ARIZONA Historic Preservation Plan
UPDATE 2000
ARIZONA Historic Preservation Plan
UPDATE 2000
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S B O A R D
Chair
Walter D. Armer, Jr.
Benson
Members
Suzanne Pfister
Phoenix
Joseph H. Holmwood
Mesa
John U. Hays
Yarnell
Sheri Graham
Sedona
Vernon Roudebush
Safford
Michael E. Anable
State Land Commissioner
Executive Staff
Kenneth E. Travous
Executive Director
Renée E. Bahl
Assistant Director
Jay Ream
Assistant Director
Mark Siegwarth
Assistant Director
Jay Ziemann
Assistant Director
ARIZONA
Historic Preservation Plan
2000 UPDATE
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n O f f i c e
P a r t n e r s h i p s D i v i s i o n
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
3
1 1
1 0
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n O f f i c e
P a r t n e r s h i p s D i v i s i o n
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
1 3 0 0 W e s t W a s h i n g t o n
P h o e n i x , A r i z o n a 8 5 0 0 7
T e l / T T Y : 6 0 2 - 5 4 2 - 4 1 7 4
h t t p : / / w w w . p r . s t a t e . a z . u s
T h i s P l a n U p d a t e w a s a p p r o v e d b y t h e
A r i z o n a S t a t e P a r k s B o a r d o n M a r c h 1 5 , 2 0 0 1
C o v e r p h o t o g r a p h s l e f t t o r i g h t :
F o r t V e r d e S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
T u b a c P r e s i d i o S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
M c F a r l a n d S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
Y u m a 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 P a r k
R i o r d a n M a n s i o n S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
9
P h o t o g r a p h s t h r o u g h o u t t h i s
p l a n f e a t u r e v i e w s o f h i s t o r i c
p r o p e r t i e s f o u n d w i t h i n A r i z o n a
S t a t e P a r k s i n c l u d i n g :
1 . Y u m a C r o s s i n g
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
2 . Y u m a 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 P a r k
3 . J e r o m e
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
4 . F o r t V e r d e
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
5 . R i o r d a n M a n s i o n
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
6 . H o m o l o v i R u i n s
S t a t e P a r k
7 . T o n t o N a t u r a l B r i d g e
S t a t e P a r k
8 . M c F a r l a n d
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
9 . T u b a c P r e s i d i o
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
1 0 . S a n R a f a e l R a n c h
S t a t e P a r k
1 1 . T o m b s t o n e C o u r t h o u s e
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
1
C o n t e n t s
Tombstone Courthouse
Introduction
Arizona’s Cultural Resources
The Historic Preservation Network
Summary of SHPO Progress
External Effects on the Plan
The Planning Process
Public Survey Findings
Framework for Action
Selected Bibliography
Appendix A: SHPO Progress Report
Appendix B: Survey Results
1
3
7
13
15
19
25
31
35
39
45
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
A c k n o w l e d g m e n t s
This 2000 Update of the Arizona Historic Preservation Plan
was produced by the Partnerships Division of Arizona State
Parks. It could not have been successfuly completed without
the assistance of all those individuals listed below and without
the oversight of the Arizona State Parks Board. The critical
participation of the Arizona State University Survey Research
Laboratory for the completion of our public phone survey is
hereby acknowledged. Additional thanks to all those who
participated in the surveys and especially to those who com-mented
on draft versions of the plan. Special thanks are due to
Renée Bahl, Tanna Thornburg and James Garrison who had the
primary responsibility for the development, production and
editing of this plan.
Arizona State Parks Staff
Kenneth E. Travous, Executive Director
Renée E. Bahl, Assistant Director, Partnerships
Tanna Thornburg, Chief of Planning
Ellen Baird, Research and Marketing Project Manager
Katy Freye, Research and Marketing Project Manager
Iris Krondorff, Database Analyst
State Historic Preservation Office
James Garrison, State Historic Preservation Officer
Carol Griffith, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
William Collins, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Matthew Bilsbarrow, Compliance Specialist/ Archaeologist
Mary Estes, Site Steward Coordinator
Robert Frankeberger, CLG Coordinator/ Architect
Erika Finbraaten, Preservtion Incentives Program Coordinator
Ann Howard, Public Programs Manager/ Archaeologist
JoAnne Miller, Compliance Specialist/ Archaeologist
Christine Wahlstrom, National Register Coordinator/ Historian
Diana Walls, Administrative Secretary
1
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
Presented on the following pages is the 2000 Update of the
1996 Arizona Historic Preservation Plan. The Plan was first
adopted by the Arizona State Parks Board in November of 1996
as the State’s first comprehensive view of historic preservation
issues. The 1996 Plan took more than a year to develop. The
intention of the 1996 Plan was to provide the historic preserva-tion
community throughout Arizona a set of policy guidelines
that reflected a consensus as to the state of cultural resource
management and the public’s perspective on historic preserva-tion
issues. The vision statement of the 1996 Plan remains
pertinent and continues to recall the importance of the relation-ship
between the public and the network of preservation
professionals across the state:
We envision an Arizona in which an informed and
concerned citizenry works to protect our irreplaceable
cultural heritage. They will be supported by a coordinated,
statewide historic preservation network providing
information and assistance that enables them to undertake
successful projects and long- term preservation planning.
The 1996 Plan has been used in all State Historic Preservation
Office ( SHPO) and related agencies’ programs in Arizona and
was implemented on a daily basis through a specific and
annually updated action plan. Major changes directly tied to
the 1996 Plan have included:
• Revision of the Arizona Heritage Fund and federal pass-through
grant scoring systems to directly relate to the goals of
the 1996 Plan,
• Reorganization of the SHPO staff committees to address
specific aspects of the 1996 Plan, and
• Better coordination between the Historic Preservation Plan
and the strategic planning and budget planning cycles of
Arizona State Parks ( ASP).
While the 1996 Plan provided a strong foundation upon which
to carry out the SHPO programs, factors outside the direct
influence of SHPO and State Parks have required flexibility in
plan implementation. Although the overall goals of the 1996
Plan will remain the same in this Plan Update, the techniques
and strategies of implementation have shifted against this
changing contextual background. The primary external forces
that have affected the implementation of the 1996 Plan are
outlined below and include Smart Growth Planning, Tribal
Historic Preservation Programs, Changing Information Sys-
I n t r o d u c t i o n
T o m b s t o n e C o u r t h o u s e
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
2
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
ties, 6. Informed Supportive Public, 7. Informed Supportive
Policy- Makers, and 8. Informed Trained Professionals) have
not changed.
tems, New Section 106 Regulations, the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act and Transportation Enhancement revenues.
This 2000 Update of the State Historic Preservation Plan re-views
progress since the 1996 Plan, validates the public’s
interest in historic preservation, identifies the effects of outside
changes to the 1996 Plan and outlines a framework for actions
necessary to meet goals of historic preservation efforts across
the state. The goals themselves ( 1. Better Resource Manage-ment,
2. Effective Information Management, 3. Maximizing
Funding, 4. Partnerships in Planning, 5. Proactive Communi-
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
5,500,000
1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990
Year P o p u l a t i o n G r o w t h i n A r i z o n a
U . S . C e n s u s B u r e a u
1 0 %
O t h e r
P u b l i c
1 6 %
P r i v a t e
1 8 %
B L M 2 7 %
I n d i a n
T r u s t
1 3 %
S t a t e
T r u s t
1 6 %
F o r e s t
S e r v i c e
L a n d O w n e r s h i p i n A r i z o n a
H i s t o r i c a l A t l a s o f A r i z o n a
3
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
Arizona has a rich and varied patrimony of cultural resources.
The climate and topography of the state have allowed a record
of human habitation dating back at least 12,000 years. The
significance of these prehistoric and historic properties are
reflected in the designation of 38 National Historic Landmarks
within the state. Landmarks range in time from early man,
such as the Lehner Mammoth- Kill Site, to the Titan Missile Site
from the Cold War; and range in type from Historic Districts
like Fort Huachuca or Jerome to structures like Hoover Dam;
from buildings such as San Xavier Mission or Taliesin West to
archaeological sites like Awatovi. The cultural resources of
Arizona fall into four general chronological periods: Prehis-toric
( pre 1692), Spanish/ Mexican Colonial ( 1692- 1848), Terri-torial
( 1848- 1911) or Statehood ( post 1911).
Within the parallel National and State Registers of Historic
Places listings, Arizona has 572 entries. Buildings, sites, objects
and structures comprise 425 individual properties while the
remaining 148 entries refer to historical and archaeological
districts comprised of multiple contributing properties. The
total number of contributing properties within just the historic
districts stands at 11, 345 discrete properties. Arizona has a
total of 21 historic districts with 25- 49 properties, 17 with 50- 99
properties and 29 with 100 or more properties. The largest
A r i z o n a Õ s C u l t u r a l R e s o u r c e s S a n R a f a e l R a n c h
S t a t e P a r k
1 . A i r F o r c e T i t a n M i s s i l e S i t e
2 . A w a t o v i R u i n s
3 . C a s a M a l p a i s S i t e
4 . C o l t e r B u i l d i n g s
5 . D o u b l e A d o b e S i t e
6 . E l T o v a r H o t e l
7 . F o r t B o w i e a n d A p a c h e P a s s
8 . F o r t H u a c h u c a
9 . G a t l i n S i t e
1 0 . G r a n d C a n y o n D e p o t
1 1 . G r a n d C a n y o n L o d g e
1 2 . G . C . P a r k O p e r a t i o n s B l d g .
1 3 . G r a n d C a n y o n P o w e r H o u s e
1 4 . G r a n d C a n y o n V i l l a g e
1 5 . H o h o k a m - P i m a I r r . S i t e s
1 6 . H o o v e r D a m
1 7 . H u b b e l l T r a d i n g P o s t
1 8 . J e r o m e H i s t o r i c D i s t r i c t
1 9 . K i n i s h b a R u i n s
2 0 . L e h n e r M a m m o t h - K i l l S i t e
2 1 . L o w e l l O b s e r v a t o r y
2 2 . M e r r i a m ( C . H a r t ) B a s e C a m p
2 3 . M i s s i o n G u e v a v i
2 4 . O l d O r a i b i
2 5 . P a i n t e d D e s e r t I n n
2 6 . P h e l p s D o d g e G e n . O f f i c e B u i l d .
2 7 . P o i n t o f P i n e s S i t e s
2 8 . P u e b l o G r a n d e R u i n
2 9 . S a n B e r n a r d i n o R a n c h
3 0 . S a n C a y e t a n o D e C a l a b a z a s
3 1 . S a n X a v i e r D e l B a c M i s s i o n
3 2 . S i e r r a B o n i t a R a n c h
3 3 . T a l i e s i n W e s t
3 4 . T o m b s t o n e H i s t o r i c D i s t r i c t
3 5 . T u m a c a c o r i M u s e u m
3 6 . V e n t a n a C a v e
3 7 . W i n o n a S i t e
3 8 . Y u m a C r o s s i n g & A s s o c . S i t e s
N a t i o n a l H i s t o r i c L a n d m a r k s i n A r i z o n a
4
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
develop a local contextually- based resource inventory.
Much remains to be done, at both the state and local levels, to
continue the work of identifying and evaluating Arizona’s
historic resources worthy of preservation. Among those chal-lenges
are:
• A broader approach to the identification of significant prop-erties
with tribal association.
• A systematic approach to the completion of historic district
updates.
• A plan to address properties from the recent past, especially
the early post WWII boom.
• The means to involve more minorities in the process of
identification, especially the Hispanic/ Mexican community.
• A direct approach to surveying the many rural properties
that lack available historical documentation.
• A plan on how to complete archaeological survey work on
non- federal property.
historic district currently in Arizona is the Coronado Residen-tial
Historic District in Phoenix with 852 contributing proper-ties.
Archaeology is well represented with 33 sites and 31
archaeological districts listed. Listed properties include the
full range of property types and criteria, and contextual signifi-cance
at the local, state or national level.
Current inventories of cultural resources include the statewide
AZSITE database with over 80,000 individual entries ( prima-rily
documenting archaeological site records) and over 7,500
project records indicating areas of the state that have been
surveyed for resources. The SHPO historic property inventory
database currently has 22,476 entries and soon will be fully
integrated into the AZSITE system. This database is the sum-mary
documentation of survey work SHPO has completed in
partnership with 57 communities around the state ranging in
size from Jerome ( pop. 2000) to Phoenix ( pop. 1.25 million).
Many properties within these databases have been determined
eligible for listing on the State and National Registers and
those on federal and tribal land are managed under federal law
as if listed. The 21 federally recognized tribes have made
steady progress in inventorying properties of tribal interest on
and off of tribal land; such as the work of the White Mountain
Apache Tribe to compile a listing of Apache place names.
These inventories are kept confidential, in most cases, by the
individual tribes.
The SHPO has pursued the inventorying of properties using
contextual analysis by theme, place and time and currently has
17 context studies available ( see bibliography). The SHPO has
more recently moved to combine contexts with base level
multiple resource nominations in order to facilitate the process-ing
of individual nominations within the multiple property
nomination format. The SHPO has also developed a ( Power
Point) presentation for use by local governments on how to
5
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
2 0
5 3
7 3
2 6
9
4
8
1 3 4
1 5
3 3
7 1
3 1
1 7
6 0
1 8
2 ( 3 2 )
1 1 ( 7 2 9 )
1 6 ( 8 4 0 )
1 ( 2 9 )
0 ( 0 )
1
( 5 4 )
0 ( 0 ) 2 6 ( 4 0 5 9 )
1 ( 7 )
7 ( 1 1 0 )
1 6 ( 3 4 9 5 )
2 ( 1 3 7 )
4 ( 2 0 2 )
6 ( 1 2 1 2 )
3 ( 1 5 8 )
H i s t o r i c D i s t r i c t s a n d ( C o n t r i b u t i n g P r o p e r t i e s )
S t a t e T o t a l s 1 0 6 ( 1 1 , 0 6 4 )
A p a c h e
N a v a j o
C o c o n i n o
M j a v e
L a P a z
Y u m a M a r i c o p a
P i m a C o c h i s e
G i l a
G r a h a m
P i n a l
G r e e n l e e
S a n t a C r u z
Y a v a p a i
S t a t e a n d N a t i o n a l R e g i s t e r L i s t i n g s
b y C o u n t y ( E a c h H o u s e R e p r e s e n t s T e n L i s t i n g s )
N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0
S t a t e T o t a l 5 7 2
N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0
o h 6
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
1 . F l o r e n c e Ô 8 5
2 . W i l l c o x Ô 8 5
3 . P r e s c o t t Ô 8 6
4 . J e r o m e Ô 8 6
5 . Y u m a Ô 8 6
6 . G l o b e Ô 8 6
7 . W i l l i a m s Ô 8 6
8 . K i n g m a n Ô 8 6
9 . P h o e n i x Ô 8 8
1 2 . C a s a G r a n d e Ô 9 1
1 3 . B e n s o n Ô 9 2
1 4 . M e s a Ô 9 5
1 5 . G l e n d a l e Ô 9 5
1 6 . F l a g s t a f f Ô 9 7
1 7 . H o l b r o o k Ô 9 7
1 8 . T e m p e Ô 9 7
1 0 . B i s b e e Ô 8 9
1 1 . T u c s o n Ô 9 0
1 9 . C l i f t o n Ô 9 8
2 0 . W i n s l o w Ô 9 9
2 1 . S e d o n a Ô 0 0
2 2 . C o o l i d g e Ô 0 0
2 3 . N o g a l e s Ô 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
7
6
8
9
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 5 1 4
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 1 2 0
2 2
2 3 1 0
C e r t i f i e d L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t C o m m u n i t i e s
b y Y e a r o f P r o g r a m A p p r o v a l
7
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
Throughout Arizona a multi- layered preservation network
covering all levels of government and both the public and
private sectors supports historic preservation efforts. The
major participants in the historic preservation network and a
brief discussion of their programs and responsibilities are
described below.
Federal Government Partners
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
The Advisory Council is an independent agency composed of
19 members appointed by the President of the United States.
The Council advises the President and Congress on matters
pertaining to the preservation of historic, archaeological, archi-tectural
and cultural resources. In 1999, the Council issued
updated regulations ( 36 CFR Part 800) governing the Section
106 review and compliance process. SHPO and Council com-pleted
a Section 106 training workshop in February 2000.
Bureau of Indian Affairs ( BIA)
BIA administers assets and lands in trust for federally recog-nized
tribes. Although this relationship is changing as tribes
assume increasing self- government, the BIA will continue to be
an important player in the management of resources on tribal
lands. BIA recently assisted the Arizona tribes in developing
an intertribal Programmatic Agreement for compliance
projects.
Federal Land Managing Agencies
All federal agencies are responsible for identifying and protect-ing
significant historic resources under their jurisdiction. In
Arizona, partners such as the Bureau of Land Management
( BLM), U. S. Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation ( BOR) and
Department of Defense ( DOD) are important managers of a
significant amount of land and resources within the state. BOR
has made great strides in integrating historic preservation
programs into agency planning and policy processes. Under a
progressive nationwide programmatic agreement, BLM moved
from project by project review under Section 106 to planning
review under Section 110. The Bureau and SHPO have formed
a partnership to produce context studies on historic and pre-historic
irrigation efforts in Arizona.
Federal Permitting Agencies
Federal agencies that issue permits or grant funds also have
responsibilities to protect cultural resources that may be af-fected
through the use of federal funds. Agencies such as the
Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications
T h e H i s t o r i c
P r e s e r v a t i o n N e t w o r k
R i o r d a n M a n s i o n
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
8
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
Commission, Army Corps of Engineers, Natural Resource
Conservation Service and Federal Energy Regulation Commis-sion,
among others, all administer programs that may affect
archaeological, historic or cultural properties. Each of these
agencies has recently increased its compliance submissions to
SHPO.
National Park Service ( NPS)
National Park Service is the federal agency responsible for the
administration and implementation of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. NPS is the nation’s lead
preservation agency and sets the standards for the preservation
of cultural resources, providing financial and technical support
to the state historic preservation offices, administration of the
National Register of Historic Places, and technical information
for the management of historic resources. Additionally, NPS
manages many of Arizona’s most significant cultural and
natural resources within 21 designated national parks and
monuments. The Arizona units of the National Park Service
now hold annual meetings with SHPO and tribes to improve
communications and to address common compliance issues.
Tribal Government Partners
There are currently 21 federally recognized tribes within Ari-zona
( see list on page 17). Most of these tribes have established
cultural preservation programs as a function of government,
and three tribes have assumed preservation responsibilities
under the 1992 revisions to the National Historic Preservation
Act. Even as tribal governments assume full responsibility for
the preservation of resources, they will continue a relationship
with SHPO as partners in preservation, primarily for resources
off tribal land. The tribes and SHPO have improved communi-cations
and understanding toward tribal issues, especially
tribal perspectives on traditional cultural places.
State Government Partners
Archaeological Advisory Commission
Established in 1985 and appointed by the Governor, the Ar-chaeological
Advisory Commission advises the SHPO on
archaeological issues with a focus on public archaeology edu-cation
programs. The nine- member Commission produced
Guidelines for the Development and Operation of Archaeologi-cal
Parks in 1998, monitors public education programs and
advises SHPO on the Site Steward Program.
Arizona Department of Commerce ( ADOC)
The Community Planning Program of the Arizona Department
of Commerce assists Arizona communities by providing tech-nical
assistance and training to local governments on develop-ment-
related issues, land- use planning, design review, zoning
and financing. Also within the ADOC is the Arizona Main
Street Program, which fosters economic development within
the context of historic preservation by working as a partner
with local and state agencies, property owners and business
people to revitalize downtown areas. The Main Street Program
staff and SHPO have held a number of joint workshops and
participate together in local planning efforts.
Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOT)
As part of its mission to provide the state with a quality trans-portation
system, ADOT continually makes decisions on how
that system affects important cultural resources. ADOT pro-vides
the staffing for U. S. Department of Transportation un-dertakings
in Arizona. Additionally, ADOT produces Arizona
Highways Magazine that often includes information about the
state and its history, and administers transportation enhance-ment
( TEA- 21) funds from the U. S. Department of Transporta-tion.
ADOT has recently taken the lead to minimize any ad-verse
effects of material source locations.
9
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
Arizona Historical Advisory Commission ( AHAC)
The Arizona Historical Advisory Commission consists of 10 to
20 members, four statutory and the others appointed by the
Director of Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records.
The Commission advises the Legislature and state agencies on
matters relating to historic preservation, recommends mea-sures
to coordinate or improve the effectiveness of historic
preservation activities and submits an annual report to the
Governor and Legislature on state agency activities related to
historic preservation. The Historic Sites Review Committee
( HSRC) is a standing committee of the Commission. HSRC
advises the SHPO on the eligibility of properties being nomi-nated
to the State and National Registers of Historic Places.
HSRC is a state program requirement of the National Park
Service.
Arizona Historical Records Advisory Board
The Arizona Historical Records Advisory Board serves as an
advisory body for historical records planning and for federal
projects dealing with historical publications and records.
Composed of at least six members and the Director of Arizona
State Library, Archives and Public Records, the Board can
sponsor facility surveys, solicit and review proposals, set
priorities and promote better understanding of the role and
value of historical records.
Arizona Historical Society ( AHS)
Through its museums in Tucson, Tempe, Yuma and Flagstaff,
and its publications division, AHS is the lead agency for col-lecting,
preserving, interpreting and disseminating information
on the history of Arizona. AHS also plays an important role in
supporting local historical societies around the state.
Arizona Office of Tourism ( AOT)
Among its many responsibilities, AOT works to generate
positive media coverage and promote Arizona to the public.
AOT oversees the creation, production and distribution of
promotional and factual information, in which heritage re-sources
are an important component.
Arizona State Land Department ( ASLD)
The ASLD administers and manages over 9 million acres of
land and resources held in trust by the state. ASLD also pro-vides
direction, coordination, assistance and services to those
who use Arizona’s land and natural resources. The ASLD and
SHPO have recently signed a Programmatic Agreement that
broadens the review process and clarifies obligations of both
parties.
Arizona State Museum ( ASM)
ASM carries out statutory responsibilities for archaeological
and cultural preservation under the State Antiquities Act. Also
central to its mission is the enhancement of public understand-ing
and appreciation of Arizona’s cultural history through the
collecting, preserving, researching and interpreting of objects
and information with special focus on indigenous peoples.
ASM is the primary repository for information on state- owned
archaeological sites. ASM and SHPO have spearheaded the
effort to complete the centralized inventory database
( AZSITE).
Ariz. State Library, Archives and Public Records ( ASLAPR)
The Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records contin-ues
to play a key role in the preservation of the state’s impor-tant
documents, books, agency records, maps and photo-graphs.
ASLAPR also manages three historic properties in-cluding
the Capitol Museum and is directly tied to SHPO
activities through the Arizona Historical Advisory Commission
that is appointed by the Director of ASLAPR. ASLAPR also
encourages the development of local archives and hosts annual
10
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
events to promote the better understanding and preservation
of Arizona’s history.
Arizona State Parks ( ASP)
Within the mission of managing and conserving Arizona’s
natural, cultural and recreational resources, ASP manages
some of the state’s most significant resources in its nine historic
parks as well as additional cultural resources within many of
its other 21 state parks and natural areas. Through ASP’s
Partnerships Division, which includes the State Historic Preser-vation
Office, professional support and financial assistance is
given to preservation projects and organizations around the
state. The State Parks Board approves the annual work plan
and budget for SHPO, adopts updates to the State Historic
Preservation Plan, sets guidelines for SHPO programs and
proposes Rules for the State Register of Historic Places and the
State Property Tax Program. The Board also manages the
Arizona Heritage Fund which includes up to $ 1.7 million
annually for historic preservation projects.
Arizona’s Universities and Colleges
Arizona’s universities and community colleges play an impor-tant
role in historic preservation most significantly through the
research materials they produce and the students they train to
become professionals in the fields of anthropology, history and
architecture. SHPO and the Joint Urban Design Program of the
Arizona State University College of Architecture and Environ-mental
Design are partners in local planning charrettes and in
the production of the “ Preservation Myth” pamphlet series.
Local Government Partners
Certified Local Governments ( CLGs)
Twenty- two communities in Arizona are currently maintaining
certified historic preservation programs that receive priority
funding and assistance from SHPO. Each CLG has established
a preservation ordinance and a formalized means of identify-ing,
registering and protecting cultural resources. The local
historic preservation commissions in these communities are
major partners in virtually all historic preservation program
areas. A number of CLGs have made significant progress,
including Prescott’s adoption of a comprehensive preservation
plan, the saving of key resources in Florence and Tucson, the
adaptive reuse of historic buildings in Willcox and Casa
Grande as city halls, the expansion of historic residential dis-tricts
in Phoenix and the updating of survey information in
Tempe and Bisbee.
County and City Governments
Many county and city governments work with SHPO to recog-nize
the principles embodied in the State Historic Preservation
Act by submitting local projects for review on a voluntary
basis. Pima County has undertaken a comprehensive environ-mental
planning project that includes specific consideration of
archaeological and historic resources. Known as the Sonoran
Desert Conservation Plan ( SDCP) the comprehensive nature of
the plan is on the cutting edge of resource management.
National Advocacy Groups
Archaeological Conservancy
The Archaeological Conservancy is a nonprofit organization
working to preserve the nation’s most important archaeologi-cal
sites. The Conservancy strives to permanently preserve the
remains of past civilizations by purchasing lands containing
significant endangered resources and managing them for the
benefit of future generations. Most recently the Conservancy is
purchasing the Barrio de Tubac Site with the assistance of a
grant from the Arizona Heritage Fund.
11
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
NCSHPO provides leadership by representing and advocating
state historic preservation programs nationally, and by enhanc-ing
the capabilities and resources of SHPOs as they operate
within each state.
National Trust for Historic Preservation
The Trust is a private, nonprofit membership organization
chartered in 1949 by Congress to preserve historically signifi-cant
properties and foster public participation in the preserva-tion
of our Nation’s cultural resources. The Trust provides
technical and advisory support for preservation organizations
at the state and local level. The Trust has undertaken a number
of assistance projects throughout the state including feasibility
studies of abandoned BIA structures in Tuba City.
Preservation Action
Preservation Action is a national lobbying organization, which
promotes historic preservation and neighborhood conserva-tion.
Preservation Action works to increase opportunities for
preservation in communities by advocating improved govern-ment
programs, increased funding and greater awareness of
the built environment.
Society for American Archaeology ( SAA)
The SAA is an association of professional and avocational
archaeologists promoting scholarly communication and greater
public understanding of the importance of preserving the
unwritten histories of the Americas. The SAA publishes two
journals, works with the government to improve site protec-tion
and is active in promoting archaeology in schools.
Society for Historical Archaeology
The Society for Historical Archaeology is a scholarly organiza-tion
dedicated to the study, through the use of material and
written evidence, of peoples and cultures that existed during
the period of recorded history. The Society publishes a journal
and newsletter and has active committees that focus on legisla-tive
affairs related to historic preservation, public education
and academic and professional training.
Statewide Advocacy Groups
Arizona Archaeological Council ( AAC)
The AAC is a professional, nonprofit, voluntary association
that promotes cooperation within the preservation community
by fostering the conservation of prehistoric and historical
archaeological resources. The AAC’s Archaeology for Educa-tors
Committee promotes archaeology and preservation in the
classroom through teacher workshops, study materials and
curricula review. The Archaeological Advisory Commission,
SHPO and AAC are combining forces to hold a series of fo-rums
on current directions in archaeological research.
Arizona Heritage Alliance, Inc.
The Arizona Heritage Alliance is a partnership of diverse
groups and individuals interested in preserving and perpetuat-ing
the Arizona Heritage Fund. The Fund receives up to $ 20
million annually from state lottery revenues and is used, in
part, to preserve and protect significant natural, cultural and
recreational resources.
Arizona Preservation Foundation ( APF)
The APF is a private, nonprofit foundation formed to ensure
that historical and architectural resources are preserved and
protected for future generations. APF is an advocacy voice for
historic preservation and works to educate developers, officials
and the public through workshops, a quarterly newsletter and
other programs. APF cosponsors, with the State Parks Board,
an annual historic preservation honor awards event.
12
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
the past. There are currently a countless number of volunteer
groups actively working to protect and preserve Arizona’s
history. Among the larger ones are the Arizona Site Stewards,
the Southwest Archaeology Team ( SWAT), and the Arizona
Archaeological and Historical Society.
Local Advocates
Historical Societies and Museums
Aside from being excellent sources of information, local his-torical
societies and museums often include preservation
messages and activities within their mission of conserving and
interpreting local and regional history. Ten of Arizona’s 15
counties have Historical Societies and there are currently some
150 regional, county, municipal and other local museums and
historical organizations.
Neighborhood Organizations
Neighborhood groups and homeowner associations work to
preserve the continuity and character of their historic districts.
They provide advocacy, education and a larger voice for the
property owners living within a community.
Preservation Consultants
The professionals ( architects, historians and archaeologists)
who perform the research, surveys, documentation and hands-on
preservation of historic resources are vital to the ongoing
success of the preservation movement. Their knowledge and
expertise provides the basis for understanding the value of
Arizona’s wide range of cultural resources.
Property Owners
Individual home, business and landowners are perhaps the
most important component in the entire network of preserva-tionists.
Without the continued protection and conservation of
the historic properties they care for, the physical reminders of
our past would not survive.
Volunteers and Volunteer Groups
Most Arizonans do not own historic properties or live in his-toric
neighborhoods, yet they still have a stake in preserving
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Year 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Year
G r o w t h i n t h e S i t e S t e w a r d P r o g r a m
Number of Site Stewards
13
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
Since adoption of the 1996 Plan, SHPO and the State Parks
Board have implemented policies, procedures and action items
in conformance with and directed toward the fulfillment of the
goals outlined in the Plan. Many specific accomplishments
were derived from, and initiated from, the objectives outlined
in the 1996 Plan. A review of the SHPO progress toward the
goals of the 1996 Plan is found in Appendix A. A summary of
these accomplishments is presented below.
Better Resource Management:
• Continued completion of community inventories
• Expanded archaeological inventories
• Sustained interest in National Register nominations
• Broadened interest in technical assistance
• Increased growth in tax incentive participants
• Added diversity in grant projects
• Continued growth and interest in the Site Steward Program
S u m m a r y o f S H P O P r o g r e s s
M c F a r l a n d
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
H i s t o r i c P r o p e r t y T a x C l a s s i f i c a t i o n P a r t i c i p a n t s
Total Number of
Properties Enrolled
Properties Certified Annually
14
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
Effective Information Management:
• Implemented new computerized database, AZSITE
• Updated in- house computer systems
Maximize Funding:
• Increased leveraging of matching funds
• Continued decentralization of the SHPO programs
• Increased use of volunteers and interns
Partnerships in Planning:
• Encouraged federal agencies to move toward planning
• Completed State Act Guidelines
• Broadened support of tribal programs
• Helped develop county historic preservation programs
Proactive Communities:
• Certified and monitored CLG communities
• Held annual CLG workshop
• Encouraged CLGs to take an active role in Growing Smarter
• Conducted local planning charrettes
Informed Supportive Public:
• Distributed information and publications
• Maintained website information
• Offered targeted public programs
• Presented annual historic preservation awards
Informed Supportive Policy Makers:
• Distributed the SHPO annual report
• Conducted policy and standards workshops
Informed Trained Professionals:
• Conducted specialized training on policies and techniques
• Presented technical information at professional workshops
15
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
No matter how well the 1996 Plan addressed the future, out-side
influences and events require the 1996 Plan to be revised.
In an age of instant information exchange, changing personnel,
revised regulations and changing constituencies, State Parks
and SHPO need a great deal of flexibility to implement the
Plan Update effectively. The following are some of the external
issues that have come up since adoption of the 1996 Plan:
Growth Management
Over the last five years the country and the state have experi-enced
a growing concern over sprawl and open space. The
planning issues addressed by these concerns have been
grouped under the concept of smart growth. In Arizona,
Governor Hull, the Legislature and the voting public address
these issues under the title “ Growing Smarter.”
The Growing Smarter legislation in Arizona focuses on better
land management by readdressing community planning and
the planning connection to zoning. It also addresses neighbor-hood
conservation and infill incentives.
In addition, the effort has set up funding and procedures to
conserve targeted State Trust land as open space.
The premise of growing smarter is that resources are better
managed through logical planning and considerations of all
environmental impacts. This approach to growth management
from a cultural resource viewpoint has long been a major
premise of the historic preservation community. Therefore,
SHPO pushed for the recognition that growth management
regulation should include cultural resource management as
well as natural resource management. The relationship be-tween
the development of historic districts and the concept of
neighborhood conservation was also promoted.
Because of the broad interest in growing smarter issues, SHPO
has addressed the historic preservation connection through
workshops, presentations and participation in events with
Certified Local Governments, Arizona Department of Com-merce
and the Department of Administration. Although these
issues fit into the 1996 Plan goal of “ Partnerships in Planning,”
the action plan was significantly revised to include activities
and programs connected to the growth management move-ment.
These issues should continue to be monitored and
addressed in future planning efforts.
E x t e r n a l E f f e c t s o n t h e P l a n F o r t V e r d e
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
16
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
Tribal Historic Preservation Programs
Although the amendments to the National Historic Preserva-tion
Act in 1992 recognized the need to bring tribal preserva-tion
programs into full partnership with the state and certified
local government programs, implementation and program
guidelines took several years to develop within the National
Park Service. Of the first fifteen tribal programs certified, three
were with Arizona tribes: the Hualapai, the Navajo and the
White Mountain Apache. Other tribes have shown interest in
taking over historic preservation responsibilities for tribal
lands.
SHPO encourages these tribal efforts as part of its goal of
partnerships in planning, but tribal takeover of SHPO respon-sibilities
does not necessarily result in reduction in the SHPO
workload. The requirement for tribal involvement in off-reservation
issues has resulted in SHPO coordination and
training of agency representatives and responding to tribal off-reservation
concerns, especially with regard to traditional
cultural places.
Information Systems
With the rapid evolution of information technology, the capa-bilities
of State Parks and SHPO have grown considerably
since adoption of the 1996 Plan. Efforts to computerize the
historic properties and archaeological sites inventory ( AZSITE)
required technological upgrading even within the project’s
development and testing phases. Although technological
streamlining has allowed SHPO to do more work with equal
staff, the cost to develop appropriate software and to upgrade
hardware is very expensive. Changes in technology are sure to
provide unexpected needs within SHPO.
Within the compliance program, the expansion of cellular
facilities and the construction of fiber optic lines across the
state have placed a direct and demanding increase on the
SHPO workload.
New Section 106 Regulations
In 1999, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation issued
new regulations ( 36 CFR Part 800) for the Section 106 compli-ance
review process. Although viewed overall as having
streamlined portions of the process, the new regulations place
additional responsibilities and duties on SHPO. SHPO must
now help train agency compliance staff, negotiate with agen-cies
on two- party agreements, have agreements reviewed more
thoroughly and offer assistance and advice on tribal consulta-tion
efforts.
Conservation and Reinvestment Act ( CARA)
In 1999, the nation saw the strongest movement toward a
comprehensive recognition by Congress of conservation issues.
The result was an attempt to pass the Conservation and Rein-vestment
Act, or CARA. Although this specific piece of legisla-tion
did not pass, there were FY 2000 appropriation increases
for both natural and cultural resource conservation programs.
The effort, which began within the wildlife and recreation
communities, has had a definite affect on cultural resource
programs. For the historic preservation community the real-ization
of how quickly an issue can gain popular support, how
much effort is needed to keep the issue moving through Con-gress
and how much widespread support for conservation
issues exists, is very enlightening and encouraging. SHPO
must be ready to react to and inform preservationists when
and if changes in legislation occur.
17
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
facilitate review of proposed undertakings. Many times these
types of programs apply to a variety of properties and many
times it takes the preservation community too long to become
aware of new programs and how they can benefit from them.
New funding sources are necessary to reach the goal of “ maxi-mized
funding.”
Enhancements
New programs of other state and federal agencies can also
have a major affect on historic resources. One example was the
introduction of “ transportation enhancements” as part of the
Federal Highways funding programs ( known originally as
ISTEA and subsequently as TEA- 21). More direct federal
dollars for preservation work over the last five years have
come from enhancement monies ( ± $ 5 million per year) than
from direct historic preservation appropriations. SHPO must
track this kind of new legislation, inform potential users and
1 . A K - C H I N I N D I A N C O M M U N I T Y
2 . C O C O P A H T R I B E
3 . C O L O R A D O R I V E R I N D I A N T R I B E S
4 . F O R T M c D O W E L L
I N D I A N C O M M U N I T Y
5 . F O R T M O J A V E I N D I A N T R I B E
6 . F O R T Y U M A - Q U E C H A N T R I B E
7 . G I L A R I V E R I N D I A N C O M M U N I T Y
8 . H A V A S U P A I T R I B E
9 . T H E H O P I T R I B E
1 0 . H U A L A P A I T R I B E
1 1 . K A I B A B - P A I U T E T R I B E
1 2 . N A V A J O N A T I O N
1 3 . P A S C U A Y A Q U I T R I B E
1 4 . S A L T R I V E R P I M A - M A R I C O P A
I N D I A N C O M M U N I T Y
1 5 . S A N C A R L O S A P A C H E T R I B E
1 6 . S A N J U A N S O U T H E R N P A I U T E
C O U N C I L ( n o r e s e r v a t i o n l a n d s )
1 7 . T O H O N O O Õ O D H A M N A T I O N
1 8 . T O N T O A P A C H E T R I B E
1 9 . W H I T E M O U N T A I N A P A C H E
T R I B E
2 0 . Y A V A P A I - A P A C H E I N D I A N
C O M M U N I T Y
2 1 . Y A V A P A I - P R E S C O T T I N D I A N T R I B E
F e d e r a l l y R e c o g n i z e d T r i b e s i n A r i z o n a
1
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 7
1 8 1 9
2 1
2 0
18
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
S c h o o l h o u s e / T u b a c P r e s i d i o S t a t e
H i s t o r i c P a r k
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
19
Planning is the process used to formulate a program for the
accomplishment or attainment of a specific set of goals. Plan-ning
seeks to both envision a future state or condition and to
present methods and processes needed to achieve these de-sired
goals. The development of a plan is in itself a process,
one that must be repeated in a cyclical way.
Planning Cycles
To address the historic preservation needs of the State of Ari-zona
in a comprehensive way while at the same time imple-menting
previous planning decisions, a planning methodology
is required that allows the integration of the plan into the
annual, biennual and strategic planning efforts of State Parks.
Ideally, planning decisions drive budget requests that drive
program efforts. The SHPO has placed a special focus on
implementation of the plan goals through direct connection to
annual work plans. These plans are presented to the Parks
Board at its annual budget meeting where public comment is
encouraged. Planning efforts are also directed at the integra-tion
of the plan into the agency strategic plan as required by
the Legislature. Therefore, the staff and the Parks Board uti-lizes
three separate but integrated planning cycles.
The Annual Planning Cycle
In the Spring SHPO staff holds an annual retreat. The focus of
the retreat is to prepare the annual work program for the
upcoming state fiscal year that begins on the first of July. The
annual work program is organized and directly connected to
the goals of the Historic Preservation Plan and to agency bud-get
projections.
The SHPO also holds annual planning meetings with many of
its partners, including Certified Local Governments, tribes,
federal agencies, state agencies and statewide preservation
organizations.
The Strategic Planning Cycle
Each year the Parks Board adopts an updated three- year strate-gic
plan. Each update reiterates the previous mission and
vision statements, outlines strategic issues, addresses opportu-nities
and threats and establishes goals, objectives and perfor-mance
measures. The FY2001- FY2003 Strategic Plan has three
goals, 13 objectives and 16 performance measures.
SHPO tasks are incorporated under Goal 2: “ To effectively
provide the right services and information by involving our
T h e P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s Y u m a C r o s s i n g
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
20
Year Two
Plan implementation/ Second year of the action plan
• Spring: Staff retreat: Preparation of the annual work plan
• Summer: Work plan implementation
Year Three
Plan implementation/ Third year of the action plan
• Spring: Staff retreat, Preparation of the annual work plan
• Summer: Work plan implementation
Year Four
Plan implementation/ Fourth year of the action plan
• Spring: Staff retreat, Preparation of the annual work plan
• Summer: Work plan implementation
Year Five
Plan implementation, Final year of the action plan
• Spring: Staff retreat, Preparation of the annual work plan
• Summer: Work plan implementation
Year Six
Plan Review and Update
• Spring: Staff retreat, Input into survey issues and questions,
Outline of planning tasks, Preparation of annual work plan
• Spring: Preparation of survey and questionnaire materials
• Summer: Phone survey, mail- in questionnaire distribution
and partner meetings
• Fall: Draft Plan Update
• Winter: Public Comment Period
• Winter: Board Action
customers and partners in our programs, parks and planning
efforts.”
Objectives 2, 3 and 4 under this goal are specific to SHPO.
2. By June 2001, Partnerships will update the statewide com-prehensive
historic preservation plan, in conjunction with its
advisory committees, preservation partners and customers.
3. By June 2002, the State Historic Preservation Office will
implement the State Act Guidelines as a streamlining tool for
state compliance projects.
4. By June 2003, State Parks, in conjunction with our partners,
will improve the ability to share cultural resource information
through AZSITE, the statewide online database for Arizona’s
known cultural resources, through ongoing data entry and
cleanup, and implementing use agreements.
Although these objectives for SHPO, listed above, deal with
major tasks they are also related to the goals of the Historic
Preservation Plan.
The Historic Preservation Plan/ Planning Cycle
Based on the experience of developing the plan in 1996, imple-menting
the plan from 1997 through 1999 and updating the
plan in 2000, the SHPO and State Parks staff have outlined the
following planning schedule:
Year One
Plan implementation/ First year of the action plan
• Spring: Plan adoption
• Spring: Staff retreat, Development of Five Year Action Plan,
Preparation of annual work plan
• Summer: Work plan implementation
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
21
2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6
F Y 0 1 F Y 0 2 F Y 0 3 F Y 0 4 F Y 0 5 F Y 0 6
Annual Work Plans
Five Year Action Plan
Plan Review
and Update
Plan Review
and Update
Biennual Budget Cycle
Biennual Budget Cycle
Biennual Budget Cycle
2 0 0 7
F Y 0 7
Strategic Plan Updates
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n / P l a n n i n g C y c l e
Plan Adoption
Budget
Requests
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
22
planning efforts instead of doing project by project reviews.
For the 1996 Plan the phone survey method was one of a num-ber
of approaches used, but for State Parks it was the most cost
effective and most often referenced by the Arizona State Parks
Board. This approach does have limitations due to the time
constraints interviewees have to ponder and answer the ques-tions
being presented and the fact that the methodology in-volves
verbal presentation of the material and relies on verbal
( as opposed to written) responses.
In preparation for drafting this update to the Arizona Historic
Preservation Plan, Arizona State Parks’ staff utilized three
different public involvement strategies to garner public input
and guide the planning process:
1. Consultation with the SHPO staff providing integration of
contemporary professional priorities,
2. Meetings and conferences with historic preservation agen-cies
providing professional input from Arizona’s network of
preservation partners, and
3. Telephone and mail surveys providing purpose, direction
and priorities for the Plan Update through public participation.
SHPO Consultation
The first planning action involved consultation with the SHPO
staff at a retreat held in April 2000. The purpose of the retreat
was to gain input into development of the survey question-naire,
evaluate the relevance of the 1996 goals, identify current
trends and external effects, and review the relationship be-tween
the plan and SHPO programs. Once the plan update is
adopted the staff will then address the five- year action plan for
SHPO.
R i o r d a n M a n s i o n
Public Involvement
Public input is a critical step in any planning process. Feed-back
from the public and from preservation partners has been
a key component in the development of this Plan Update. In
the past, State Parks has tried a variety of techniques for the
inclusion of public input into the state’s historic preservation
planning efforts.
In the early 1990s, SHPO produced the first comprehensive
questionnaire on historic preservation issues and sent a team of
consultants out to conduct 15 public meetings. Staff directly
integrated the results of these efforts into the policies of the
Arizona Heritage Fund grants for historic preservation.
Public input for the 1996 Preservation Plan included targeted
partnership meetings, statewide meetings with the general
public, distribution of a written questionnaire to individuals
with an expressed interest in historic preservation and a statis-tically
valid phone survey of the general public.
State Parks’ approach to public input into the implementation
of the 1996 Plan was not to wait and attempt to update all the
public input at one time, requiring another full year of meet-ings,
but to update the Action Plan on an annual basis and to
hold meetings with preservation partners on a regular basis.
Currently, SHPO holds annual meetings with BLM districts,
National Park Service and CLGs, and addresses individual
CLG issues on an on- call basis. SHPO holds meetings with the
Intertribal Council Cultural Resource Working Group at least
annually and meets with the Forest Service regionally and with
individual National Forests. When federal agencies show
competence in cultural resource management ( i. e., moving
from Section 106 project by project review to Section 110 plan-ning),
it is the intention of SHPO to become involved in agency
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
23
T o n t o N a t u r a l B r i d g e
S t a t e P a r k
Meetings and Conferences
The second important planning action staff undertook in-volved
communication with Arizona’s diverse preservation
partners at numerous meetings and conferences held through-out
the state from July through October 2000. Staff held dis-cussions
concerning historic preservation issues and priorities
at Certified Local Government meetings and conferences, tribal
meetings, federal agency meetings and state agency and com-mission
meetings. Staff also discussed with these agencies the
goals, objectives, priorities and actions of the State Historic
Preservation Office since 1996.
In general, staff tries to hold annual meetings with partners in
order to get timely feedback on SHPO programs. Staff has
purposely not focused input from agencies into a single plan-ning
event or year for better integration of ideas into the pro-cess
on a continuous basis. The majority of these agencies
were also included in the “ target group” mail survey in order
to compare agency comments with comments from the general
public.
Surveys
From May through July 2000, State Parks funded a random
telephone survey of Arizona residents. State Parks contracted
the survey to the Survey Research Laboratory at Arizona State
University, who developed the survey instrument based on
draft questions prepared by State Parks’ staff. The Survey
Research Laboratory pretested the survey questions for under-standability
and effectiveness in addressing key historic pres-ervation
issues identified during and since the 1996 Plan. This
random, digit- dialed phone survey resulted in 1,059 completed
interviews of Arizona residents from all over the state.
Of all of these techniques the one carrying the most weight
with policy makers is this phone survey of the general public.
Many of the previous planning efforts relied solely on the
input of those citizens who took the time to attend public
meetings, leaving out the opinions of the vast majority of the
public. Phone surveys are currently the best tool agencies have
to receive input from the general public. The weakness of the
phone survey was the necessity to simplify some complex
topics in order for verbal questions and answers to be under-stood.
From June through August 2000, State Parks conducted a mail
survey of a “ target group” of 582 Arizona citizens with an
interest in historic preservation, including historic property
owners participating in the State Tax Program, volunteers in
the Site Steward Program, and agency representatives and
other individuals involved with or affected by historic preser-vation
efforts. This targeted written survey complements the
random phone survey and provides an excellent method to
achieve broad- based public input on historic preservation
issues.
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
24
R i o r d a n M a n s i o n
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
25
The results of the general public and target group surveys are
very encouraging ( see Appendix B). The statewide phone
survey of 1,059 random adult residents and the written ques-tionnaire
( distributed to 1,850 individuals with 582 completed
responses) involved 10 areas of interest:
1. Introductory questions which raise the issue of historic
preservation,
2. Questions posing the connection of historic preservation
with other current issues,
3. A review of SHPO programs and their importance,
4. A review of historic property treatment options,
5. A review of funding priority issues,
6. Understanding of the relationship between historic preserva-tion
and economic development and quality of life issues,
7. Feedback on property types, historic periods and themes,
8. Level of understanding of the threats to historic properties,
9. Summary of concern, and
10. Demographic information.
The first significant finding was that nearly half ( 48%) of those
completing the phone survey had visited a State Park in Ari-zona
within the last 12 months and over half ( 54%) could name
the park they visited. Although not directly related to a spe-
P u b l i c S u r v e y F i n d i n g s
cific historic preservation issue, the realization that Arizona
State Parks has this level of visibility is encouraging. Arizona’s
State Parks’ system includes nine historic parks and 21 other
parks that also contain historic and archaeological resources.
It was also encouraging that the general public sees an impor-tant
connection between historic preservation and protection of
natural and cultural resources. Survey respondents agreed
that historic preservation efforts help:
• Preserve open space ( 91% agreed the presence of archaeo-logical
sites increases the value of open space),
• Conserve natural resources ( 90% agreed that re- using exist-ing
buildings and construction materials conserves new re-sources),
and
• Reduce urban sprawl ( 76% agreed that maintaining and
using older inner city buildings reduces the need
for new buildings elsewhere).
Recent studies now document the positive relationship be-tween
historic preservation programs and economic develop-ment.
From the work of Donovan Rypkema ( such as his analy-
T u b a c P r e s i d i o
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
26
sis that “ Historic Preservation is Smart Growth”) to statistics
compiled by the Arizona Department of Commerce on the
economic effects of the Arizona Main Street Program, to the
Arizona Humanities Council 1997 publication “ Expand
Arizona’s Economy by Investing in Cultural Heritage,” dis-prove
the myth that economic development is incompatible
with the goals of historic preservation.
One of the more important results of the survey was validation
that the general public acknowledges this connection between
historic preservation and economic benefits, from the connec-tion
to increasing tourism ( 95% agreed) to helping downtown
businesses ( 90% agreed). It is also important that the public
understands that historic district designation can stabilize
neighborhoods and increase property values ( 82% agreed).
More than three fourths of Arizonans agreed that the preserva-tion
of historic properties improves their quality of life ( 77%
agreed).
The survey also shows that the public found all the SHPO
program areas to be important ranging from a low of 83%
support for technical assistance to a high of 95% support for
compliance review of publicly funded projects.
A big part of historic preservation involves property manage-ment.
The management treatments range from regular mainte-nance
to complete reconstruction. For treatment of historic
properties the survey indicates that the public supports SHPO
policy to downplay reconstruction of historic properties ( 60%),
favoring the maintenance ( 98%) of properties slightly ahead of
rehabilitation ( 96%), restoration ( 96%) and stabilization ( 95%).
The section of the survey concerned with setting priorities of
funding and effort indicate that the public prefers to see money
and effort go to older publicly- owned properties, rather than
newer or privately- owned properties or for- profit businesses.
When asked if significance of a property should be a factor in
setting priorities the public did say yes but was evenly divided
on the preference between local and national significance.
When asked if greater attention should be given to archaeo-logical
sites ( prehistoric era) or to historic properties ( historic
period) there was a definite edge toward historic properties
( 50% to 27%), but when combined with the “ no preference”
option the public indicated strong support for all properties.
When asked what periods of history and what thematic catego-ries
the public was most interested in, the most significant
finding was no preference ( 49%). Beyond this finding the only
directions indicated by the data were interest in the Old West
( 18%) and Native American history ( 12%) from the general
public, and an interest in the generic category of old buildings
( 40%) from the target group.
Finally, when asked if they were aware of potential threats to
historic resources the general public overwhelmingly said yes
to all eight types of threats listed, with the highest response to
vandalism ( 94%). Respondents were also asked to rate the
severity of the threat posed by each with vandalism ( 71%) and
not enough money ( 70%) ranking the highest. When asked
about all the potential threats to historic properties, 91% of the
general public expressed concern about the future of historic
properties in Arizona, with more than one third of all those
surveyed saying they were very concerned; nearly two thirds
of the target group said they were very concerned.
Implications
What are the implications of these findings? First and fore-most,
this survey indicates the general public supports the
state’s involvement in historic preservation issues and in the
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
27
0
0 . 1
0 . 2
0 . 3
0 . 4
0 . 5
0 . 6
0 . 7
0 . 8
0 . 9
1
P e r c e n t o f S u r v e y R e s p o n d e n t s w h o A g r e e t h a t H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P r o v i d e s C e r t a i n B e n e f i t s
G e n e r a l P u b l i c 0 . 8 2 0 . 8 9 9 0 . 9 4 9 0 . 7 6 5 0 . 9 1 3 0 . 9 0 3 0 . 7 5 8
T a r g e t G r o u p 0 . 9 5 9 0 . 9 7 2 0 . 9 6 1 0 . 9 4 4 0 . 9 5 8 0 . 9 4 0 . 8 7 5
I n c r e a s e
P r o p e r t y
V a l u e s
H e l p N e a r b y
B u s i n e s s e s
I n c r e a s e
T o u r i s m
I m p r o v e
Q u a l i t y o f
L i f e
P r e s e r v e
O p e n
S p a c e
C o n s e r v e
N a t u r a l
R e s o u r c e s
R e d u c e
U r b a n
S p r a w l
current programs of SHPO. It also indicates that the general
public has a much broader understanding of the role of historic
preservation within other contemporary issues, such as growth
management, and a broad understanding of the current threats
to historic resources.
Second, the survey supports the concept that historic preserva-tion
issues are important considerations for planning at all
levels of government, especially as it relates to economic devel-opment
programs, protecting archaeological sites when plan-ning
new housing developments, and protecting historic
districts through municipal and neighborhood conservation
efforts. SHPO efforts surrounding these issues should be
continued.
Third, the public rated all the programs SHPO oversees as
important, indicating those efforts should be undertaken to
provide adequate funding for all program areas. If hard deci-sions
have to be made the public and the target group indicates
that the highest priority should be placed on compliance, and
then on grants, site stewards, national register and tax incen-tive
program areas. The main difference between the general
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
28
N o P r e f e r e n c e
4 8 %
S p a n i s h E r a
3 %
O l d W e s t
1 8 %
M i l i t a r y H i s t o r y
4 %
M i n i n g / A g r i c
2 %
O l d B u i l d i n g s
6 %
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
0 %
E t h n i c H i s t o r y
1 2 %
O t h e r
7 %
S u r v e y R e s p o n d e n t s Õ P r e f e r e n c e s
t o w a r d H i s t o r i c T h e m e s a n d P e r i o d s
public and target group priorities was in the program area of
providing technical assistance. The target group rated this
function as important, though it was the lowest rated by the
general public. Also, the public rated education about historic
preservation issues as important, though the target group rated
this area lowest.
Fourth, although reconstruction as a preservation treatment
appears in state statute, SHPO has cautioned against its use in
favor of working on the standing historic resources first. This
policy is supported by the survey findings. Both the public
and target group indicated that reconstruction was the lowest
in importance of all treatments presented.
Fifth, the implications of the survey indicate equal consider-ation
for all treatments except reconstruction, a validation of
public benefit priorities with a preference toward older public
properties, and no preference toward age or context. It would
appear that the public defers to the professional preservation-ists
on any priority related to theme or context and that the
public is split over local or national significance being a factor
for setting priorities. There is also a slight preference for assist-ing
properties owned by not- for- profits ( government or pri-vate)
( 55%) ahead of for- profit related properties. This prefer-ence
indicates that the public benefit of preserving individual
properties should still be considered. Factors such as the
ability of the public to enter, visit or tour properties expands
the benefit of assistance to the public.
Finally, the survey definitely indicates the public’s concern that
vandalism is the greatest threat to historic and prehistoric
resources, which is reflected in support for the Site Steward
Program where volunteers continue to come forward to
counter this threat.
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
29
0 %
1 0 %
2 0 %
3 0 %
4 0 %
5 0 %
6 0 %
7 0 %
8 0 %
9 0 %
1 0 0 %
P e r c e n t o f S u r v e y R e s p o n d e n t s w h o A g r e e t h e r e a r e T h r e a t s t o H i s t o r i c P r o p e r t i e s
d e c l i n e o f i n n e r c i t y 7 6 % 9 5 % 6 0 %
l a c k o f p u b l i c k n o w l e d g e 8 4 % 9 5 % 5 4 %
o w n e r n e g l e c t 8 4 % 9 7 % 5 6 %
n e w h o m e c o n s t r u c t i o n 8 5 % 9 1 % 6 5 %
n o t e n o u g h m o n e y 8 4 % 9 6 % 7 0 %
l a c k o f z o n i n g g u i d e l i n e s 6 8 % 8 7 % 6 5 %
v a n d a l i s m 9 4 % 9 8 % 7 1 %
p u b l i c c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t s 8 5 % 9 5 % 5 4 %
G e n e r a l P u b l i c T a r g e t G r o u p E x t r e m e T h r e a t
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
30
Y u m a 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 P a r k
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
31
As a basis for planning, the historic preservation community
relies on the efforts of a variety of government agencies and
institutions, non- profit organizations, advocacy groups, neigh-borhood
associations and individuals. While one of the pur-poses
of the Plan Update is to guide the activities of SHPO,
SHPO is not the only entity that can obtain direction from the
Plan Update. The goals and objectives outlined below repre-sent
the desires of a wide range of historic preservation inter-ests
around the state. As such, the individuals and organiza-tions
possessing these interests also play an important part in
achieving the objectives of the Plan Update.
The above statewide analysis of historic preservation issues
and public input forms the basis for the following recom-mended
framework for action. This framework is intended as
guidance for the entire historic preservation community
throughout Arizona. Specific actions to be addressed by the
State Historic Preservation Office will be made in a separate
five- year action plan. SHPO will use the five- year action plan
to produce annual program goals.
Toward Effective Management of Historic Properties
Goal 1: Better Resource Management
Problem: Historic resources continue to be lost at an alarming
rate. Losses occur because properties are not identified, their
significance is not substantiated or because they are knowingly
or unknowingly mistreated.
Objectives:
• Slow the loss of significant resources
• Increase the number of resources put into contemporary use
• Target survey for resources by specific type and location
• Continue contextual approach to resource identification
• Monitor the condition of the most significant resources
• Assist owners in understanding appropriate resource treat-ments
• Provide appropriate incentives toward the preservation of
significant historic resources
• Develop policies and procedures for emergency treatment of
properties
F r a m e w o r k f o r A c t i o n
J e r o m e
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
32
Goal 2: Effective Information Management
Problem: Information about historic resources is often not
readily accessible. Responsible planning cannot happen with-out
timely and dependable information.
Objectives:
• Implement an integrated, centralized, statewide, computer-ized
inventory of historic resources
• Allow ready access to appropriate information
• Streamline information processing
• Bring the most current data to bear on resource management
decisions
Goal 3: Maximized Funding
Problem: The high demand for professional, technical and
financial assistance to the owners of historic properties is well
beyond the current support for preservation programs.
Objectives:
• Encourage program partnerships to validate and expand
funding
• Increase productivity through streamlining
• Target other agency grant funding
• Seek new funding sources
• Encourage the use of volunteers for program support
Toward Proactive Stewardship and Partnerships
Goal 4: Partnerships in Planning
Problem: Within the network of preservation partners, re-source
management can be inconsistent or even contradictory
due to the lack of planning coordination. Many times agencies
are not in full compliance with their historic resource manage-ment
responsibilities and the evolution of tribal cultural re-source
management programs has brought about greater need
for consultation.
Objectives:
• Integrate historic preservation issues into the planning activi-ties
of government at all levels
• Apply federal and state statutes, regulations and guidelines
uniformly
• Continue partnerships with tribal preservation programs
• Continue to build partnerships with educational and eco-nomic
institutions
Goal 5: Proactive Communities
Problem: In most Arizona communities, historic preservation
issues and/ or policies have not been fully integrated as a
routine part of the planning process. Preservation of a
community’s identity and character is often lost or impacted as
a result of new corporate development or uncontrolled growth.
Objectives:
• Empower local communities to take appropriate historic
preservation management actions
• Help coordinate local and state historic preservation priori-ties
• Encourage communities to become certified local govern-ments
• Assist existing certified local governments to expand their
historic preservation programs
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
33
tion of the state’s cultural resources
• Keep policy makers informed on current historic preserva-tion
issues
Goal 8: Informed, Trained Professionals
Problem: Many historic preservation professionals lack the
necessary training and background to provide quality advice
on the treatment and identification of historic properties.
Proper management and treatment decisions are often based
on outdated or incorrect information and contemporary ap-proaches
and studies are not readily available.
Objectives:
• Hold training workshops for preservation professionals on
current policies and techniques
• Collect current research information
• Advise professionals on “ best practices” for the treatment of
historic properties
Toward an Informed and Supportive Constituency
Goal 6: An Informed, Supportive Public
Problem: Many of Arizona’s citizens were neither born nor
raised here and therefore they often do not understand or
appreciate the state’s cultural and historic patrimony. Even
those who have studied or experienced this rich heritage may
lack the information or knowledge to become advocates for the
preservation of resources.
Objectives:
• Promote widespread participation of citizens in the preserva-tion
of the state’s historic properties
• Update and broaden information available to the public
• Support the development and operation of historic preserva-tion
advocacy groups
• Enable citizens to make informed decisions on current his-toric
preservation issues or threatened resources
Goal 7: Informed, Supportive Policy Makers
Problem: Many policy makers are not aware of the social and
economic value of preserving Arizona’s historic resources.
Lack of knowledge can perpetuate misinformation concerning
current historic preservation goals and standards. Misunder-standing
can also lead to the inappropriate treatment or inad-equate
support for important historic resources.
Objectives:
• Educate policy makers of the economic and social values of
historic preservation
• Seek increased participation of elected officials in historic
preservation activities
• Recognize the efforts of policy makers toward the preserva-
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
34
R e c e n t S H P O P u b l i c a t i o n s
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
35 S e l e c t e d B i b l i o g r a p h y
Arizona Archaeological Advisory Commission. Presenting the
past to the public: Guidelines for the development of archaeo-logical
parks in Arizona. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Parks
Board, 1997.
Arizona Humanities Council. Expand Arizona’s Economy by
Investing in Cultural Heritage. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Humani-ties
Council, no date.
Arizona State Historic Preservation Office. Files. State His-toric
Preservation Office, Arizona State Parks, Phoenix, Ari-zona.
Arizona State Parks. Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Out-door
Recreation Plan. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Parks Board,
1994.
Arizona State Parks. Arizona Trails 2000: State Motorized and
Nonmotorized Trails Plan. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Parks
Board, 1999.
Arizona State Parks. Three- Year Strategic Plan. Phoenix, AZ:
Arizona State Parks Board, August 2000.
Basques in Arizona, from Spanish Colonial Times to Present
An examination of the contribution of one ethnic group to the
development of the state, particularly related to the
sheepherding industry.
Cattle Ranching in Arizona 1697- 1950
Cattle ranching has played an important role in the Arizona
economy from Spanish colonial times to today. This study
identifies building types such as ranch houses, line camps,
wind mills, corrals, and cattle trails that have made cattle
raising possible in the arid Arizona environment.
Center for Desert Archaeology. Paleoindian and Archaic Sites
in Arizona. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Parks Board, 1998.
Chinese in Arizona, 1870- 1950
Focused study on the contribution of one ethnic group to the
development of the state. Property types are Chinatowns,
residences, commercial properties, community buildings, work
camps, agricultural properties, and cemeteries.
City of Phoenix. Historic Homes of Phoenix: An Architectural
and Preservation Guide. Phoenix, AZ: City of Phoenix, 1992.
Y u m a 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 p a r k
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
36
City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Commission. Ten Vital
Years in the History of Phoenix. Phoenix, AZ: City of Phoenix,
1997.
Collins, William S. The New Deal in Arizona. Phoenix, AZ:
Arizona State Parks Board, 1999.
Commerce in Phoenix, 1870- 1942
A focused study on commercial properties in Phoenix. The
study identified five major historical periods in the history of
commerce in Phoenix, each marked by distinct patterns in the
local economy and the resultant fluctuations in the growth and
shape of the original town site.
Doyle, Gerald, Lyle Stone, and Richard Lynch. Arizona Heri-tage
Fund Historic Preservation Five Year Plan. Phoenix, AZ:
Arizona State Parks Board, 1992.
Gammage, Grady Jr. Phoenix in Perspective: Reflections on
Developing in the Desert. Tempe: Herberger Center for Design
Excellence, Arizona State University, 1999.
Gilpin, Dennis and David A. Philips. Prehistoric to Historic
Transition Period in Arizona, Circa AD 1519 to 1692. Phoenix,
AZ: Arizona State Parks Board, 1999.
Gold & Silver Mining in Arizona, 1848- 1945
Looks at the historical significance of precious metal mining.
Property types identified include: Extraction properties, pro-cessing
properties and habitation and commercial properties
( camps and boomtowns).
Growing Smarter Commission. Growing Smarter Final Report.
Phoenix, AZ: Growing Smarter Commission, 1999.
Historic Trails in Arizona from Coronado to 1940
A statewide study of historically significant transportation
corridors. Property categories include: Native American trails;
Spanish and Mexican period trails and roads; Early American,
U. S. Government trails; Mormon roads; stagecoach, freight,
and toll roads; stock trails; and early automotive routes.
Homesteading in Arizona, 1862- 1940
Agricultural and stock- raising homesteads represents one of
the major ways that Anglo- Americans settled Arizona. Prop-erty
types include homestead houses, outhouses, fields, live-stock
outbuildings, water features like wells and windmills,
and artifacts.
Eadie, Douglas C. Taking Command of Change: A Practical
Guide for Applying the Strategic Development Process in State
Historic Preservation Offices. Washington DC: U. S. Depart-ment
of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Re-sources,
Division, 1995.
Laurent, Steven, et al. Arizona Historic Preservation Plan.
Phoeniz, AZ: Arizona State Parks Board, November 1996.
Lawson, Barry L., Ellen P. Ryan, and Rebecca Bartlett
Hutchison, Reaching Out, Reaching In: A Guide to Creating
Effective Public Participation for State Historic Preservation
Programs. Washington DC: U. S. Department of the Interior,
National Parks Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1993.
Lithic Sites in Arizona
Sites containing flaked stone and ground stone represent one
of the major property types associated with prehistoric cultures
in Arizona. Significant sites provide information on the pro-duction
and use of stone tools.
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
37
National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, Preser-vation
Planning Branch. A Planning Companion for NPS 49
Chapters 6, 30, and 31: Suggestions for Designing and Imple-menting
a State Preservation Planning Process. Washington
DC: U. S. Department of the Interior, February 1993.
Montoya, Pia, ed. Arizona Statistical Abstract. Tucson, Ari-zona:
College of Business and Public Administration, 1993.
Prehistoric Irrigation in Arizona
Irrigated agriculture represent the foundation of prehistoric
Hohokam culture in Arizona. Property types include canals,
fields, petroglyphs and habitation sites.
Prehistoric Non- Irrigated Agriculture
These properties provide critical information concerning how
prehistoric peoples subsisted in an arid environment. Property
types include fields and water- control feature such as rock
piles, check dams and terraces.
Prehistoric Rock Art in Arizona
Drawings on rocks ( petroglyphs and pictographs) are an in-triguing
and little understood remnant from prehistoric cul-tures
in Arizona with sites scattered across the state. Signifi-cant
rock art properties show a relation to prehistoric cultural
groups and will provide information on interpretation, dating
and techniques.
Rich, Jacqueline, et. al. Governor’s Task Force on Historic
Preservation: Final Report. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Governor’s
Office of Economic Planning and Development, 1981.
Travis, Tara. Historic Preservation Myth Series. Phoenix, AZ:
Arizona State Parks Board, 2000.
Myth 1: Historic Preservation and Economic Develop-ment
are Incompatible
Myth 2: Real versus Fake: No one knows the Difference
Myth 3: Newer is Better
Myth 4: Preservation Means I Can’t Do Anything with
My Property
Myth 5: Preservation Stops Growth
Transcontinental Railroading in Arizona, 1878- 1940
Explores property types associated with the Southern Pacific
and Santa Fe Railroads built and operated as connections
between the Mississippi Valley and California. Property types
include construction camps, roadbed, grade, track, bridges,
tunnels, culverts, office buildings, section houses, depots, and
hotels.
United States Military in Arizona, 1846- 1945
This study examined all aspects in the U. S. military presence in
Arizona from the frontier era to World War II. Major property
types include: forts, camps, and operational posts; roads; battle
sites; heliograph stations; air bases; civilian flight schools;
POW and internment camps; gunnery and training ranges; and
National Guard facilities.
Vegors, Wallace. An Interim Plan for Historic Preservation in
Arizona. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State Parks Board, August
1970.
Vernacular Architecture in Arizona, 1863- 1920
Vernacular architecture encompasses the culturally determined
building forms and traditional styles built by common people
without benefit of formal architectural or building plans.
Property examples include folk housing, Native American
traditional building forms, and other traditional based build-ing
forms.
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
38
T o m b s t o n e C o u r t h o u s e
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P a r k
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
39
The Framework for Action is intended as guidance for the
entire Arizona historic preservation community, but one of the
primary avenues for its implementation is through the specific
actions of the State Historic Preservation Office ( SHPO) and
Arizona State Parks. In order to better understand this critical
relationship, a review of the progress SHPO has made since the
1996 Plan and how these activities are tied to the goals of the
1996 Plan are presented in this SHPO progress report.
Better Resource Management
Better Resource Management involves the core responsibilities
of the State Historic Preservation Office to identify, evaluate
and recommend appropriate treatment of historic properties.
The initial thirty year effort to identify historic properties
resulted in a direct systematic approach toward community
inventories, especially Certified Local Government partners,
and a move from the development of context studies toward
multiple resource nominations. SHPO has been very success-ful
in convincing communities to complete survey and inven-tory
projects utilizing matching funds. These efforts directly
led to the development of local historic preservation commis-sions
and the passage of local historic preservation ordinances.
Inventorying of historic properties has also been accomplished
through the compliance responsibilities of federal and state
agencies either as required under the Arizona Historic Preser-vation
Act, NHPA Section 106 activities or as proactively pur-sued
by agencies under their Section 110 responsibilities. The
tremendous increase in the state’s archaeological inventory is
directly related to these compliance activities.
The primary challenges for inventory work are threefold. First,
SHPO is faced with the need to begin inventorying buildings
from the substantial post World War II construction boom
throughout Arizona. Second, many earlier inventoried proper-ties
have been determined eligible but not been moved for-ward
toward nomination. Finally, SHPO must change its
approach to inventory to reach the great number of rural
properties scattered throughout the state.
Property evaluation and nomination to the State and/ or Na-tional
Registers of Historic Places continues to be a critical
program function. Interest in nominations from private indi-viduals
remains high. Neighborhood associations continue to
pursue new historic district designation. Completion of con-text
studies encourages multiple property nominations. Re-quests
for updating nominations of existing historic districts is
high. And, many properties are submitted for review by state
A p p e n d i x A :
S H P O P r o g r e s s R e p o r t
H o m o l o v i R u i n s
S t a t e P a r k
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
40
and federal agencies as part of their Section 110 responsibili-ties.
The state register evaluation committee, the Historic Sites
Review Committee ( HSRC), is well attended and the members
feel that their role in reviewing nominations is important and
useful in advising SHPO and recommending properties for
listing. Debate on the role of the Arizona Historical Advisory
Commission ( of which the HSRC is a subcommittee) has led to
discussion on where HSRC should be located.
The first responsibility for the SHPO resource management
programs is to guarantee that the resources to be managed are
truly historic, but once an evaluation is complete and a prop-erty
is deemed worthy of preservation, management and
treatment of the resource come to the forefront. Although
SHPO does not own any resources, the technical assistance the
professional staff provides and the incentives that can be
applied to historic resources allow the office the opportunity to
advise owners of these properties of current methods and
standards. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for His-toric
Preservation Projects and for buildings in particular, the
Standards for Rehabilitation, are now well understood
throughout the preservation community.
The broad range of State Parks and SHPO incentives continues
to attract the interest of owners of historic resources. The state
property tax reclassification programs, for income and non-income
producing historic properties, have a substantial num-ber
of new applicants each year. The applications for participa-tion
in the federal 20% investment tax credit program remain
steady. Requests for historic preservation grant assistance
through State Park’s Heritage Fund Grant Program continues
to be three to four times the amount available for award.
One of the more creative resource management tools devel-oped
by the Governor- appointed Archaeological Advisory
Commission ( AAC) and strongly supported by the Arizona
State Parks Board has been the Site Steward Program. Working
with the state and federal land management agencies SHPO
trains, certifies and motivates volunteers who monitor archaeo-logical
sites for vandalism and other threats. Since 1976, the
program has continued to grow from 450 stewards to a current
enrollment of 688 stewards who are monitoring 1,500 sites. In
addition to State Parks, direct funding support for the program
since 1997 has come from the following sponsors: National
Park Service, U. S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Manage-ment,
Bureau of Reclamation, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona
State Land Department, Arizona Game and Fish Department
and City of Phoenix.
Effective Information Management
Effective information management is the centerpiece of the
streamlining efforts undertaken by SHPO. As government
moves into the “ information age” SHPO is moving from a
paper- based records system to an electronic- based records
system and from discrete databases to a single, integrated,
relational database.
The key element of this effort is the development, in partner-ship
with Arizona State Museum, Arizona State University,
and Museum of Northern Arizona, of a centralized database
( AZSITE) of historic properties that can be used for cultural
resource management and for research purposes. AZSITE
holds information on all types of properties with primary
emphasis on archaeological sites and includes a Geographic
Information System ( GIS) interface and also data on cultural
resource surveys. In development for five years, AZSITE is in
the final phase of testing. Federal agencies, such as Bureau of
Land Management, are already accessing and using AZSITE
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
41
for planning and compliance purposes.
Other information systems advances within State Parks is the
upgrading of computer systems, the linking of the compliance
logging with our mail logging and efforts to visually reference
all contributing properties within historic districts on electronic
maps. Information on current SHPO and grant activities is
also posted on the State Parks website ( www. pr. state. az. us).
Maximize Funding
When the 1996 Plan was adopted there was little hope of
significant increases in the SHPO budget from either federal or
state sources. The goal was, therefore, not to seek increased
allocations but to maximize the funding the agency adminis-tered.
The primary approaches to this end were State Parks’
efforts at forming partnerships and in streamlining procedures.
For new historic surveys, matching funds were requested for
all proactive projects and were raised from all survey partners.
For nominations, SHPO has continued to move toward district
and multiple resource nominations. For context studies, SHPO
sought partners for matching funds and were successful in
combining efforts with Bureau of Reclamation. More recent
contexts were combined with multiple resource nominations.
The SHPO efforts at compliance streamlining through comput-erization
allow an increasing workload to be reviewed by the
existing staff. For educational workshops, training and public
events SHPO developed a number of partners and sponsors.
And, SHPO supports efforts to attend existing events and
support existing programs developed by others before begin-ning
any new programs.
The most important approach for SHPO to maximize funding
is the effort to decentralize responsibilities through the Certi-fied
Local Government ( CLG) program. By assisting in the
development of historic preservation programs at the local
level, many information requests, historic property identifica-tion
efforts and treatment issues are now dealt with by the
individual CLGs.
SHPO has also encouraged federal and state agencies to
streamline the compliance process by making cultural resource
management decisions as part of an agency’s early planning
efforts under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation
Act ( NHPA), thereby reducing interaction with SHPO by
programmatic agreement.
Finally, SHPO now uses volunteers and/ or student interns in
S H P O A n n u a l R e p o r t s
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
42
many program areas. SHPO feels that the use of volunteers
and students not only stretches program dollars, it also edu-cates
these individuals on the policies, standards and needs of
cultural resource management.
Partnerships in Planning
The National Historic Preservation Act ( NHPA) assigns to
SHPO the responsibility to “ cooperate with the Secretary [ of
the Interior], the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
and other Federal and State agencies, local governments, and
organizations and individuals to ensure that historic properties
are taken into consideration at all levels of planning and devel-opment....”
The primary vision of the NHPA was to include
cultural resources into federal agency planning efforts and the
Section 106 compliance review process is the direct result of
this mandate.
In a rapidly growing state like Arizona, the pressures of devel-opment
on historic properties is certainly greater than the rate
of deterioration of resources through time. Therefore, the
integration of historic preservation policies into planning
efforts is critical at all levels of government.
By far, the majority of staff time is assigned to review federal
and state undertakings and their effects on historic properties.
Compliance reviewers are finally beginning to see movement
away from project by project review to program and planning
monitoring as agencies have integrated cultural resource
management into their cyclical planning activities. This is
especially true of the federal land managing agencies ( Bureau
of Land Management, Forest Service, National Park Service
and Bureau of Reclamation) that have hired internal staff to
deal with historic properties.
At the state level, SHPO ( for the first time since passage of the
State Historic Preservation Act in 1982) has issued Guidelines
to the state agencies. Recommendations are made to assist
agencies while developing a plan of action that may affect
historic properties. As part of these planning efforts SHPO
promoted, to the greatest extent possible, the adoption of
parallel management standards and policies at the federal and
state levels.
The newest partners in preserving the state’s patrimony are the
21 federally recognized tribes. With amendments to the NHPA
in 1992, tribes were encouraged to develop their own preserva-tion
programs covering tribal lands. Arizona currently has
three tribes that have taken over the SHPO responsibilities on
tribal land: the Hualapai, the Navajo and the White Mountain
Apache. SHPO currently represents the remaining 18 tribes,
but is encouraging each to develop a cultural resource pro-gram.
SHPO is also working with the Intertribal Council’s
Cultural Resource Working Group on a number of tribal-related
issues including intertribal compliance streamlining.
At the county level, SHPO pursued basic interaction with
planning officials and review is now done, primarily on a
volunteer basis, on limited public and private development
projects. These efforts focused on the counties surrounding
Phoenix and Tucson ( Maricopa and Pima Counties). The SHPO
goal is to develop more formal relationships with county
planners by encouraging counties to join the Certified Local
Government ( CLG) program.
Proactive Communities
Because the Certified Local Government ( CLG) Program has
grown to include 22 communities, each with a contractual
relationship with SHPO, planning efforts with CLG communi-ties
is listed as a discrete goal.
The interface CLG program focuses on both the monitoring of
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
43
existing CLGs and the development of new CLGs. The pri-mary
training effort with CLGs is the annual CLG workshop.
These Friday noon to Saturday noon workshops have dealt
with a number of basic CLG program issues, advanced CLG
responsibilities and the relationship between community
planning and historic preservation. SHPO is on the cutting
edge of advising local commissioners of their role in growth
management issues and brought state and national leaders in
to advise them on current standards and practices. One of the
greatest challenges is keeping CLGs informed on current issues
and rapidly changing planning policies.
At the specific CLG level, SHPO completed two planning
charrettes that brought local leaders, elected officials, staff and
professionals together to address community needs and eco-nomic
development issues in relationship to historic resources
and districts. One result of these workshops is the production
of a half- hour videotape on how other CLGs can use this
process.
SHPO is in discussion with several counties ( Arizona has 15) to
initiate historic preservation programs. One of the major
components of these programs will be to target archaeological
sites and historic districts.
An Informed, Supportive Public
In a high growth state where citizens born outside the state
outnumber those born in the state, creating an appreciation of
Arizona’s historic properties and the threats to their preserva-tion
is a major challenge. With various preconceptions ranging
from “ newer is better” to “ off- highway travel means off- road
travel,” from “ there’s nothing worth preserving” to “ I can do
whatever I want,” there is a definite responsibility to inform
the public on historic preservation issues, policies and regula-tions.
SHPO engages the public in a variety of ways from
publications to workshops, from media releases to public
events. National Park Service has commended Arizona for its
progressive and broad based educational efforts.
Arizona was the first state to promote cultural resource stew-ardship
responsibilities by celebrating Archaeological Aware-ness
Week ( now expanded to a full Month) tied to the Archae-ology
Expo event. The month is promoted with a calendar of
events and posters usually tied to an annual theme. The Expo
features exhibits from agencies, consultants, educational insti-tutions
and communities that present current archaeological
issues and projects. Many states now have designated their
own archaeological weeks. There is also a major educational
component to the Site Steward Program that focuses on the
current ethics of archaeological site visitation and responsibili-ties.
More than 1,300 people have gone through the training
program.
SHPO and State Parks, in partnership with the Arizona Preser-vation
Foundation and the Governor’s Office, holds an annual
awards ceremony in order to recognize outstanding projects,
individuals and organizations related to historic preservation
activities. SHPO also distributes historic preservation informa-tion
by phone request and maintains current information on
the agency website.
Informed, Supportive Policy Makers
In the rapidly changing arena of politics, in the ever- changing
personnel of agencies and communities, and in a world of
updated and revised policies, it is important to educate policy
makers concerning historic preservation issues. SHPO regu-larly
meets with agency officials and CLG elected officials and
representatives. State Parks and SHPO staff meet with elected
state officials upon request.
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
44
By far the most requested and most time consuming interac-tion
with elected officials is at the local level where technical
advice is shared and policy reviewed. The SHPO sponsored
workshops are often attended by agency and community
officials. These workshops often focus on implementation of
federal and state compliance requirements.
SHPO issues an annual report that is distributed to local and
state policy makers and SHPO briefs the State Parks Board on
revelant issues.
Informed, Trained Professionals
Continuing education of preservation professionals who inter-act
with SHPO is critical for the identification, evaluation and
management of historic properties. SHPO distributes a wide
variety of technical information to professionals upon request.
SHPO also sponsors or cosponsors technical workshops on
topics such as the legal requirements of historic preservation
legislation, materials conservation, building treatments and
historic property interpretation. SHPO is also committed to
the continued training of its staff and CLG partners.
In order to address a number of historical archaeology issues
SHPO set up a working group on historical archaeology. The
working group has recently compiled information for conduct-ing
research on historical archaeological sites and artifacts in
Arizona called Historical Archaeology in Arizona: A Research
Guide.
Once the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ( ACHP)
issued the new Section 106 Regulations, SHPO conducted a
workshop on them for the federal agency cultural resource
managers. One hundred fifty six participants attended this
workshop.
S H P O B r o c h u r e s
45
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
APPENDIX B: GENERAL PUBLIC AND TARGET GROUP SURVEY RESPONSES
General Public Phone Survey: 1059 completed interviews of random adult Arizona residents statewide.
Target Group Mail Survey: 582 questionnaires returned ( 1850 mailed) from people interested in historic preservation statewide.
General Public Target Group
1. Please answer the following questions by checking either: YES or NO YES or NO
a. Have you visited any state parks in Arizona in the past 12 months? 47.5% 52.5% 68.1% 31.9%
( If yes, please name one) Target Group only: 56% of respondents named a park.
54% of those who listed a park named a State Park; 26 State Parks were mentioned.
b. Have you visited any historic buildings or museums in Arizona
in the past 12 months? 43.0% 57.0% 78.3% 21.7%
( If yes, please name one) Target Group only: 45% of respondents named a property.
c. Have you visited any archaeological sites in Arizona such as
Montezuma’s Castle or Pueblo Grande in the past 12 months? 20.8% 79.2% 51.8% 48.2%
( If yes, please name one) Target Group only: 62% of respondents named a site.
d. Were you aware that historic preservation includes the protection
of archaeological sites, not just historic buildings? 67.9% 32.1% 88.2% 11.8%
2. Historic preservation may contribute to the protection of natural and cultural resources in a number of ways. Would you
say you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements?
Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
a. Historic preservation efforts help preserve open space.
( by saving open space that includes archaeological sites) 30.1% 61.2% 7.5% 1.2% 58.2% 37.6% 3.5% 0.7%
91.3% 95.8%
b. Historic preservation helps conserve natural resources.
( by re- using existing buildings and construction materials) 28.1% 62.2% 8.7% 1.0% 52.7% 41.3 5.0% 1.0%
90.3% 94.0%
c. Historic preservation helps reduce urban sprawl.
( by maintaining inner city buildings, keeping them in use) 21.1% 54.6% 22.2% 2.0% 55.3% 32.2% 11.4% 1.0%
75.8% 87.5%
46
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
3. As you may know, the State Historic Preservation Office ( SHPO) has responsibility for a variety of programs as indicated
below. Would you say these functions are very important, somewhat important, not very important, or not at all important to
you?
General Public Target Group
Program Functions Very Somewhat Not Very Not At All Very Somewhat Not Very Not At All
Important Important Important Important Important Important Important Important
Technical Advice
a. The SHPO provides technical advice such as
information on how to maintain historic properties. 39.9% 43.3% 12.2% 4.6% 74.6% 22.8% 2.6% -
Survey/ Inventory/ Research 83.2% 97.4%
b. The SHPO documents and publishes research on
Arizona’s archaeological sites and historic properties. 56.5% 34.4% 7.6% 1.4% 68.0% 29.0% 2.9% -
National Register 90.0% 97.0%
c. The SHPO places historic properties and archaeological
sites on the National Register of Historic Places. 60.2% 32.6% 5.3% 1.3% 75.8% 22.0% 2.1% 0.2%
Compliance 93.3% 97.8%
d. The SHPO ensures that publicly funded projects, such as
highways and canals, follow the rules concerning
historic properties and archaeological sites. 70.3% 24.7% 3.5% 1.5% 84.0% 13.4% 2.4% 0.2%
Education 94.9% 97.4%
e. The SHPO provides education and training through
workshops, seminars and special events. 57.2% 36.3% 5.4% 1.1% 58.9% 36.2% 4.5% 0.3%
Site Steward Program 93.5% 95.1%
f. The SHPO uses volunteers to protect archaeological
sites. 58.5% 36.1% 4.2% 1.2% 66.5% 29.7% 3.8% -
Grants 94.6% 96.2%
g. The SHPO provides grants for historic preservation
projects. 62.1% 32.3% 3.8% 1.8% 77.9% 20.3% 1.6% 0.2%
Tax Incentives 94.4% 98.2%
h. The SHPO offers property tax reductions as incentives
to maintain historic properties. 60.1% 30.8% 6.7% 2.4% 82.2% 16.8% 0.9% 0.2%
90.9% 99.0%
47
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
4. A big part of historic preservation involves property maintenance. These efforts range from simple regular maintenance
to complete reconstruction. Would you say funding the following types of maintenance projects are very important, somewhat
important, not very important, or not at all important to you?
General Public Target Group
Very Somewhat Not Very Not At All Very Somewhat Not Very Not At All
Important Important Important Important Important Important Important Important
Maintenance
a. Maintaining properties so that they stay in good shape. 79.6% 18.2% 1.2% 0.9% 84.9% 14.2% 0.5% 0.3%
97.8% 99.1%
Rehabilitation
b. Fixing up properties to make them usable or functional,
such as modernizing a bathroom or kitchen. 64.9% 31.3% 2.7% 1.1% 51.7% 38.7% 7.8% 1.7%
96.2% 90.4%
Restoration
c. Restoring historic properties to their original condition
for use as museums or tourist destinations. 62.2% 33.8% 3.0% 1.0% 67.6% 28.1% 4.0% 0.3%
96.0% 95.7%
Stabilization
d. Stabilizing properties by keeping them from falling over
or collapsing. 78.0% 16.5% 3.7% 1.8% 77.9% 18.8% 2.6% 0.7%
94.5% 96.7%
Reconstruction
e. Reconstructing properties that no longer exist, for instance,
recreating buildings/ structures that have burned down. 17.6% 42.2% 27.0% 13.3% 17.1% 41.6% 31.3% 10.0%
59.8% 58.7%
48
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
5. Due to limited resources, the State Historic Preservation Office must set priorities to determine which projects get money.
Please read the following questions and indicate ( YES or NO) if each topic is a priority and, if YES, which you think is the
higher priority.
General Public Target Group
Yes No Yes No
a. Should the age of the property be a priority when allocating funds?
For example, giving a higher priority to the older of two equally
important properties. 72.4% 27.6% 65.1% 34.9%
- ( IF YES) Which should be the higher priority, older properties or newer properties? OLDER NEWER OLDER NEWER
94.9% 5.1% 100% -
b. Should the level of significance of the property ( such as national versus
local significance) be a priority when allocating funds? 86.7% 13.3% 62.5% 37.5%
- ( IF YES) Which should be the higher priority, those properties of national
significance or those of local significance? NATIONAL LOCAL NATIONAL LOCAL
50.0% 50.0% 45.7% 54.3%
c. Should ownership of the property be a priority when allocating funds?
For instance, giving priority to either public or privately owned properties. 53.8% 46.2% 45.3% 54.7%
- ( IF YES) Which should be the higher priority, public properties or privately
owned properties? PUBLIC PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE
81.6% 18.4% 66.8% 33.2%
d. Should the economic potential of a property be a priority when allocating funds?
That is giving priority to properties that are either " for profit" businesses
such as a private hotel or " not for profit" businesses such as a public museum. 54.9 45.1% 42.2% 57.8%
- ( IF YES) Which should be the higher priority, for profit business or
not for profit business? FOR NOT FOR FOR NOT FOR
PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT
18.3% 81.7% 9.4% 90.6%
49
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
6. Historic preservation activities here in Arizona can result in economic benefits. Would you say you strongly agree, agree,
disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements?
General Public Target Group
Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
a. The creation of historic districts increases property values
of homes within that district. 27.3% 54.7% 15.8% 2.2% 64.0% 31.9% 3.5% 0.5%
82.0% 95.9%
b. Historic downtown areas help nearby businesses. 33.4% 56.5% 9.0% 1.1% 65.0% 32.2% 2.6% 0.2%
89.9% 97.2%
c. Historic buildings increase tourism. 43.6% 51.4% 4.1% 1.0% 60.7% 35.4% 3.7% 0.2%
94.9% 96.1%
d. My quality of life is improved by preserving historic
properties. 24.6% 51.9% 21.2% 2.3% 65.4% 29.0% 4.4% 1.2%
76.5% 94.4%
7. If it were up to you, would you give greater attention to preserving historic properties or archaeological sites or do you
have no preference?
General Public Target Group
• HISTORIC PROPERTIES ( Historic Period) ............................... 49.6% ................................................ 35.0%
• ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ( Prehistoric Period) ..................... 27.0% ................................................ 23.0%
• NO PREFERENCE ....................................................................... 23.4% ................................................ 42.0%
50
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
7a. ( IF ANSWER IS HISTORIC PROPERTIES) Is there any one aspect of the Historic Period that interests you the most?
Please check one of the boxes below, and if you have a more specific interest, please circle one of the subcategories.
• General Public • Target Group -
• NO PREFERENCE ............................................................................................................. 49.0% ............. 21.1% ........ 21.2%
• SPANISH EXPLORERS/ MISSIONARIES ( Spanish/ Mexican exploration/ settlement) ............ 2.5% ............... 4.5% .......... 4.5%
• OLD WEST ( frontier exploration/ settlement, gunfighters, mountain men, prospectors) .............. 18.2% ............... 6.3% .......... 6.3%
• MILITARY HISTORY .......................................................................................................... 3.5% ............... 4.9% .......... 1.4%
- Indian Wars ............................................................................................................................... ................................... 1.4%
- Civil War ............................................................................................................................... ....................................... 1.4%
- World War I ............................................................................................................................... .................................. 0.3%
- World War II ............................................................................................................................... ................................. 0.3%
- Cold War ............................................................................................................................... ....................................... 0.0%
• MINING/ RANCHING/ AGRICULTURE ............................................................................. 1.8% ............... 6.3% .......... 2.4%
- Mining ............................................................................................................................... .......................................... 1.4%
- Ranching ............................................................................................................................... ....................................... 0.7%
- Farming........................................................................................................................ ................................................ 0.3%
- Homesteads..................................................................................................................... ............................................. 1.4%
- Reclamation Projects ( water control, dams, canals) .................................................................................................................. 0.0%
• OLD BUILDINGS ................................................................................................................ 5.5% ............. 39.6% ........ 20.8%
- Victorian Architecture................................................................................................................... ............................... 2.8%
- Other Architecture ............................................................................................................................... ........................ 5.2%
- Civic/ Government Buildings ............................................................................................................................... ........ 0.3%
- Urban History ( cities, towns, neighborhoods, historic districts) .............................................................................................. 10.4%
• TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................................ 0.4% ............... 4.9% .......... 0.7%
- Railroad History ............................................................................................................................... ........................... 3.5%
- Automobile History ............................................................................................................................... ...................... 0.7%
- Aeronautical History ( airplanes) ............................................................................................................................... ............... 0.0%
• NATIVE AMERICAN HISTORY....................................................................................... 11.8% ............... 7.3% .......... 7.3%
- OTHER ETHNIC HISTORY ................................................................................................................... 2.8% .......... 1.0%
- Hispanic/ Mexican/ Latino History ............................................................................................................................... 1.4%
- African American History ............................................................................................................................... ............ 0.0%
- Asian American History ............................................................................................................................... ............... 0.0%
- Mormon History ............................................................................................................................... ........................... 0.3%
- Other ............................................................................................................................... ............................................. 0.0%
- SPECIFIC PERSON......................................................................................................................... ........................... 0.3%
• OTHER ( specify)................................................................................................................... 7.3% ............... 2.1% .......... 2.1%
51
A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0
8. As you may know, historic properties are exposed to many potential threats. Please answer the following questions by
checking either YES or NO. If YES, please indicate what you think is the level of threat.
General Public Target Group
Extreme Moderate Low No
YES NO YES NO Threat Threat Threat Threat
75.7% 24.3% 95.1% 4.9% 60.4% 36.3% 3.1% 0.2%
96.7%
83.8% 16.2% 94.8% 5.2% 53.5% 39.7% 6.5% 0.2%
93.2%
83.8% 16.2% 96.7% 3.3% 56.3% 38.6% 4.9% 0.2%
94.9%
85.0% 15.0% 91.3% 8.7% 65.2% 27.4% 6.8% 0.6%
92.6%
83.9% 16.1% 95.8% 4.2% 69.6% 26.9% 3.5% -
96.7%
67.5% 32.5% 87.1% 12.9% 64.7% 32.1% 3.0% 0.2%
96.8%
93.7% 6.3% 98.1% 1.9% 70.9% 25.8% 2.5% 0.7%
96.7%
84.6% 15.4% 94.6% 5.4% 54.4% 35.6% 9.2% 0.8%
a. Are you aware that the decline of downtown and inner-city
areas are a threat to historic properties?
b. Are you aware that a lack of public knowledge about
historic preservation is a threat to historic properties?
c. Are you aware that owner neglect of historic properties
is a threat to historic properties?
d. Are you aware that new home construction impacting
archaeological sites is a threat to historic properties?
e. Are you aware that not enough money for historic
preservation is a threat to historic properties?
f. Are you aware that the lack of local zoning guidelines
for historic preservation is a threat to historic properties?
g. Are you aware that vandalism to historic properties and
archaeological sites is a threat to historic properties?
h. Are you aware that public construction projects, such as
roads, bridges, and canals impacting archaeological sites
or historic properties, are a threat to historic properties?
90.0%
52
S t a t e H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e 2 0 0 0 A R I Z O N A S T A T E P A R K S
9. Thinking about all of these potential threats, how concerned are you about the future of Arizona’s historic properties?
Would you say you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all?
General Public Target Group
• VERY CONCERNED ................... 35.2% .................................. 65.4%
( 91.1%) ( 97.0%)
• SOMEWHAT CONCERNED ....... 55.9% .................................. 31.6%
• NOT VERY CONCERNED............ 7.4% .................................... 1.9%
• NOT CONCERNED AT ALL ......... 1.5% .................................... 1.1%
10. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Finally, we need to ask you a few other questions simply for statistical purposes.
General Public Target Group
a. What is your age?
18- 26 years ......................................... 11.9% ............................................ 0.9%
27- 40 years ......................................... 30.0% .......................................... 15.5%
41- 64 years ......................................... 42.7% .......................................... 61.1%
65 years and over ................................
