Arizona during
f i scal year 1984- 85.
TABLE 4
CONTRIBUTION OF STATE PARKS TO THE STATE'S GENERAL ECONOMY
( unaudited)
State D i rect Economic Impact Time Frame Analyzed
I l l i n o i s $ 1 53,800,000 May 1981 - February 1982
Oregon 123,500,0~ 03( ~ July 1980 - June i 981
West Virginia 30,400,000 January 1979 - December 1979
Missouri 22,? 00,000( 2) January 1981 - December 1981
( 1 Does not include salaries or tax revenues.
( 2) Does not include salaries.
Source: Compiled by Auditor General s t a f f from The Contribution of
Outdoor Recreation to State Economic Development, Council of
State Planning Agencies, 1985.
In addition to direct economic impacts, parks also make indirect and
intangible contributions to a s t a t e ' s economy. Indirect benefits result
from direct income being spent for purchases of local goods and services
to operate a recreation facil i ty. Intangible contributions incl ude
preserving important natural and historic resources, and improving the
quality of l i f e .
* Direct economic impact consists of expenditures by state park visitors
on recreation a c t i v i t i e s and equipment, tax revenues, and salaries
paid to parks system employees.
CONCLUSION
SPB should pursue a combination o f funding sources f o r f i n a n c i n g t h e state
parks system. Relying on General Fund appropriations may not provide the
funds necessary t o develop an adequate state parks system. Funding
methods used by o t h e r s t a t e s should be considered as possible financing
a1 t e r n a t i v e s f o r Arizona's state parks system.
1. SPB should analyze the funding a l t e r n a t i v e s used by o t h e r s t a t e s and
determine the f e a s i b i l i t y o f using them t o finance the Arizona s t a t e
parks system.
2. The Legislature should consider adopting the a1 ternate funding sources
i d e n t i f i e d by SPB, i n conjunction w i t h General Fund appropriations,
for the expansion and development o f the s t a t e parks system.
FINDING IV
STATE PARKS PLANNING SHOULD BE STRENGTHENED
The State Parks Board ( SPB) should improve planning for the parks system.
SPB's current plan is inadequate because it lacks essential information
for decision- making. A1 though the Board has committed i t s e l f to
developing a new plan, current planning resources may be unable to meet
this need.
Parks Board Does Not
Rave An Adeauate PI an
The Parks Board lacks an adequate parks system plan t o guide future
development of the parks system. The current plan was adopted in 1980 b u t
does not include sufficient information to provide guidance in making
decisions about the system. The absence of an adequate plan throughout
much of SPB's history may have contributed t o the inclusion of
inappropriate parks within the state parks system.
We evaluated the adequacy of SP6' s plan and planning process by
interviewing four former and present SPB administrators, five Board
members and a Governor's Task Force member, and by reviewing plans
developed by states that were recommended by three former and present SPB
administrators, an SPB planner and the President of the National
Association of State Parks Directors as having " model" parks systems or
plans. These states were Cal ifornia, A1 aska, Oregon, Utah and Colorado.*
Current plan lacks needed information - The present Parks Board plan lacks
essential information. Minimal planning efforts were made until 1980,
when the State Parks Plan was pub1 ished. The 1980 State Parks Plan,
however, lacks needed information.
a Plan n o t based on needs assessment - A plan should be based on a
needs assessment as a factual base. SPB developed i t s plan without:
* bJe also reviewed Maricopa County's parks system plan, since
evaluation by the Maricopa County Office of Management Analysis
revealed that long- term parks system planning was a strength of the
County Department of Parks and Recreation.
1) adequate information regarding how population growth and other
demand data would affect future parks needs, 2 ) an inventory of
available s i t e s , and 3) user data needed t o form the basis for a good
plan. The 1980 plan referred t o the needs assessment done for the
State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan ( SCORP), b u t did not use
this assessment t o project how i t would influence future needs or
future parks policies. In addition, SPB would have been unable to
use the SCORP assessment because i t addresses only local recreational
needs, whereas SPB must address statewide recreational needs as well
as historic and natural areas preservation.*
Plan not based on user data - An important part of a needs assessment
is user data. User data should include information on user
characteristics and expectations users have of state parks. Without
user data, SPB cannot determine for planning purposes who users are,
how users evaluate the parks system, and whether SPB i s serving i t s
target population. The plan i s not based on park user data. SPB's
1 imited user data was collected after the 1980 plan was developed.
Current plan provides l i t t l e guidance - The 1980 plan a1 so provides
l i t t l e guidance as to future direction of the parks system.
@ Plan is too general - A plan should be specific enough to guide
future park selection and acquisition since that is a prime objective
of planning. The 1980 plan is too general to provide such guidance.
Part of the plan, for example, mainly restates SPB's statutory
authority and purposes, and describes organizational structure, the
planning process, SPB programs, re1 ationships with other agencies and
phi1 osophies in general terms, without stating how these f a c t ~ r s
relate to specific goals and objectives of the Board. The plan also
indicates that identifying needs is important b u t does not state what
those needs are. To the extent that goals and objectives are
delineated, the goals are very general or relate only to processes
that the Board intends t o use, rather than specific outcomes the
Board wants for the system. Board minutes show that the plan may
have intentionally been generally written. A t least one Board member
t h o u g h t that a specific plan would open the Board t o criticism if SPB
" didn't accomplish [ what] . . . we said we were going to do."
Plan is a short- term plan - In addition, several informed sources
indicate i t is important € 0 have a long- term plan t o set direction
for parks beyond the immediate future. The 1980 plan i s only a
five- year plan and is already outdated. SPB's former Girector did
not want to develop a long- term plan because he f e l t that the " year
t o year appropriations [ would] determine what happens on a long- term
basis." In comparison, Maricopa County's plan covered a 15- year
period, and California and Alaska have 20- year plans. After
initial ly developing a short- term plan, Colorado is preparing a
20- year plan. Long- term planning i s especi a1 ly important for Arizona
* For a more complete evaluation of SCORP, see Auditor General Report
84- 3.
because i t s rapid growth necessitates acquiring sites now t o prevent
their loss t o future development.
As a result, the Board has not benefited from the advantages of having an
adequate plan. The Board has acknowledged that the parks system has
evolved haphazardly, responding t o special interest pressures rather than
resulting from planned growth in anticipation of future needs.
Interviews with officials of other parks agencies indicate that a good
plan would have mitigated some of these results. For example, park
officials stated that plans have: 1) allowed the systematic and orderly
acquisition of s i t e s ; 2) informed legislators, citizens, and special
interest groups of the parks system's future direction; 3) provided
agencies with goals and procedures to meet those goals; and 4) increased
their vi si bil i ty and credi bil i ty among 1 egi sl ators. Finally, plans can
also be used t o justify rejection of sites that should not be parks.
This advantage is especially important to the Board in light of the
inappropriate parks cited in Finding I1 ( page 21 ). A1 though a plan does
not guarantee that no unwanted sites will become state parks, i t hei ps
minimize that possibility. California has used i t s plan t o reject some
proposals in the face of strenuous political pressure.
One s i t e , strongly supported by area pol i tical representatives,
appeared to meet all b u t one criterion for a state park. Because i t
was located in a remote area, i t s designation as a park would have
been counter to the state's policy of conserving scarce energy
resources. By using the plan t o show which specific sites would not
become state parks if this proposed site ( which would have cost
" mil 1 ions" to acquire) were approved, Parks staff counteracted
pol i tical pressure.
In another case, strong local and legislative support apparently
resulted in the passage of a bill authorizing a park site not in the
plan. The Governor, in vetoing the b i l l , apparently referred to the
plan as one reason for his action.
Board Needs To Develop
A State Parks Plan
SPB should prepare a new plan to guide the development of the parks
system. Previous Boards have been reluctant t o develop adequate plans,
b u t the current Board and staff seem to have a stronger commitment to
planning. However, current planning resources may not be able to meet
i t s needs.
Current Board supports planning - Previous Boards have been re1 uctant to
develop adequate plans, b u t the current Board is more strongly committed
to planning. In part, SPB does not have a good plan because past Parks
Boards did not support SPB staff planning efforts. SPB seriously began
to develop a plan 13 years after i t s inception, and only after i t s
Director had written a strongly worded memo urging the Board to make
planning a priority. The draft plan, completed in 1973, was more
adequate than the 1980 plan because i t proposed specific policy
directions for the Parks Board. For example, the plan proposed a change
in SPB's role t o one of leadership in state outdoor recreation. I t a1 so
presented an " exciting and ambitious . . . b u t . . . realistic"
acquisition program for 1975 to 1980, and stressed acquisition of
endangered areas as soon as possible. However, because the Board never
adopted this plan and because the 1980 plan i s inadequate, the Board is
s t i l l operating without an adequate plan.
Current Board members recognize the importance of parks planning. The
Board requested $ 315,000 t o complete a long- range parks system plan for
the 1986- 87 budget year. In making i t s request, the Board conceded t h a t
the parks system had not responded to population growth or changing
public needs. Although the request was not funded, the Board has
proceeded with planning and held a workshop in September 1986 to set
planning goals and objectives.
Resources to develop comprehensive plan may be inadequate - Despite i t s
intentions to proceed with planning, the Parks Board may need t o
determine whether i t has adequate resources t o develop a good plan.
Several Board members view planning as weak because of the planning
s t a f f ' s scattered pl acement in the organization and inadequate
resources.
SPB currently has a t o t a l of seven planners in three different
organizational sections. Three planning staff are in the Operations and
Development Section and are responsible for parks s i t e planning. Thus,
these staff do n o t perform statewide 1 ong- term planning. Four planning
positions are in the Statewide Pl anni ng Coordination Section .* However,
two of these three employees' primary duties are to provide support for
the Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission ( AORCC) .** The
third planner works primarily with the Natural Areas Program, and the
fourth planning position represents a newly funded position for fiscal
year 1986- 87, which will be working exclusively with the State Trails
Program. The remaining planner i s housed in the Director's Office where
his invol vement in planning is 1 imi ted. A1 though Auditor General Report
84- 3 ( Performance Audit of AORCC) stated that combining AORCC and SPB
staff would strengthen long- range planning for parks and statewide
recreation, apparently, 1 i t t l e integration of pl anniny has occurred. SPB
should evaluate whether i t s planning function, as currently organized,
meets i t s needs.
The Board should also determine whether outside experts are needed to
develop an adequate plan. As shown in Findings I and I1 ( pages 13 and
21 1, the Parks Board will have to devote resources to studying needs
before i t can complete a plan. SPB nay require funds to hi re consultants
t o complete portions of i t s needs assessment requiring special
expertise. In developing i t s long- term parks plan in the early 1960s,
Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department elicited the foll owing
specialized assistance.
@ An appraisal of archaeological resources by the Arizona State Museum
and the University of Arizona under contract with the county.
A historical survey conducted by the Arizona Historical Foundation in
agreement with the county Board of Supervisors.
A geological report developed by a 1 ocal consulting geologist.
Development of the plan itself by a parks planning consultant.
* We did not include two positions - Planning idanayer, and Chief,
Statewide Planning Coordination Section - because staff in these
positions perform administrative duties, and are not involved
directly with planning per se.
** In 1984 AORCC staff were placed in SPB and the Statewide Planning
Coordination Section was establ ished. However, AORCC i s s t i l l
responsible for Land and Water Conservation Fund, State Lake
Improvement Fund, and Boating Law Enforcement and Safety Fund grant
selection.
4 1
Thus, prior to developing a plan, SPB should determine what resources may
be needed to develop an adequate plan.
CONCLUSIONS
The Parks Board should improve planning for the parks system. The 1980
plan i s inadequate because i t lacks critical information for making
decisions. A1 though the Board i s committed to developing a new plan,
current planning resources may be inadequate to meet i t s needs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The State Parks Board should develop a 1 ong- term parks system plan,
which includes specific goals and objectives and i s based on studies
of projected population needs, user needs and evaluations, and
inventories and prioritizing of potential park sites.
2. SPB should evaluate i t s current organization of the planning function,
need for outside expertise, and level of planning staff. If
necessary, the Board shoul d request additional planning resources from
the Legislature.
FINDING V
STATUTORY CHANGES ARE NEEDED TO ALLOW THE PARKS BOARD
TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE ITS LAND
Statutory changes are needed to improve the Parks Board's a b i l i t y t o
effectively manage i t s land. The Board currently has no authority to
dispose of unneeded 1 and. Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S) S41- 511 .05
allows the Board to acquire land through ". . . purchase, lease,
agreement, donation, grant, bequest, or . . . eminent domain for state
park or monument purposes. . . ." However, the Board's statutes do not
expressly authorize the Parks Board to dispose of property. Without this
authority the Board's ability to manage i t s land i s limited. For
example, the Board cannot exchange properties on the periphery of a park
for privately owned land within parks. The Parks Board is also unable
to dispose of sites that no longer meet the s t a t e ' s needs.
Authority to dispose of unnecessary land i s an accepted land management
practice. The Oregon parks agency has the authority to dispose of
unwanted sites. I t commonly disposes of sites when the sites no longer
have the potential for significant use. These sites are turned over to
other levels of government or are traded for privately owned parcels.
Other Arizona agencies that manage or deal with land, such as the State
Lands Department and the Arizona Department of Transportation, also have
the authority both t o acquire and dispose of land. For example, the
State Land Department may acquire and dispose of state lands by trading
for other land, either pub1 ic or private. The Land Department may a1 so
dispose of state lands by sell ing them a t fair market value.
RECOMMENDATION
The Legislature should consider amending A. R. S. $ 41 - 51 1.05 to a1 1 ow the
State Parks Board t o dispose of lands that are no longer beneficial to
the parks system and to trade unwanted parklands t o accomplish Board
goal s.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
Other pertinent information was developed regarding public awareness of
state parks and the State Parks Board's ( SPB) public information efforts.
Awareness Of State Parks
The majority of the pub1 ic is not aware of most state parks. Less than 50
percent of residents surveyed are generally aware of 14 of Arizona's 19
currently open state parks. Moreover, public awareness of six state parks
i s low even among residents of the parks' adjacent localities.
TABLE 5
PUBLIC AWARENESS OF ARIZONA STATE PARKS
% Residents In
Planning % Residents Statewide Planning DIstrict
- Park ~ is t r i c t ( 1) Aware Aware
Lake Havasu
Picacho Peak
Tombstone Court.
Jerome
Yuma Terr. Prison
Patagonia Lake
Painted Rock
Catal ina
Fort Verde
Lost Dutchman
Tubac Presidio
A1 amo Lake
Boyce Thompson
Lyman Lake
Dead Horse Ranch
Buckskin M t .
Roper Lake
Ri ordan
McFarl and
West
Central
Southeast
Northeast
West
Southeast
Maricopa
Pi ma
Northeast
Central
Southeast
West
Central
Northeast
Northeast
West
Southeast
Northeast
Central
( 1 ) Arizona has six planning d i s t r i c t s : Central ( Gila and Pinal
counties) ; Maricopa; Northeast ( Apache, Coconino, Navajo and
Yavapai counties ) ; Pima; Southeast ( Cochi se, Graham, Green1 ee,
and Santa Cruz counties); and West ( La Paz, Mohave and Yuma
counties 1.
Source: Compiled by Auditor General staff from telephone survey conducted
by Behavior Research Center, Inc. ( see Appendix).
Five state parks generated awareness levels of more than 50 percent. Lake
Havasu State Park generated the highest recognition level - 67 percent -
b u t this reading may overstate actual awareness. Respondents may have
been reflecting recognition of the overall Lake Havasu area and not
speci fical ly the state park. For example, Buckskin Mountain State Park,
approximately 30 miles from Lake Havasu, generated a statewide awareness
level of only 10 percent. Moreover, three other state parks with
awareness levels exceeding 50 percent also contain a city or town name,
and the fourth, Picacho Peak State Park, i s located on the major highway
between Phoenix and Tucson ( see Table 5, page 45). As with Lake Havasu
State Park, respondents could be recognizing the area and not necessarily
the park i t s e l f .
SPB Does Not Actively
Pub llci ze btate Parks
The State Parks Board's efforts t o publicize Arizona's state parks has
been very 1 imited. According t o SPB staff, the " low profile" approach of
the previous administration resulted in a reluctance to actively promote
state parks t o the pub1 ic. As a result, l i t t l e money has been budgeted
for marketing activities. Nor has SPB developed formal agreements with
the Office of Tourism or the Department of Transportation to collectively
promote Arizona's state parks system.* The 1 imi ted marketing efforts are
reflected in the Behavior Research Center's findings that 67 percent of
the respondents to i t s survey received state park information from
discussions with friends or relatives.**
Several other states surveyed reported a higher level of marketing
activity than Arizona. ~ ai flo rnia ' s state parks staff target specific
groups and then design special programs for thern. In Colorado, special
events are used t o boost attendance on slack days. Finally, a number of
western state parks organizations work closely with their tourism or
transportation agencies to promote their state parks systems.
- k The State Parks Board has an informal agreement with the Office of
Tourism under which Tourism distributes pamphlets about state parks.
** According to the survey, other key sources of state park information
include state maps ( 52 percent) and newspaper articles ( 50 percent).
AREAS FOR FURTHER AUDIT WORK
During the course of our audit we identified several potential issues
that we were unable t o pursue because they were beyond the scope of our
audit or we lacked sufficient time.
Could the State Parks Board more effectively use s t a t e t r u s t lands
for state parks?
Some state parks are located on lands leased from the State Land
Department. These lands are held in trust by the State as designated i n
the Arizona Enabling Act. The Enabling Act stipulates that proceeds from
the trust are t o be used in large part for educational purposes. The Act
also stipulates that trust lands ". . . shall not be sold or leased, in
whole or in part, except to the highest and best bidder. . . ." ' While
the State Parks Board ( SPB) may more readily obtain land through leasing
from the State Land Department than through outright acquisition, the
stipulation that lands must be leased t o the highest and best bidder
results in the Parks Board paying substantial lease fees in some cases.
For example, lease fees for Catalina State Park are more than $ 87, OCO
annually. Furthermore, the lease will have t o be renegotiated in 1993,
and the fee may be increased substantially due to the escalating property
values in that area.
Although the Board can purchase trust lands rather than leasing them, the
Enabling Act's stipulation could also result in more costly
acquisitions. According t o former SPB staff, at least two other western
states have successfully petitioned Congress and had their enabling acts
amended t o allow for the use of s t a t e t r u s t lands for recreational
purposes. Further audit work i s necessary to determine how the State
Parks Board can most efficiently use state trust lands for state parks,
and what imp1 ications changes in the Enabling Act would have for trust
beneficiaries and the state.
Has the Board effectively planned for the use of current and
authorized park1 ands?
Several parks do not have master plans to guide future park development.
In addition, because the Board has n o t completed a comprehensive analysis
of park user needs, i t is unknown whether the parks are being deveaoped
to meet public needs. Furthermore, the pub1 ic may not always be
adequately represented when parks are master planned because SPB relies
almost exclusively on park managers to identify which indivi dual s shoul d
participate i n the master planning process. Additional audit work is
necessary to determine whether park sites are adequately planned to meet
user needs.
Are the parks being maintained efficiently and effectively?
Park maintenance may be deficient because of inadequate s t a f f , equipment
and preventive maintenance. Currently the Board has two maintenance
empl oyees for the who1 e system. These empl oyees, however, are carpenters
primarily responsible for making signs. Consequently, park maintenance
is often carried out by park employees. Park employees may n o t have the
necessary equipment and expertise t o complete maintenance duties. For
example, at some parks lawn and weed mowing are done with small
residential 1 awnmowers rather than commercial riding mowers which could
decrease mowing time. Furthermore, while most parks woul d benefit from
preventive maintenance, preventive maintenance i s not being carried out
consistently. Further audit work is necessary to determine the impact of
these factors on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Board's
operations.
0 Are parks appropriately staffed?
Staffing at the parks may not be adequate t o meet the public's needs.
According t o staff at several parks, they frequently work overtime t o
complete their jobs. In addition, many park employees carry various
certifications ( eg. law enforcement officer, wastewater treatment
operator) which necessitate additional training and resul t in time away
from the park, thus further decreasing available staff.
48
Moreover, several parks have been unabl e to devel op adequate interpretive
education programs, apparently due to staff shorta~ es. Further audit
work i s necessary to determine work load measures for each park and then
develop staffing patterns based on the work load.
0 Should the Board's membership be changed?
Board enabling statutes require that a t least two Board members be
involved in the 1 ivestock industry. This provision was reportedly part
of a compromise w i t h the livestock industry, which strongly opposed the
creation of a state parks systev. The livestock industry no longer plays
as significant a role i n the s t a t e ' s economy. Further, according to one
official , it is becomina increasingly di fficul t t o find individual s
involved in the livestock industry who are interested i n recreation.
Further audit work is necessary to determine whether this statutory
requirement is outdated and should be amended.
ARIZONA
STATE
PARKS
800 W. WASHINGTON
SUITE 415
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007
TELEPHONE 602- 255- 4174
I,
BRUCE BABBITT
GOVERNOR
STATE PARKS
BOARD MEMBERS
REESE G. WOODLING
CHAIRMAN
TUCSON
ELIZABETH A. DRAKE
VICE CHAIR
PHOENIX
DUANE MILLER
SECRETARY
SEDONA
GWEN ROBINSON
YUMA
WILLIAM G. ROE
TUCSON
JON1 BOSH
PHOENlX
ROBERT K. LANE
STATE LAND COMMISSIONER
DON CHARPIO, Ed. D.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
KEN TRAVOUS
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
December 26, 1986
Douglas Norton
Auditor General
2700 N. Central, Suite 700
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Dear Mr. Norton:
The Arizona State Parlts Ecard would like tc acknowledge the professional
manner in which your staff conducted the performance audit of the Arizona
State Parks Board in compliance with the Sunset Review set forth in ARS
$ 41 - 2351 through 2379.
The Arizona State Parks Board agrees with the conclusions that have been
reached in all five Finding areas.
The Board will undertake a comprehensive analysis of the State's future needs
and alternative funding sources in 1987. A coordinated effort between the
Board, the Administration and the Legislature for the next ten years will be
essential if the Board is to accomplish its mandate of preserving, developing
and maintaining natural, cultural, historical and recreational resources for
the enjoyment of residents and visitors.
The challenges that lie ahead can be met through proper planning and
progressive thinking by all who share the responsibility of providing for the
recreational and resource protection needs of Arizona.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth A. Drake
Chair
State Parks Board
CONSERVING AND MANAGING ARIZONA'S HISTORIC PLACES. HISTORIC SITES, AND RECREATIONAL. SCENIC AND NATURAL AREAS
STATE PARKS STUDY
A u g u s t , 1986
Volume I -- Summary A n a l y s i s
p r e p a r e d f o r
S t a t e o f A r i z o n a
O f f i c e o f t h e A u d i t o r G e n e r a l
p r e p a r e d by
B e h a v i o r Research C e n t e r , I n c .
1117 N o r t h T h i r d S t r e e t
P h o e n i x , A r i z o n a
( 6 0 2 ) 258- 4554
+ I
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
TABLE OF CONTENTS
paye
L I S T OF TABLES i
INTRODUCTION 1
OVERVIEW 3
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS 5
O v e r a l l Awareness o f S t a t e P a r k s 5
O v e r a l l S t a t e P a r k V i s i t a t i o n P a t t e r n s 7
Awareness and V i s i t a t i o n a t A r i z o n a S t a t e P a r k s 9
R e c r e a t i o n a l A c t i v i t y P a r t i c i p a t i o n 12
I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s 16
The P r i m a r y R e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e S t a t e P a r k s B o a r d 18
S t a t e P a r k s F u n d i n g 21
METHODOLOGY 2 5
APPENDIX 30
S u r v e y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
0
behavior research center
L I S T OF T A B L E S
T A B L E 1: STATE PARKS AWARENESS SUMMARY -
NUMBER OF STATE PARKS AWARE OF 5
T A B L E 2: PARK AWARENESS B Y DEMOGRAPHICS 6
T A B L E 3 : STATE PARK V I S I T A T I O N SUMMARY - NUMBER OF
STATE PARKS V I S I T E D I N PAST TWO YEARS 7
T A B L E 4: PARK V I S I T A T I O N S BY DEMOGRAPHICS 8
T A B L E 5: AWARENESS AND V I S I T A T I O N
A T A R I Z O N A STATE PARKS 10
T A B L E 6: E V A L U A T I O N OF A R I Z O N A STATE PARKS AMONG
PERSONS WHO HAVE V I S I T E D EACH 11
T A B L E 7 : R E C R E A T I O N A L A C T I V I T Y P A R T I C I P A T I O N 1 2
T A B L E 8: R E C R E A T I O N A L P A R T I C I P A T I O N B Y D E M O G R A P H I C S 13
T A B L E 9: HOURS W I L L I N G TO T R A V E L ( ONE- WAY) TO
P A R T I C I P A T E I N OUTDOOR R E C R E A T I O N
A C T I V I T I E S 15
T A B L E 10: I N F O R M A T I O N SOURCES 1 6
T A B L E 11: I N F O R M A T I O N BY DEMOGRAPHICS 1 7
T A B L E 1 2 : PRIMARY R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y OF THE S T A T E
PARKS BOARD 19
T A B L E 1 3 : F U N D I N G O P T I O N S 2 2
T A B L E 1 4 : F U N D I N G O P T I O N S BY DEMOGRAPHICS 2 3
phoenix, arizona
- l
INTRODUCTION
T h i s s t u d y was c o m m i s s i o n e d b y t h e O f f i c e o f t h e A u d i t o r
General o f t h e S t a t e o f A r i z o n a and r e p r e s e n t s one component o f
t h e A u d i t o r G e n e r a l ' s P e r f o r m a n c e A u d i t o f t h e S t a t e Parks Board.
The p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h e f f o r t were:
o To m e a s u r e p u b l i c a w a r e n e s s and u s a g e o f t h e
s t a t e p a r k s system;
o To measure u s e r s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e x i s t i n g p a r k
f a c i l i t i e s and p r o g r a m s ;
o To d e t e r m i n e t h e pub1 i c ' s p e r c e p t i o n s r e g a r d i n g
t h e p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n o f t h e S t a t e P a r k s Board;
and,
o To e v a l u a t e v a r i o u s m e t h o d s o f f u n d i n g s t a t e
p a r k s .
The i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s r e p o r t i s based on 303
t e l e p h o n e i n t e r v i e w s c o n d u c t e d w i t h a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c r o s s -
s e c t i o n o f A r i z o n a r e s i d e n t s . A l l o f t h e i n t e r v i e w i n g on t h i s
p r o j e c t was c o n d u c t e d b e t w e e n A u g u s t 22 and 26, 1986, by p r o f e s -
s i o n a l i n t e r v i e w e r s o f t h e B e h a v i o r R e s e a r c h C e n t e r . F o r a
d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e p r o c e d u r e s f o l l o w e d d u r i n g t h i s p r o -
j e c t , p l e a s e r e f e r t o t h e METHODOLOGY s e c t i o n o f t h i s r e p o r t .
T h i s s t u d y i s p r e s e n t e d i n t h r e e volumes; Volume I -- Sum-mary
A n a l y s i s , which p r e s e n t s a w r i t t e n a n a l y s i s o f t h e s u r v e y
f i n d i n g s ; and Volumes I 1 and 111 -- D e t a i l e d Tables, which p r e -
s e n t c o m p u t e r - g e n e r a t e d t a b l e s a n a l y z i n g each s t u d y q u e s t i o n by
R p t 3 4 / # 8
8
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
The B e h a v i o r Research C e n t e r has p r e s e n t e d a l l o f t h e d a t a
germane t o t h e b a s i c r e s e a r c h o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s p r o j e c t .
However, i f t h e A u d i t o r General r e q u i r e s a d d i t i o n a l d a t a
r e t r i e v a l o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , we s t a n d r e a d y t o p r o v i d e s u c h
i n p u t .
BEHAVIOR RESEARCH CENTER
f
2
26 v a r i a b l e s . T h r o u g h o u t Volume I, t h e r e a r e i n d i c a t o r s a t t h e
l o w e r l e f t hand c o r n e r o f each summary t a b l e w h i c h d i r e c t t h e
r e a d e r t o t h e d e t a i l e d t a b l e s i n Volumes I 1 and 111, f r o m which
t h e d a t a was drawn.
R p t 3 4 / # 8
L
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
OVERVIEW
o The t y p i c a l A r i z o n a r e s i d e n t i s aware o f s i x o f
19 s t a t e p a r k s and has v i s i t e d t w o o f them i n
t h e p a s t t w o y e a r s .
o T h e s t a t e p a r k s w i t h t h e h i g h e s t r e c o g n i t i o n
l e v e l s a r e :
- Lake Havasu S t a t e P a r k ( r e s i d e n t s a w a r e : 6 7 % )
- P i c a c h o Peak S t a t e P a r k ( 5 4 % )
- T o m b s t o n e C o u r t House S t a t e H i s t o r i c a l P a r k
( 5 4 % )
- Jerome S t a t e H i s t o r i c a l P a r k ( 5 3 % )
- Yuma T e r r i t o r i a l P r i s o n S t a t e H i s t o r i c a l p a r k
( 52%)
o The most commonly v i s i t e d s t a t e p a r k s a r e :
- J e r o m e ( 21% o f r e s i d e n t s have v i s i t e d i n t h e
p a s t t w o y e a r s )
- P i c a c h o Peak ( 2 0 % )
- Lake Havasu ( 1 8 % )
- Tombstone C o u r t House ( 1 7 % )
- P a t a g o n i a Lake S t a t e P a r k ( 1 6 % )
o The s t a t e ' s 1 9 p a r k s r e c e i v e g e n e r a l l y f a v o r a b l e
r a t i n g s f r o m v i s i t o r s i n t e r m s o f o v e r a l l
f a c i l i t i e s .
o A r i z o n a r e s i d e n t s a r e w i l l i n g t o t r a v e l m a j o r
d i s t a n c e s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n a l
a c t i v i t i e s . The t y p i c a l r e s i d e n t i s w i l l i n g t o
t r a v e l a maximum o f j u s t o v e r t w o and o n e - h a l f
h o u r s ( o n e - w a y ) on a o n e - d a y t r i p and f o u r and
one- ha1 f h o u r s ( o n e - w a y ) o n an o v e r n i g h t , week-end
t r i p .
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
o Word- of- month i s t h e p r i m a r y s o u r c e f r o m which
r e s i d e n t s r e c e i v e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t A r i z o n a
s t a t e p a r k s .
o A p l u r a l i t y o f A r i z o n a r e s i d e n t s ( 4 3 % ) b e l i e v e
t h e p r i m a r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e S t a t e Parks
B o a r d s h o u l d be " t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n o f s c e n i c and
n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s ."
o I f t h e s t a t e p a r k s system r e q u i r e s a d d i t i o n a l
f u n d s t o meet r e c r e a t i o n a l needs, t h e r e i s c l e a r
p u b l i c a p p r o v a l t o r a i s e such f u n d s v i a t h r e e o f
e i g h t methods t e s t e d .
- U s i n g a p o r t i o n o f s t a t e l o t t e r y p r o c e e d s f o r
s t a t e p a r k s ( 87% a p p r o v a l ) .
- A d d i n g a space on t h e s t a t e income t a x f o r m
w h e r e p e o p l e c o u l d check o f f a s m a l l c o n t r i -
b u t i o n f o r s t a t e p a r k s ( 82%).
- U s i n g a l a r g e r s h a r e o f t h e s t a t e ' s g e n e r a l
f u n d f o r s t a t e p a r k s ( 6 0 % ) .
P u b l i c r e a c t i o n t o t h e r e m a i n i n g f i v e methods o f
f u n d i n g were mixed.
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
I
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS
O v e r a l l Awareness o f S t a t e P a r k s
The t y p i c a l A r i z o n a r e s i d e n t i s aware o f s i x o u t o f t h e 19
s t a t e p a r k s c u r r e n t l y i n o p e r a t i o n . O n l y f i v e p e r c e n t o f r e s i -
I d e n t s a r e n o t aware o f any o f t h e p a r k s w h i l e n e a r l y o n e - t h i r d
( 28%) a r e f a m i l i a r w i t h n i n e o r more.
TABLE 1: STATE PARKS AWARENESS SUMMARY -
NUMBER OF STATE PARKS AWARE OF
Zero
One t o two
T h r e e t o f o u r
F i v e t o s i x
Seven t o e i g h t
N i n e t o t e n
Over t e n
Mean
( DT 1 7 2 - 1 8 0 )
m ~ ~ m r a m m m r a r s r ~ m m m ~ n m
I The f o l l o w i n g d e m o g r a p h i c s s u b - g r o u p s r e v e a l t h e h i g h e s t
0 I l e v e l s o f s t a t e p a r k awareness:
o M a l e s ( 6 . 8 vs 5.6 f o r f e m a l e s ) .
o C e n t r a l P l a n n i n g D i s t r i c t r e s i d e n t s ( 9 . 5 ) .
I o R e s i d e n t s between 55 and 64 y e a r s o l d ( 6 . 9 ) .
o U p p e r i n c o m e r e s i d e n t s ( 6 . 9 f o r r e s i d e n t s e a r n -
i n g $ 35,000 a y e a r o r m o r e ) .
o Long t e r m r e s i d e n t s ( 7.2 f o r r e s i d e n t s l i v i n g i n
A r i z o n a o v e r t e n y e a r s .
Rpt 34/# 8
8
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
6
T h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e f o l l o w i n g t a b l e i s p a r t i c u l a r l y
i n t e r e s t i n g b e c a u s e i t t e n d s t o r e v e a l t h a t p a r k a w a r e n e s s
i n c r e a s e s w i t h age, i n c o m e a n d a s m i g h t be e x p e c t e d , l e n g t h o f
r e s i d e n c e .
TABLE 2: PARK AWARENESS BY DEMOGRAPHICS
Mean
T o t a l 6.2
Gender
Ma1 e
Female
P l a n n i n g D i s t r i c t
M a r i copa
P i ma 6.8
N o r t h e a s t ( C o c o n i n o , N a v a j o Apache, Y a v a p a i ) 6.9
West ( Mohave, Yuma, La Paz) 4.5
C e n t r a l ( G i 1 a, P i n a l ) 9.5
S o u t h e a s t ( Graham, G r e e n l e e , S a n t a C r u z ,
C o c h i s e ) 6.7
Age
Under 25
25 t o 34
35 t o 44
45 t o 54
55 t o 64
65 o r o v e r
Income
Under $ 15,000
$ 15,000 t o $ 24,999
$ 25,000 t o $ 34,999
$ 35, OUU o r more
Years i n A r i z o n a
Under 1 y e a r
1 t o 5 y e a r s
6 t o 10 y e a r s
Over 10 y e a r s
( DT 1 7 2 - 1 8 0 )
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
O v e r a l l S t a t e P a r k V i s i t a t i o n P a t t e r n s
W h i l e t h e t y p i c a l A r i z o n a r e s i d e n t i s aware o f s i x s t a t e
p a r k s , t h e y have o n l y v i s i t e d t w o , on a v e r a g e , i n t h e p a s t c o u p l e
o f y e a r s . It i s a l s o e v i d e n t i n t h e n e x t t a b l e t h a t s l i g h t l y
o v e r o n e - t h i r d ( 3 5 % ) o f r e s i d e n t s h a v e n o t v i s i t e d a n y s t a t e
p a r k s i n t h e p a s t two y e a r s w h i l e 35 p e r c e n t have v i s i t e d one o r
t w o and 30 p e r c e n t have v i s i t e d t h r e e o r more.
TABLE 3: STATE PARK VISITATION SUMMARY -
NUMBER OF STATE PARKS VISITED I N PAST TWO YEARS
Z e r o 3 5 %
One t o t w o 3 5
T h r e e t o f o u r 18
F i v e t o s i x 7
Seven t o e i g h t 3
N i n e t o t e n 1
Over 10 1
100%
Mean 1.9
( DT 1 8 1 - 1 8 6 )
As was t h e c a s e w i t h p a r k a w a r e n e s s , t h e r e a r e m a j o r
v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e v i s i t a t i o n p a t t e r n s among t h e v a r i o u s s u b -
g r o u p s s t u d i e d . Thus, as may be seen i n T a b l e 4, m a l e s ( 2 . 1 ) ~
C e n t r a l P l a n n i n g D i s t r i c t r e s i d e n t s ( 3 . 1 ) , m i d d l e aged ( 4 5 t o 5 4 )
r e s i d e n t s ( 2 . 2 ) , u p p e r i n c o m e r e s i d e n t s ( 2 . 3 ) , a n d l o n g t e r m
r e s i d e n t s ( 2 . 1 ) r e v e a l h i g h e r s t a t e p a r k u t i 1 i z a t i o n p a t t e r n s
t h a n do t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s .
7
I
Rpt 3 4 / # 8
\
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
T o t a l
Gender
Ma1 e
Femal e
P l a n n i n g D i s t r i c t
M a r i copa
Pima
N o r t h e a s t
West
C e n t r a l
S o u t h e a s t
Age
Under 25
25 t o 34
35 t o 44
45 t o 54
55 t o 64
65 o r o l d e r
Income
Under $ 15,000
$ 15,000 t o $ 24,999
$ 25,000 t o $ 34,999
$ 35,000 o r o v e r
Years i n A r i z o n a
Under 1 y e a r
1 t o 5 y e a r s
6 t o 10 y e a r s
Over 10 y e a r s
( DT 1 8 1 - 1 8 6 )
m m i ~ m m r w m m m r n r ~ r ~ r n m m
8
TABLE 4: PARK VISITATIONS BY DEMOGRAPHICS
Mean
1.9
2.1
1.6
R p t 3 4 / # 8
L /
behav~ orr esearch center phoenix, arizona
Awareness and V i s i t a t i o n a t A r i z o n a S t a t e Parks
Survey r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e a s k e d t o i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r o r n o t
t h e y w e r e a w a r e o f each o f A r i z o n a ' s 19 s t a t e p a r k s . Those who
were aware o f each were t h e n asked if t h e y had v i s i t e d i t i n t h e
p a s t two y e a r s .
As t h e f o l l o w i n g t a b l e r e v e a l s , Lake Havasu S t a t e Park gen-e
r a t e s t h e h i g h e s t r e c o g n i t i o n 1 eve1 among A r i zona r e s i d e n t s . We
a r e o f t h e o p i n i o n , however, t h a t t h i s r e a d i n g may be somewhat o f
an o v e r s t a t e m e n t i n t h a t r e s i d e n t s may h a v e been r e f l e c t i n g
r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e o v e r a l l Lake Havasu a r e a and n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y
t h e s t a t e p a r k .
I n a d d i t i o n t o L a k e H a v a s u S t a t e P a r k , f o u r o t h e r p a r k s
g e n e r a t e d awareness l e v e l s i n excess of 50 p e r c e n t . They a r e ;
( a ) P i c a c h o Peak ( 5 4 % ) , ( b ) T o m b s t o n e C o u r t House ( 5 4 % ) , ( c )
Jerome ( 5 1 3 % ) ~ and ( d ) Yuma T e r r i t o r i a l P r i s o n ( 5 2 % ) . The r e i n a i n -
i n g s t a t e p a r k s g e n e r a t e d awareness l e v e l s r a n g i n g f r o m 43 p e r
c e n t f o r P a t a g o n i a Lake t o s i x p e r c e n t f o r M c F a r l a n d .
I n t e r m s of v i s i t i n g p a t t e r n s , Jerome ( 2 1 % ) , P i c a c h o Peak
( 2 0 % ) , Lake Havasu ( l a % ) , Tombstone C o u r t House ( 1 7 % ) , and P a t a -
g o n i a Lake a r e t h e most commonly v i s i t e d s t a t e p a r k s i n A r i z o n a .
D
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
-
TABLE 5: AWARENESS AND VISITATION
AT ARIZONA STATE PARKS
V i s i t e d P a s t Two
Years As % O f
P a r k Aware Those A1 1
O f Aware R e s i d e n t s
Lake Havasu S t a t e P a r k 6 7 %
P i c a c h o Peak S t a t e P a r k 54
Tombstone C o u r t House S t a t e
H i s t o r i c a l P a r k 54
Jerome S t a t e H i s t o r i c a l P a r k 53
Yuma T e r r i t o r i a l P r i s o n S t a t e
H i s t o r i c a l P a r k 52
P a t a g o n i a Lake S t a t e P a r k 43
P a i n t e d Rock S t a t e P a r k 41
C a t a l i n a S t a t e P a r k 3 9
F o r t Verde S t a t e H i s t o r i c a l P a r k 36
L o s t Dutchman S t a t e P a r k 34
Tubac P r e s i d i o S t a t e H i s t o r i c a l P a r k 3 3
Alamo Lake S t a t e P a r k 2 9
Boyce Thompson S o u t h w e s t e r n A r b o r e t u m 22
Lyman Lake S t a t e P a r k 19
Dead H o r s e Ranch S t a t e Park 15
B u c k s k i n M o u n t a i n S t a t e P a r k 10
Roper Lake S t a t e P a r k 9
R i o r d i a n S t a t e H i s t o r i c a l P a r k 8
M c F a r l and S t a t e H i s t o r i c a l P a r k 6
( DT 1 - 1 7 1 )
A f t e r r e s p o n d e n t s had i n d i c a t e d w h i c h s t a t e p a r k s t h e y had
v i s i t e d i n t h e p a s t t w o y e a r s t h e y w e r e a s k t o r a t e each i n t e r m s
o f o v e r a l l f a c i l i t i e s . As t h e n e x t t a b l e r e v e a l s , most o f t h e
s t a t e p a r k s r e c e i v e d q u i t e f a v o r a b l e r e a d i n g s f r o m v i s i t o r s . Two
o f t h e s t a t e p a r k s , h o w e v e r , r e c e i v e d n e g a t i v e r e a d i n g s o f " o n l y
f a i r " o r " p o o r " a t n o t i c e a b l y h i g h e r l e v e l s t h a n d i d t h e o t h e r
p a r k s s t u d i e d . These were P a t a g o n i a Lake and Alamo L a k e , w i t h
n e g a t i v e r e a d i n g s o f 31 p e r c e n t and 28 p e r c e n t , r e s p e c t i v e l y . I n
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
11
a d d i t i o n , t h r e e o t h e r p a r k s -- Yuma T e r r i t o r i a l P r i s o n , P a i n t e d
R o c k , a n d C a t a l i n a -- r e c e i v e d n e g a t i v e r e a d i n g s f r o m 24 p e r c e n t
o f t h e i r v i s i t o r s . Each o f t h e r e m a i n i n g 1 4 s t a t e p a r k s r e c e i v e d
n e g a t i v e r e a d i n g s o f l e s s t h a n 20 p e r c e n t .
TABLE 6: EVALUATION OF ARIZONA STATE PARKS
AMONG PERSONS WHO HAVE VISITED EACH
" W o u l d y o u r a t e t h e o v e r a l l f a c i l i t i e s a t ( F A C I L -
ITY NAME) as e x c e l l e n t , good, o n l y f a i r , o r p o o r ? "
E x c e l - O n l y
Park l e n t Good F a i r
Lake Havasu S t a t e P a r k 29% 57% 10%
P i c a c h o Peak S t a t e P a r k 16 63 14
Tombstone C o u r t House
S t a t e Hi s t o r i c a l P a r k 27 58 10
Jerome S t a t e H i s t o r i c a l P a r k 17 56 16
Yuma T e r r i t o r i a l P r i s o n
S t a t e H i s t o r i c a l P a r k 3 4 3 9 23
P a t a g o n i a Lake S t a t e P a r k s 1 4 52 26
P a i n t e d Rock S t a t e P a r k 17 5 3 20
C a t a l i n a S t a t e Park 23 47 2 1
F o r t Verde S t a t e Hi s t o r i c a l
P a r k 11 61 12
L o s t Dutchman S t a t e P a r k 13 6 2 15
Tubac P r e s i d i o S t a t e
H i s t o r i c a l P a r k 27 5 7 8
Alarno Lake S t a t e P a r k 2 3 45 24
Boyce Thompson S o u t h w e s t e r n
A r b o r e t u m 47 44 7
Lyman Lake S t a t e P a r k 2 1 6 1 14
Dead Horse Ranch S t a t e P a r k 28 60 4
B u c k s k i n M o u n t a i n S t a t e
Park 14 7 2 0
R o p e r L a k e S t a t e P a r k 24 6 2 14
R i o r d a n S t a t e H i s t o r i c a l
P a r k 43 50 0
M c F a r l and S t a t e H i s t o r i c a l
P a r k 57 43 0
( D T 1 - 1 7 1 )
Not
P o o r S u r e ( B a s e )
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
12
R e c r e a t i o n a l A c t i v i t y P a r t i c i p a t i o n
N e a r l y o n e - h a l f ( 4 7 % ) o f A r i z o n a r e s i d e n t s i n d i c a t e t h a t
e i t h e r t h e y p e r s o n a l l y , o r someone e l s e i n t h e i r h o u s e h o l d , swims
on a " r e g u l a r " b a s i s . T h i s r e a d i n g f a r exceeds any o f t h e o t h e r
o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s t e s t e d i n t e r m s o f " r e g u l a r " p a r -
t i c i p a t i o n . O v e r a l l , i n excess o f 50 p e r c e n t o f A r i z o n a house-h
o l d s i n d i c a t e t h e i r f a m i l y e i t h e r " r e g u l a r l y " o r " o c c a s i o n a l l y "
p a r t i c i p a t e s i n each o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s i x a c t i v i t i e s : ( a ) S i g h t -
s e e i n g 82%; ( b ) P i c n i c k i n g 80%; ( c ) Swimming 79%; ( d ) Camping
66%; ( e ) F i s h i n g 58%; ( f ) B i c y c l i n g 53%;
TABLE 7: RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION
" N e x t , do you o r t h e o t h e r members o f y o u r house-h
o l d r e g u l a r l y , o c c a s i o n a l l y o r n e v e r p a r t i c i p a t e
i n e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n a l
a c t i v i t i e s ? "
Swirnmi ng
S i g h t s e e i n g
P i c n i c k i n g
Carnpi ng
F i s h i ng
B i c y c l i ng
H i k i n g / b a c k p a c k i ng
Boat i ng
N a t u r e s t u d y o r
b i r d w a t c h i n g
Horseback r i d i n g
Regu- O c c a s i o n - Not
1 a r l y a1 l y Never Sure
47% 32% 21% *%
3 1 5 1 18 *
2 3 5 7 20 *
2 1 45 34 *
18 40 42 *
16 3 7 4 7 - k
13 30 5 7 *
9 3 1 5 9 1
8 20 72 *
5 25 70 *
* I n d i c a t e s % l e s s t h a n .5%
( DT 1 8 7 - 2 1 6 )
behav~ orr esearch center phoenix, arizona
13
I n t h e f o l l o w i n g t a b l e , r e c r e a t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s ana-l
y z e d by r e s p o n d e n t age and g e n d e r . As m i g h t be e x p e c t e d , t h e r e
a r e m a j o r v a r i a t i o n s i n r e c r e a t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n d e p e n d i n g on
t h e d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e .
-
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
TABLE 8: RECREATIONAL PARTICIPATION BY DEMOGRAPHICS
% P a r t i c i p a t i n g i n " Regularly"
Total
Gender
Ma1 es
Fe~ nael s
Age
Under 25
25 t o 34
35 t o 44
45 t o 54
55 t o 64
65 or over
Horse-
Swim- Sight- P i c n i - Camp- Fish- Bicyc- Hik- Boat- Nature Back
i n g Seeing ckiny i n g i ng l i n g i ng i ny Study Ride
I ( DT 187- 216)
u
J-
0
ID
2.
X
a,
1
N
0
J
a, Kpt 34/# 10
L . I
I Y a a a I a a 0 e
I,
behavior research center
15
I n a r e l a t e d q u e s t i o n , r e s i d e n t s w e r e a s k e d how f a r t h e y a r e
w i 11 i n g t o t r a v e l t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i -
t i e s s u c h as t h o s e j u s t m e n t i o n e d . O v e r a l l , t h e t y p i c a l A r i z o n a
r e s i d e n t i s w i l l i n g t o t r a v e l a maximum o f j u s t o v e r t w o a n d
o n e - h a l f h o u r s ( o n e - w a y ) o n a o n e - d a y t r i p and f o u r and o n e - h a l f
h o u r s ( o n e - w a y ) on an o v e r n i g h t o r weekend t r i p . M a l e s and r e s i -
d e n t s u n d e r 25 y e a r s o l d r e v e a l t h e h i g h e s t p r o p e n s i t y t o t r a v e l
t h e l o n g e s t d i s t a n c e s .
TABLE 9: HOURS WILLING TO TRAVEL ( ONE- WAY)
TO PARTICIPATE I N OUTDOOR RECREATION ACTIVITIES
One- day O v e r n i g h t ,
T r i p Weekend T r i p
Z e r o ; w i l l n o t t r a v e l 10% 10%
One h o u r o r l e s s 9 1
1 . 2 5 t o 2.00 h o u r s 3 4 6
2.25 t o 3.00 h o u r s 24 12
3.25 t o 4.00 h o u r s 14 2 6
4.25 t o 5.00 h o u r s 5 14
5.25 t o 6.00 h o u r s 2 14
Over 6.00 h o u r s 2 17
Mean Hours
Among a i i r e s p o n d e n t s 2.6 4.5
Among t h o s e w i l l i n g t o
t r a v e l 2.9 5.0
Ma1 e 2.8 4.8
Femal e 2.4 4.3
Under 25 2.9 5.1
25 t o 34 2.7 4.9
35 t o 44 2.7 4.9
45 t o 54 2.6 4.7
55 t o 64 2.7 4.3
65 o r o v e r 2.1 3.2
N o t e : .25 h r s = 15 m i n u t e s
( DT 217- 228)
rn in m ia in ra rn i~ IM rn rn IM rn n m
K p t 3 4 / # 8
phoenix, arizona
16
I n f o r m a t i on S o u r c e s
The p r i m a r y s o u r c e from w h i c h r e s i d e n t s r e c e i v e i n f o r m a t i o n
a b o u t A r i z o n a s t a t e p a r k s i s w o r d - o f - m o u t h , w h i c h r e c e i v e d a
r e a d i n g of 67 p e r c e n t . A l s o m e n t i o n e d as key s o u r c e s o f p a r k s
i n f o r m a t i o n were maps o f t h e s t a t e ( 5 2 % ) and newspaper a r t i c l e s
( 5 0 % ) . O n l y 15 p e r c e n t o f t h e r e s i d e n t s s u r v e y e d m e n t i o n e d
g r o c e r y s h o p p i n g b a g s a s an i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e .
TABLE 10: INFORMATION SOURCES
" I n t h e p a s t y e a r , have y o u r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n
a b o u t A r i z o n a s t a t e p a r k s f r o m any o f t h e f o l l o w -
i n g s o u r c e s ? "
Not
Yes No S u r e
D i s c u s s i o n s w i t h f r i e n d s o r r e 1 a t i v e s
Maps o f t h e s t a t e
Newspaper a r t i c l e s
Magazine a r t i c l e s
T e l e v i s i o n
I n f o r m a t i o n a l b r o c h u r e s
R a d i o
D i s p l a y s p r i n t e d on g r o c e r y s h o p p i n g bags
* I n d i c a t e s % l e s s t h a n .5%.
( DT 2 2 9 - 2 5 2 )
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
e
behavior research center
17
Viewed i n t e r m s o f aye and g e n d e r , t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n
s o u r c e v a r i a t i o n s a r e e v i d e n t i n t h e n e x t t a b l e :
o W o r d - o f - m o n t h i s m e n t i o n e d e q u a l l y by men and
women as a s o u r c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n , h o w e v e r , men
t e n d t o g i v e m o s t o f t h e r e m a i n i n g s o u r c e s
( e x c e p t b r o c h u r e s and s h o p p i n g b a g s ) h i g h e r
r e a d i n g s t h a n d o f e m a l e s .
o Newspapers and m a g a z i n e s t e n d t o b e m e n t i o n e d
most f r e q u e n t l y by o l d e r r e s i d e n t s w h i l e y o u n g e r
r e s i d e n t s a r e most l i k e l y t o m e n t i o n r a d i o .
T A B L E 11: INFORMATION BY DEMOGRAPHICS
% M e n t i o n i n g " Y e s " t o S o u r c e
F r n d s / News- Maga- B r o - Ra- Shop
R e l t v s Maps p a p e r z i n e s TV c h u r e s d i o Bags
T o t a l 67% 52% 50% 43% 40% 31% 21% 15%
Gender
Ma1 e 67 54 52 44 46 3d 2 5 13
Femal e 6 7 49 47 4 1 3 5 3 2 1 7 1 7
Under 25 64 49 40 3 9 4 1 32 33 12
25 t o 34 7 9 53 43 36 3 9 2 9 2 1 10
35 t o 44 68 5 5 4 7 3 9 3 7 34 23 17
45 t o 54 60 48 52 42 40 3 1 1 8 1 4
55 t o 64 62 56 5 7 50 38 28 18 17
65 o r o v e r 60 46 5 9 53 5 1 33 19 21
m n m n r n m r n m i a m n m r ~ m m
Rpt 34/# 8
phoenix, arizona
The P r i m a r y R e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e S t a t e s Parks Board
A p l u r a l i t y o f A r i z o n a r e s i d e n t s ( 43%) be1 i eve t h e p r i m a r y
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e S t a t e P a r k s Board s h o u l d be " t h e c o n s e r v a -
t i o n of s c e n i c and n a t u r a l r e s e o u r c e s . " T h i s o p t i o n was s e l e c t e d
o v e r " t h e a c q u i s i t i o n , d e v e l o p m e n t and m a i n t e n a n c e o f o u t d o o r
r e c r e a t i o n s i t e s " and " t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t e h i s -
t o r i c a l and a r c h e o l o g i c a l s i t e s " by m a r g i n s o f 15 p e r c e n t and 17
p e r c e n t , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
S u p p o r t f o r " t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n o f s c e n i c and n a t u r a l r e -
s o u r c e s " as t h e B o a r d ' s p r i m a r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s b r o a d based
w i t h each demographic s u b - g r o u p e x c e p t two p l a c i n g i t a t t h e t o p
o f t h e l i s t . The l o n e d i s s e n t e r s were r e s i d e n t s o f t h e C e n t r a l
and S o u t h e a s t e r n P l a n n i n y D i s t r i c t s .
behavior research center phoenix, arizona
Total
Gender
Ma1 e
Fernal e
Age
Under 25
25 t o 34
35 t o 44
45 t o 54
55 t o 64
65 or Over
Pl anni nu D i s t r i c t
TABLE 12: PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE PARKS BOARD
" Under Arizona 1 aw the State Parks Board has t h r e e rnain areas of responsi-b
i l i t y . I ' d l i k e t o read you each o f them and then have you t e l l me which
one o f the t h r e e you f e e l i s more important. Here they are. ( READ EACH,
BEGIN WITH CIRCLED LETTER) Okay, which one o f t h e s e t h r e e do you f e e l i s
most important?"
The A c q u i s i t i o n , The P r e s e r v a t i o n
The Conservati on Devel opnient and o f Si gni f i cant
o f Scenic and Maintenance of Out- State H i s t o r i c a l and A1 1 Not
Natural Resources door Recreation S i t e s Archeol ogi c a l S i t e s Equal Sure
43% 28% 26% 2 % 1 %
4 1 3 2 24 3 *
46 24 28 1 1
50 33 16 U 1
4 9 2 5 2 4 2 0
4 1 2 9 2 9 1 1
3 9 3 3 2 7 1 u
41 2 3 3 4 1 1
4 0 2 7 2 6 6 1
43 29 25 3 *
58 2 5 17 0 0
3 9 16 3 8 4 3
4 8 23 2 7 U 2
23 4 9 2 9 U 0
2 0 3 7 4 1 2 0
( Continued on Next Page)
Rpt 34/# 10
Mari copa
Pi ma
Northeast
West
Central
Southeast
f
( continued)
T o t a l
TABLE 12: PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE PARKS BOARD
The A c q u i s i t i o n , The P r e s e r v a t i o n
The Conservation Development and o f