Suzanne Pfister, Chair Walter D. Armer, Jr. John U. Hays Joseph H. Holmwood William C. Porter Elizabeth J. Stewart Michael E. Anable ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Pam Foti, Chair Steve Bills Richard Samp William Scalzo John Vuolo Duane Shroufe Kenneth E. Travous ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ This publication was prepared under the authority of the Arizona State Parks Board. Prepared by the Partnerships Division Arizona State Parks 1300 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85007 (602) 542-4174 Fax: (602) 542-4180 www.azstateparks.com The preparation of this report was under guidance from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, under the provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (Public Law 88578, as amended). The Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, age or disability. For additional information or to file a discrimination complaint, contact Director, Office of Equal Opportunity, Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. 20240. October 2002 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 A. Land and Water Conservation Fund Background ............................................. 1 B. Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan ........................................ 3 II. Outdoor Recreation Analyses ..................................................................................... 9 A. Arizona Profile ........................................................................................................ 9 B. Arizona Outdoor Recreation Priorities .............................................................. 13 C. County Profiles ..................................................................................................... 23 1. Apache County ............................................................................................... 24 2. Cochise County ............................................................................................... 25 3. Coconino County ............................................................................................ 27 4. Gila County ..................................................................................................... 29 5. Graham County .............................................................................................. 31 6. Greenlee County ............................................................................................. 32 7. La Paz County ................................................................................................. 34 8. Maricopa County ............................................................................................ 36 9. Mohave County .............................................................................................. 38 10. Navajo County ................................................................................................ 40 11. Pima County .................................................................................................... 42 12. Pinal County .................................................................................................... 44 13. Santa Cruz County ......................................................................................... 46 14. Yavapai County ............................................................................................... 48 15. Yuma County ................................................................................................... 50 III. Open Project Selection Process ................................................................................. 52 A. Process ............................................................................................................... 52 B. LRSP/LWCF Grant Program Details ................................................................. 54 C. FY 2002 LRSP/LWCF Rating Criteria ................................................................ 57 IV. Other Statewide Resource Plans and Studies ......................................................... 63 A. Arizona Trails 2000: State Motorized and Nonmotorized Trails Plan .......... 63 B. Arizona Historic Preservation Plan ................................................................... 64 C. Arizona Watercraft Survey .................................................................................. 64 D. National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan ................................................ 65 E. Growing Smarter Planning ................................................................................. 67 V. Appendices ............................................................................................................... 68 A. List of Arizona LWCF Grant Awards FY 1965-FY 2002 ................................... 70 B. 2002 Final Telephone Survey Results ................................................................. 83 i 2003 SCORP Arizona State Parks List of Tables Table 1. Congressional LWCF Appropriations 1965-2002 ............................................................................. 2 Table 2. Arizona State Parks Awarded Grants from FY 1994-FY 2001 ......................................................... 5 Table 3. Arizona State Parks Funded Partnerships from FY 1994-FY 2001 ................................................. 5 Table 4. Survey Response Rates by County ..................................................................................................... 7 Table 5. Responses from Arizona Households Regarding Major Problems with Parks ......................... 18 Table 6. Respondents Who Visited a Recreation Area in Arizona within the past 12 months (phone) 20 Table 7. Importance of Providing Programs and Funds .............................................................................. 20 Table 8. Respondents Who Visited a Recreation Area in Arizona within the past 12 months (mail) ... 21 Table 9. Respondents Satisfied with Recreation Opportunities in Arizona .............................................. 21 Table 10. Places to Go to Enjoy Favorite Recreational Activity or Cultural Site ........................................ 21 Table 11. Participation Frequency in Recreational Activities at a Recreation Area .................................... 22 Table 12. Open Project Selection Process Recurring Funding Cycle ............................................................ 57 Table 13. FY 2002 LRSP/LWCF Rating Criteria .............................................................................................. 57 Table 14. Priority Wetland Types ....................................................................................................................... 67 List of Figures Figure 1. Land Ownership in Arizona ................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 2. Arizona’s Population Growth, 1910-2000 ........................................................................................ 10 Figure 3. Percent of Arizona Households Who Visited a Park within the past 3 months ........................ 14 Figure 4. Average Number Park Visits by Arizona Households within the past 3 months ..................... 15 Figure 5. (Statewide) Priority Park Type to Fund ........................................................................................... 16 Figure 6. (Statewide) Priority Park Project Type to Fund .............................................................................. 17 Figure 7. (Statewide) Preferred Way to Provide Input ................................................................................... 18 Figure 8. Comparing County Population, Land Base and Grant Award Percentages .............................. 23 ii Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP- Introduction Land and Water Conservation Fund Background The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a federal program providing grants for outdoor recreation and open space projects. Congress created the LWCF in 1964 through Public Law 88-578 as amended. The Fund receives its revenue primarily from the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing receipts. Each year, the LWCF is subject to the Congressional appropriation process. A portion is used for federal projects with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service (NPS). Another component provides funding for state and local pass-through grants through the NPS. Projects include land acquisition, outdoor recreation facility development and outdoor recreation facility renovation. Since 1965, funding for the nationwide grants program has averaged approximately $100 million per year, with a peak of $369 million in 1979. In the last 20 years, annual appropriations decreased to a low of zero funding in 1982 and 1996-1999. However, there was a $40 million appropriation in 2000, $89 million in 2001 and $140 million in 2002. Congress has appropriated more than $3.3 billion to the States and Territories. These monies have been matched by State and local contributions for a total LWCF grant investment of more than $6.6 billion, resulting in 38,000 park and outdoor recreation projects nationwide. The LWCF program is building a permanent legacy for future generations. In Arizona, the pass-through LWCF grants are administered by Arizona State Parks. These are 50% matching grants which are available to municipalities, counties, state agencies and tribal governments. Areas funded through LWCF grants must be set aside for recreational use in perpetuity. Through August 2002, Arizona State Parks and the NPS have awarded $51 million to 700 LWCF grants across the entire state. Matched by local and state dollars, these grants have leveraged a total investment of $108 million. The following tables show Congressional national appropriation and Arizona’s apportionment by year since LWCF inception. Arizona’s LWCF grant awards by participant are included in Appendix A. 1 2003 SCORP-Introduction Arizona State Parks Table 1. Congressional LWCF Appropriations 1965-2002 Year 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total Stateside LWCF Congressional Appropriation* $10,375,000 $82,409,000 $56,531,000 $61,520,000 $44,938,000 $61,832,000 $185,239,000 $255,000,000 $181,800,000 $65,767,000 $179,880,000 $219,664,000 $175,315,000 $305,694,000 $369,602,000 $299,703,000 $173,745,000 $0 $150,619,000 $72,919,000 $71,853,000 $48,059,900 $32,700,000 $16,567,000 $16,700,000 $16,501,000 $29,843,000 $19,748,000 $24,787,000 $24,750,000 $24,703,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000,000 $88,804,000 $140,000,000 $3,547,567,900 Arizona’s Stateside LWCF Apportionment** $131,045 $1,052,875 $721,398 $793,178 $582,626 $801,114 $1,974,293 $3,297,150 $2,337,039 $1,710,327 $2,313,900 $2,825,529 $2,369,539 $4,026,227 $4,859,702 $4,033,803 $2,745,899 $0 $1,654,921 $1,090,888 $1,116,080 $700,462 $498,035 $252,511 $262,074 $245,865 $482,420 $306,529 $386,029 $416,812 $418,852 $0 $0 $0 $0 $696,484 $1,637,450 $2,637,236 $49,378,292 * Figures not verified by National Park Service Washington D.C. office ** Figures verified by National Park Service Washington D.C. office 2 Percentage of Appropriation Received by Arizona 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.1% 1.3% 1.3% 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.6% N/A 1.1% 1.5% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.6% 1.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.7% 1.8% 1.9% 1.4% Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP- Introduction Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) The LWCF Act sets requirements for state planning and provides a formula for allocating annual LWCF appropriations to the States and Territories. To be authorized by the NPS to administer the LWCF grants, Arizona State Parks must prepare a Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) every five years. Arizona State Parks published the last SCORP in 1994 and the National Park Service granted an extension of the plan through December 2002. Congress did not appropriate any stateside LWCF monies for federal fiscal years 1996 through 1999. This document is the Arizona SCORP for 2003 through 2008. The primary purpose of this plan is to establish priorities for acquiring land and developing outdoor recreation facilities in Arizona using LWCF grants. Since the 1994 SCORP The 1994 SCORP Action Agenda was divided into six issue areas, each with several identified issues, strategies and actions. Various organizations and governmental agencies agreed to take action on many of the recommended actions and much was accomplished from 1994 through 2002 by individual and collaborative efforts. These same issues remain relevant today and all outdoor recreation partners are encouraged to continue their efforts in addressing these key issues. Key Outdoor Recreation Issues 1. Community Recreation - insufficient coordination of planning and resources - inequitable distribution of recreation resources - need to balance demand and use with environmental protection 2. Education - coordination of assets, people and resources - provide for current and emerging trends - promote responsible use and stewardship - integrate life-long recreation and environmental education 3. Expanding Opportunity - sustainable comprehensive planning to ensure a broad spectrum of opportunities - increased demand - balance between local and distant opportunities 4. Park Operation and Maintenance - combining operation and maintenance, planning and stable ongoing funding - meeting user needs while accommodating outside mandates - promoting interagency and public cooperation 3 2003 SCORP-Introduction Arizona State Parks 5. Resource Protection - threats to natural biological diversity - loss of resources - land use management and conflicts - threats to programs and funding 6. Socio-Economic - inadequate understanding of advantages and consequences of marketing - coordinated and cooperative planning for all parties and resource protection - no consensus on values and priorities reflected in funding Awarded Grants and Funded Partnerships Arizona State Parks is responsible for the administration of several federal and state funds. Federal funds include: LWCF, Recreational Trails Program (RTP), and Historic Preservation Fund (HPF). State funds include: Heritage Fund, Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund (OHV), State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF), Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund (LEBSF) and Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund (LCF). The Arizona State Parks Board (ASPB) awards grants and partnerships from these funds to other agencies and organizations to accomplish mutual goals regarding the development, protection and enhancement of Arizona’s natural, cultural and recreational resources. From fiscal years 1994 through 2001, the ASPB awarded a total of $119 million to 671 projects for all its grant programs (Table 2) and nearly $9 million to 105 projects through interagency partnerships (Table 3). The LWCF has provided $2.4 million in grants to fund 12 park and recreation projects in Arizona from 1994-2001. An additional $2.6 million was awarded to eight LWCF projects in 2002. As noted earlier, Congress did not appropriate LWCF monies from 1996 through 1999. The Arizona Heritage Fund provides up to $20 million annually (when fully funded) to Arizona State Parks and Arizona Game and Fish Department to fund numerous parks, recreation, natural areas, environmental education and wildlife projects and programs. Regarding the State Parks grant portion of the Heritage Fund, $41.5 million has been awarded to 397 grant projects from 1994 through 2001, including $27 million to 132 local park projects, $3.9 million to 81 trail projects and $10.5 million to 184 historic preservation projects. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has similar Heritage Fund grant programs for wildlife-related projects. The State Historic Preservation Office awards grants from the federal Historic Preservation Fund to Certified Local Governments to plan for and protect local cultural resources. The Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund has provided $9.3 million in grants to 74 motorized recreational trail projects and $6.3 million for 12 funded partnerships. The federal Recreational Trails Program (RTP) has provided $2.2 million to agencies (44 projects) to improve the motorized and nonmotorized trail opportunities in the state. 4 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP- Introduction The State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF) has provided $43.2 million to 113 boating improvement projects on Arizona’s waterways and the Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund (LEBSF) has provided nearly $7.3 million to eight counties for boating law enforcement and safety assistance. The newest state grant program, the Growing Smarter Land Acquisition Program, has provided $15.7 million to six open space land acquisition projects from the state’s Land Conservation Fund. Table 2. Arizona State Parks Awarded Grants from FY 1994-FY 2001 Grant Program and Fund Source Number of Grants Awarded Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Arizona Heritage Fund (AHF–3 grant components) - Parks - Trails - Historic Preservation Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund (OHV) State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF) Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund (LEBSF) Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund Totals Grant Dollars Awarded 12 $2,423,498 132 81 184 74 113 69 6 671 $27,027,377 $3,975,840 $10,540,986 $9,296,805 $43,218,510 $7,269,663 $15,720,636 $119,473,315 Individual project lists for each grant program in the above table are listed by grant recipient on the Arizona State Parks webpage (www.azstateparks.com). Table 3. Arizona State Parks Funded Partnerships from FY 1994-FY 2001 Program and Fund Source Number of Projects Awarded Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund (OHV) Recreational Trails Program (RTP) Totals 49 12 44 105 Project Dollars Awarded $442,316 $6,283,000 $2,193,313 $8,918,629 After the 1994 SCORP was completed, Arizona State Parks began hearing from its partners that the LWCF grant manual emphasis on statewide priorities did not adequately address the recreation needs of local communities. A single list of specific outdoor recreation facilities derived from a statewide survey does not represent the priorities for every community throughout Arizona. One of the primary rating criteria used in past LWCF grant applications awarded a percentage of points to project applications that included development of facilities that were on the list of statewide priorities as determined by the SCORP. Each governmental entity, whether city, town, county, state or tribal agency, conducts its own planning and public involvement processes and determines its own outdoor recreation priorities. The local planning process is a truer representation of the actual needs and priorities for that community or resource. Arizona State Parks, through a public involvement process, determined that asking 5 2003 SCORP-Introduction Arizona State Parks grant applicants to justify their locally-derived priorities as part of the grant rating criteria was a preferable method. Through a series of public meetings, staff revised the evaluation criteria for all grant programs administered by State Parks, including LWCF grants, to reflect this new direction. 2003 SCORP Planning and Public Involvement Process State Parks staff took a different approach from previous plans in planning for the 2003 SCORP. Some of the key factors that spurred this new direction were a limited budget, staff and other resources, and the unpredictability of congressional LWCF appropriations from year to year. The other key factor is State Parks, in consultation with its partners, decided that distributing grant funds based on a list of statewide priorities is not an effective method for a state with such diverse regions and communities as Arizona. As an example, while many cities need monies for renovating their park facilities, other towns are just now building their first parks. Based on its partners’ and other public comments, Arizona State Parks determined that the more efficient approach was to let grant applicants specify their local needs and priorities by asking them to describe their planning and public involvement processes as part of the grant application. Staff developed the LWCF grant selection criteria to reflect this new approach through a series of open public meetings of task forces composed of a statewide mix of local and regional recreation department representatives. State Parks staff reviews the criteria with its partners, the Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission (AORCC), and the Arizona State Parks Board (ASPB) on a regular basis to determine if revisions or clarifications to the criteria are needed. This new criteria is included in the section on Open Project Selection Process. As a result of these earlier actions and public participation opportunities concerning the LWCF grant process, the extent of research and planning for this SCORP was not as extensive as in previous plans. State Parks staff presented the planning process for the 2003 SCORP to AORCC and ASPB for discussion and approval at open public meetings in October 2001. Staff also sent letters to agency partners informing them of the initiation of the SCORP planning process, how they could be involved and when the draft plan would be available for review and comment. In an effort to solicit broad participation in the 2003 SCORP, State Parks conducted a statewide telephone survey with an emphasis on county priorities. State Parks contracted with the Arizona State University’s Survey Research Laboratory to conduct a random digit-dialed telephone survey of Arizona households asking numerous participation, preference and funding priority questions on outdoor recreation topics. State Parks staff, in consultation with experts from the Survey Research Lab, prepared survey questions that would provide useable information to staff and advisory committees in developing grant rating criteria and determining which projects receive LWCF funding. 6 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP- Introduction Surveys of Arizona households were conducted from March through June 2002. Surveys were available in English or Spanish. When staff prepared the draft plan, only half (1,849) the intended surveys were completed and the survey results presented in the draft plan represented those preliminary responses. This final plan incorporates results of all completed surveys which totaled 4,285 completed surveys (685 surveys more than expected). The surveys include a minimum number of completed surveys from each Arizona county to secure a sample adequate to attain statistically reliable data for generalization purposes on a county basis. This method differs from other statewide surveys that are based on a weighted population sampling by county. A total of 64,626 telephone calls were made to over 16,383 sample numbers. Response rates varied from 70% in Maricopa County to 38% in La Paz County. Overall, the response rate for the State was 55%. The response rates for the State’s 15 counties are listed in Table 4. Table 4. Survey Response Rates by County Sample Numbers Total Calls Apache 894 3909 252 116 435 55% Cochise 893 3512 264 102 459 61% Coconino 1196 4996 288 109 660 54% Gila 1194 4842 244 199 603 41% Graham 995 3957 323 135 450 59% Greenlee 1195 3484 238 94 779 57% La Paz 1573 5258 208 141 1019 38% Maricopa 1290 5041 464 151 628 70% Mohave 897 3979 256 151 371 49% Navajo 895 3956 217 120 420 46% Pima 1186 5078 406 193 585 68% Pinal 1187 5007 294 177 596 50% Santa Cruz 1195 4123 312 67 701 63% Yavapai 899 4068 260 166 395 52% Yuma 894 3416 259 105 458 59% 16,383 64,626 4,285 2,026 8,559 55% ARIZONA Completed Surveys 7 Refusals NonSample Response Rate 2003 SCORP-Introduction Arizona State Parks A minimum of 95% confidence level with a sampling error of ±6.3% was required for all surveys and statistical data analyses employed, on both a statewide and county level. Staff included the survey questions on the State Parks website for agency partners and the public to review prior to drafting the 2003 SCORP. After analyzing the survey results, evaluating recreation demand and supply, receiving partner comments and researching current trends, staff prepared and made available the draft plan. The public comment period was from June 1 through August 1, 2002. Staff presented the draft plan in public meetings in June and July. Both AORCC and ASPB reviewed the draft plan. Staff mailed the draft plan to all people who responded to an earlier letter announcing the plan process. The draft plan was also available in hard copy by mail or electronically from the Arizona State Parks website (www.azstateparks.com). The Arizona Parks and Recreation Association, the State’s organization for outdoor recreation professionals, published an article describing the 2003 SCORP and draft plan availability in its Summer 2002 magazine issue (May release). Staff prepared the final plan in August after evaluating the final survey results and the comments received regarding the draft plan. Staff submitted the final plan to AORCC in August for its adoption and recommendation to the ASPB. Upon AORCC’s recommendation, staff submitted the final plan to the ASPB in October for approval. Upon the ASPB’s approval, staff submitted the 2003 SCORP to the Governor for certification of adequate public involvement in the plan and final submittal to the National Park Service by December 31, 2002. 8 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona Profile The State of Arizona, located in the southwest corner of the United States, is famous for the Grand Canyon, classic desert vistas and a wide array of year-round outdoor recreation opportunities. It is the Nation’s sixth largest state in land area (113,635 square miles). Coconino Apache Mohave Navajo Like many western states, Arizona has very complex land ownership patterns. More than 42% of the land base is managed by federal agencies as public land available to Arizona residents and visitors alike to enjoy a myriad of outdoor recreation opportunities. Twenty-seven percent of the state is owned by 21 federally recognized Indian tribes. Thirteen percent of Arizona is owned and managed by the State and 17% is privately owned (see Figure 1; Source: Arizona State Land Department, 2002). Yavapai La Paz Greenlee Gila Maricopa Pinal Yuma Graham Pima Cochise Santa Cruz Arizona is an arid land with average annual rainfall varying from three inches in Yuma in the southwest corner, seven inches in Phoenix in the center, to 23 inches in Flagstaff in the northern part of the state. Arizona’s landscape ranges from hot desert environments with towering saguaros to cool alpine meadows framed by graceful fir and spruce trees. The southern and western parts of the state are predominantly desert with numerous isolated mountain ranges (Basin and Range Province). The central and eastern areas are mainly high-elevation forested lands (Transition Zone), and the northern part is high desert interspersed with scenic geologic features such the Grand Canyon and Monument Valley (Colorado Plateau). Arizona offers a wide variety of outdoor recreation opportunities with 9 Figure 1. Land Ownership in Arizona Land Ownership Private 18% Federal 42% State 13% Tribal 27% 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks six National Forests, 21 National Park sites, eight National Wildlife Refuges, seven Bureau of Land Management Field Districts, 21 federally recognized Indian tribes, thirty State Parks, State wildlife areas and numerous county and municipal parks and recreation areas. These lands provide opportunities for activities such as picnicking, developed and primitive camping, wilderness backpacking, hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, bird and wildlife watching, hunting, fishing, four-wheel driving, motorized trail biking, all-terrain vehicle riding and snowmobiling, among others. The private sector also provides opportunities for a myriad of activies including winter snow activities, water play facilities, nature preserves, vehicle and equipment rentals and guided trips and adventures. As the population of Arizona increases, so does the number of people participating in outdoor recreation activities. At statehood in 1912, Arizona was populated by approximately 200,000 people and had a population density of two people per square mile. In 1940, just before World War II, Arizona’s population was less than one-half million people with a population density of four people per square mile. Since that time, the population has grown phenomenally as people recognize Arizona’s economic potential and quality of life. People are drawn to the state’s scenic beauty, wide open spaces, year-round climate, cultural diversity and its incredible outdoor recreation opportunities. Arizona is a major destination site for millions of visitors each year. The 2000 U.S. Census reported that more than 5 million people now reside in Arizona, a tenfold increase since 1940. Figure 2. Arizona’s Population Growth, 1910-2000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 10 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona can no longer be considered a sparsely populated state. Currently, Arizona is the twentieth largest state in population with 5,130,632 people (2000 U.S. Census) and a population density of 45 people per square mile. It had the second fastest rate of population growth (40%) in the 1990s (Nevada took the lead with 66%). Arizona also had three of the nation’s ten fastest growing metropolitan areas in the 1990s (PhoenixMesa, Yuma and Las Vegas, NV-AZ). Phoenix is now the sixth largest city in the United States, it is also the fastest growing city. By 2025, a conservative population projection for the state is 7.7 million people, and by 2050, over 11 million people, a 125% increase from the year 2000. The makeup of Arizona’s population is also predicted to change substantially over the next few decades which may influence the demand for different types of outdoor recreation. For example, the proportion of Arizona’s population classified as elderly is expected to increase from 13.3 % in 1995 to 21.3% in 2025. Of particular note is the incredible change in Arizona’s urban and rural populations. Over the last 100 years, the ratio between Arizona’s rural and urban populations has essentially reversed. In 1900, less than 20% of the state’s population lived in an urban setting; in 2000, more than 88% live in an urban setting. While both rural and urban county population numbers have experienced a steady climb since 1900, the predominantly urban counties of Maricopa and Pima account for the majority of the population increase. Until the 1940s, the numbers of people living in rural counties exceeded or equaled the numbers of people in urban counties. After World War II, that distribution changed. Now, three quarters of the state’s population live in Maricopa and Pima Counties. This locational change can affect how residents view the natural world, environmental issues and their participation in outdoor recreation activities. Another factor to consider is the large number of people from highly urbanized states such as California moving to Arizona’s rural areas, but pursuing and expecting a more typical urban lifestyle. Trends What does this incredible population growth and predicted increase mean for Arizona’s outdoor recreation future? People move to Arizona for its well-known “quality of life” amenities. Things such as good year-round weather, diverse scenic open spaces, lots of public land available for outdoor recreation pursuits, and great opportunities to explore history and prehistory and watch wildlife attract thousands of people to Arizona each year either as new residents or as visitors. People living in crowded cities express an increasing desire to experience the outdoors more frequently. Trends indicate people are working a more flexible schedule allowing them to regularly have Fridays or Mondays off. They are taking more long weekends and mini-vacations instead of the traditional two-week vacation. This allows people to “get away from the 11 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks city” on a regular basis and go to the lake, mountains and backcountry more frequently. When they can not get away from the city, they use the local parks more often. Visitation trends indicate parks, campgrounds and other recreation areas that used to have plenty of room for weekend visitors are now filling up by Thursday or Friday mornings. People are frequently choosing weekend destination points more than two hours away from home. More people are using sport utility vehicles and off-highway vehicles such as all-terrain vehicles and motorized trail bikes to access the back country. Even previously remote areas are now experiencing crowding and overuse. Many of these recreationists are not aware of the dangers specific to the Arizona backcountry and are not prepared to cope with Arizona’s unique challenges, such as the intense sun, arid heat, hypothermia, extreme temperature changes, flash floods and fire danger. They frequently get lost in the backcountry, overdo the physical exertion, injure themselves, or have an unpleasant encounter with wildlife. Every year, governmental agencies coordinate hundreds of search and rescue efforts to save recreationists from their own actions. While there are still considerable open spaces and public lands in Arizona today, urban sprawl is rapidly reducing the amount of open space around cities and cutting off access to trails, roads and public lands close to the cities. Rural areas are also experiencing substantial growth. Many of the farms and ranches people take for granted as agricultural open space are being sold and subdivided for residential homes and ranchettes. As the rural areas continue to be developed, access to public lands and recreational trails and roads are reduced or eliminated. A substantial portion of the land in Arizona is in a “checkerboard” pattern with the surface management of the land broken up into many different jurisdictions making management and use of the land challenging at best. There is rarely adequate signage to let people know when they travel from one management jurisdiction to another. Outdoor recreationists using these checkerboard lands frequently can not tell who manages the lands, when permits are needed or when the rules and regulations change from parcel to parcel. This situation is frustrating to both the public and land managers. Without adequate funding and local, regional and statewide planning for the increasing demand for outdoor recreation opportunities, Arizona will find itself unable to meet the demand. This planning document is part of the overall effort that needs to occur in Arizona to ensure the state’s resources are accessible to those who wish to recreate. 12 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona Outdoor Recreation Priorities Planning and Public Involvement Arizona State Parks conducts an ongoing public process to plan for and determine the State’s outdoor recreation priorities. Strategies include surveys, workshops, advisory committees, task forces, public meetings, correspondence with partners, interviews with grant recipients and public review of draft plans and grant rating criteria. This section describes the results of those planning and public involvement processes. A key change in this process since the 1994 SCORP is that Arizona State Parks has placed an emphasis on local needs and priorities instead of statewide priorities when awarding Land and Water Conservation Fund grants. As a result, four questions in the grant rating criteria serve to assess local supply and demand of outdoor recreation resources as they relate to the LWCF. State Parks staff and advisory committees regularly review and recommend modifications to grant criteria based on responses from grant applicants, public workshops and professional analyses. These assessments help to determine the adequacy of current facilities and need for new facilities. More detail is available in the Open Project Selection Process section of this document (pages 51-61). These four grant criteria questions are: Tell us why this project is a priority for you now by explaining and documenting each of the following: • Comprehensive Planning - Long-range comprehensive planning efforts of a general nature that address outdoor recreation and open space needs. • Public Involvement - Public involvement efforts that focus specifically on the needs, priority and public support for outdoor recreation and open space. • Project-Specific Planning - Project-specific planning efforts that show the need, priority and public support for this particular project. • Under-Served Areas - Is this area under-served for parks and recreation opportunities? How do you know? Provide information that helps identify why this project meets a critical need in your community and the impact of not funding the project on the community. Plan Implementation Arizona State Parks is implementing the results of the 2003 SCORP through the awarding of outdoor recreation grants from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as well as other State Parks administered programs. The partnerships between State Parks and its partners help to ensure that Arizona’s land and water resources are managed and protected and outdoor recreation facilities and services are developed and enhanced. The emphasis on local needs and priorities and the survey results are reflected in the rating criteria questions. By evaluating proposed outdoor recreation and open space 13 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks project proposals using these criteria, State Parks is able to address local demands. State Parks will continue to work cooperatively with its partners in the public and private sector to accomplish mutual goals. Survey Results Arizona State Parks commissioned a telephone survey conducted by the Arizona State University’s Survey Research Lab, to gather the public’s preferences regarding use, funding and planning for park and outdoor recreation facilities. The following are the results from this statewide survey conducted from March through June 2002. The results include responses from completed surveys from 4,285 Arizona households. More information regarding this survey for the state and its 15 counties can be found in Appendix B. How many people use Arizona’s parks and outdoor recreation areas? Approximately 64% of respondents statewide say they visited a park or outdoor recreation area an average of 6.5 times in the past three months. This translates to approximately 3.3 million residents making 21 million visits to Arizona’s parks and recreation areas in the past three months. Visitors to Arizona are not included in these figures. The following two figures show the percent of survey respondents by county who say they visited a park or outdoor recreation area within the past three months and the average number of times they visited a park within the past three months. Figure 3. Percent of Arizona Households Who Visited a Park Within the Past 3 Months 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave 14 Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Arizona Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Specifically, 41% of respondents statewide say they made 1-5 visits, 18% say they made 6-29 visits and 5% say they made 30 or more visits to a park or recreation area in the past three months. For those respondents who did not visit a park in the past 3 months (36% of the total respondents), 41% (of the 36%) say they visited a park in the past 12 months an average of 1.5 times and 59% (of the 36%) did not visit a park in past 12 months. This adds another 743,940 residents making 1.1 million more visits to Arizona parks in the past year. Figure 4. Average Number of Park Visits by Arizona Households Within the Past 3 Months 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Arizona How far do people travel to visit Arizona’s parks and outdoor recreation areas? When recreation providers plan parks and recreation facilities, they need to determine the best location for the people they serve. A key factor is the park’s distance from people’s homes. When asked how many miles they travel to the park or recreation area they visit most often, 28% say they travel more than 50 miles, 18% travel 6-50 miles, 36% travel 1-5 miles and 18% travel less than two miles. When asked if they would go more often if the park was closer, 46% of respondents statewide said they would, but 54% said they would not, indicating that travel time is not a serious inhibitor for the majority of Arizona households. In five counties— Apache, La Paz, Pinal, Santa Cruz and Yuma—more than 50% of respondents stated they would go more often if the park was closer. 15 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks Those who said they travel less than one-half mile to get to the park they visit most often were then asked if they would still go as often, less often or not at all if the park was one mile away; 69% say they would go as often, 25% would go less often and 6% would not go at all. In nine counties, 25% -43% of respondents said they would go less often, and 20% of Yuma County respondents said they would not go at all if the park were one mile away. Those who said they travel less than three miles to get to the park they visit most often were asked if they would still go as often, less often or not at all if the park was five miles away; 56% say they would go as often, 37% would go less often and 7% would not go at all. In all but two counties—Apache (16%) and Mohave (16%)—27%-48% of respondents stated they would go less often, and in four counties— Maricopa, Mohave, Pima and Pinal— at least 10% of respondents said they would not go at all if the park was 5 miles away. What types of parks and park projects do people think are most important to be funded? For the purposes of this survey and planning process, Arizona’s parks and outdoor recreation areas are divided into four different types of parks. The first is the small neighborhood park with just a few facilities such as a playground or basketball court. The second type is the larger multi-use park that has a variety of recreation facilities such as sports fields, courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, open grassy areas with trees and shrubs, restrooms and sometimes an indoor recreation center. Encanto Park in Phoenix and Reid Park in Tucson are examples of these larger multi-use parks. The third type is the large park or recreation area that maintains the natural vegetation and wildlife habitat and includes a small number of amenities such as hiking trails, and picnic or campsites and restrooms located on the outside perimeter. South Mountain Park and Tucson Mountain Park are examples of the third type. The last type is referred to as open space and these areas can be large or small but usually are kept in a natural state with development limited to hiking trails. Figure 5. Priority Park Type to Fund When asked what type of park should receive the limited available funding, 43% of households in Arizona say they prefer to see larger more natureoriented parks get funded, 20% prefer small neighborhood parks, 23% prefer open space and 14% prefer large multi-use parks with lots of facilities (Figure 5). multi-use parks 14% nature-oriented parks 43% open space 23% neighborhood parks 20% A few of the county responses differed from the statewide averages. Respondents in all counties preferred larger nature-oriented parks first with 40%-50% choosing this park type as most important. Open space came in second in eight counties, and small neighborhood parks came in second in four counties. Two counties, Santa Cruz and Yuma, chose larger multi-facility parks as second in funding priority and open space as fourth, while the other 13 counties ranked larger multi-facility parks last. 16 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses State Parks asked respondents if project type such as new development is a higher funding priority than renovation of parks. When asked their preference regarding spending money for specific types of park projects, 45% of respondents statewide prefer to see the available funds go to fixing up existing parks, 24% to adding new facilities to existing parks and 31% to developing new parks (Figure 6). Figure 6. Priority Park Project Type to Fund Develop new parks 31% Fix up existing facilities 45% Add new facilities 24% Again, a few counties responded differently. While thirteen counties chose “fixing up existing facilities” as first in funding priority, two counties, Santa Cruz (59%) and Yuma (44%), ranked “developing new parks” first. Nine counties chose “developing new parks” as second; Apache, Cochies, Graham and Greenlee chose “adding new facilities to existing parks” as second, and Santa Cruz and Yuma chose “fixing up existing facilities” second. Eleven counties chose “adding new facilities” to existing parks as third in funding priority. Regarding land acquisition for open space, 76% say they prefer to see acquisition dollars go toward buying large open spaces with habitat for wildlife, while 22% prefer the dollars go to acquiring open spaces between housing developments, and 1.2% does not have a preference. Do people want to be involved in the planning for parks and recreation areas? Arizona State Parks has made a major change to Arizona’s outdoor recreation grant rating criteria over the past few years. Managing entities, such as municipal and county parks departments and state, federal and tribal agencies, use a variety of planning and public involvement processes to determine which projects are priority projects. These priorities differ substantially from region to region and town to town. State Parks found it is difficult and ineffective to apply a generalized statewide list of priorities to all outdoor recreation projects. State Parks instead evaluates projects based on the processes an entity used to determine its own list of local priorities specific to its customers. State Parks has allocated half the total available grant points to planning and public involvement criteria. The grant rating team awards these points according to how well the project applicant describes and documents the planning and public involvement process used to demonstrate that this project meets the high priority needs of the public. To assist grant applicants in their public involvement efforts, State Parks decided to use this survey to ask if the public would like to be involved in planning for parks and what the best methods are to solicit their input. 17 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks When asked if they would like to be more Figure 7. Preferred Way to Provide Input involved in the planning for parks and don't want to be involved recreation areas, 30% of respondents 17% other statewide say they would, while 70% say surveys 2% 37% they are involved as much as they want. on-site interviews Thirty-seven percent say that surveys are 7% the best way for them to provide their input; 20% say public meetings, 16% say Internet through the Internet, 7% say on-site park 17% interviews and 2% say some other way public meetings 20% would be the best way. Seventeen percent say they do not want to be involved (Figure 7). Of those who say that surveys are the best way to provide input, 64% prefer to be surveyed through mail surveys, 22% through phone surveys, 10% through web-based surveys and 3% through face to face interviews. These figures change substantially based on county responses (see Appendix B). What are the Major Problems Concerning Parks and Recreation Areas? Parks and recreation providers are continually striving to improve facilities and services to their customers. To help identify what could be changed, modified or added to Arizona’s parks and recreation areas, State Parks asked the public what they thought were the major problems concerning Arizona’s parks and recreation areas. People could give multiple answers (Table 5). Table 5. Responses from Arizona Households Regarding Major Problems with Parks 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Too much litter and trash Not well maintained No problems Not enough funding Does not meet my needs Not enough parks Too crowded Personal safety Costs too much Not accessible Unsure where parks are located Not close enough to my home Cannot use it at night Not enough parking spaces It’s closed when I want to use it Other Don’t know 9.7% 9.5% 8.9% 6.0% 5.3% 5.3% 4.8% 4.4% 3.6% 1.7% 1.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 24.0% 13.0% 100% 18 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Ten percent say parks have too much litter and 9% say parks are not well maintained. Nearly 9% of respondents say they do not think there are any major problems with Arizona’s parks and recreation areas. These three issues are in the statewide top five as well as in the top five issues of all fifteen counties. Not enough funding comes up in eight counties’ top five issues and not enough parks and too crowded each come up in seven counties’ top five issues. Four counties listed does not meet my needs, and two counties listed personal safety and cost in the top five. Accessibility does not seem to be a major issue for most households. See Appendix B for a more detailed breakdown of county responses. Respondents also listed a large number of “Other” problems concerning parks including vandalism (1.2%), not enough restrooms or drinking water (0.4%), not enough shade (0.4%), and numerous concerns (urban encroachment, more green-less concrete, drug use in the parks). Results from Other Statewide Surveys Arizona State Parks conducted consumer marketing surveys in 1994 and 1998 that provide additional insights into the public’s uses, preferences and needs regarding Arizona’s cultural and natural resources and outdoor recreation facilities. A similar study was to be completed in 2002, but was delayed due to budget reductions. The studies utilized a random, digit-dialed telephone survey of Arizona residents and a self-administered mail survey sent to respondents from the phone survey who agreed to participate in the mail survey. For the 1994 study there were 961 completed telephone surveys and 397 completed mail surveys. For the 1998 study, there were 1,525 completed phone surveys and 618 completed mail surveys. Both survey instruments targeted recreation users and non-users. The 1994 and 1998 differences between the results may be attributed to any number of factors including sampling error, slight question adjustments, interviewer bias, and/or true changes in the population’s responses. The results are as follows. Phone Survey Findings Telephone survey respondents were asked if they had visited a variety of outdoor recreation areas in Arizona within the past 12 months (Table 6). 19 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks Table 6. Respondents who Visited an Outdoor Recreation Area in Arizona within the past 12 months (phone) Area 1994 Survey 1998 Survey public park 70.0% 62.3% state park 52.5% 38.8% national forest 48.2% 48.9% lake, river or stream 58.8% 54.6% desert recreation area 39.4% 33.7% historical or archaeolgical site 41.1% 42.0% natural area or wilderness 42.4% 40.3% Arizona State Parks works in collaboration with local, state, tribal and federal agencies to provide for the many natural, cultural and recreational needs of Arizona residents and visitors. Phone respondents were asked how important it is to them for the state to provide various programs and funds regarding natural and cultural resources and outdoor recreation opportunities (Table 7). Table 7. Importance of Providing Programs and Funds Programs/Funds Very Somewhat Not Very Not At All Important Important Important Important 1994/1998 1994/1998 1994/1998 1994/1998 preserve cultural resources protect natural areas provide parks and outdoor recreation facilities provide trail opportunities provide off-highway vehicle recreation opportunities provide boating facilities and safety/law enforcement provide environmental education in parks/schools 56%/60% 69%/67% 36%/45% 36%/48% 16%/30% 53%/59% 64%/61% 36%/33% 26%/28% 47%/43% 47%/42% 38%/49% 37%/33% 28%/30% 7%/5% 4%/4% 14%/9% 14%/7% 30%/18% 7%/6% 6%/6% 2%/2% 1%/2% 3%/3% 3%/3% 16%/13% 3%/2% 2%/2% Mail Survey Findings Mail survey respondents were asked if they had visited a local park, recreation facility or outdoor recreation area within the past 12 months. In addition to the 1994 and 1998 mail studies, responses from the 2002 telephone study are included in Table 8. 20 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Table 8. Respondents Who Visited a Recreation Area within past 12 months (mail) % visiting a recreation area 1994 82.8% 1998 84.3% 2002 78.3% Respondents were asked their level of satisfaction with recreation parks, historical sites, archaeological sites, natural areas and vacation opportunities in Arizona (Table 9). These figures provide an indication of the adequacy of current recreation and cultural opportunities. This question was not asked in the 1994 survey. Table 9. Respondents Satisfied with Recreation Opportunities in Arizona Extremely Opportunity Satisfied recreation parks 9% historical sites 11% archaeological sites 11% natural areas 20% in-state vacation opp. 18% Very Satisfied 51% 48% 39% 44% 44% Moderately Satisfied 33% 34% 36% 28% 29% Somewhat Satisfied 6% 6% 11% 6% 8% Not At All Satisfied 1% 0.1% 2% 2% 2% Respondents were asked questions regarding where they would go if they had a spare day or a spare weekend and felt like being outside to enjoy their favorite recreational activity or cultural site (Table 10). “When you have a spare day (or spare weekend to get away) and feel like being outside to enjoy your favorite recreational activity or visit a cultural site, what types of places in Arizona would you consider visiting?” Responses indicate level of preferences or latent demand to participate in various activities, and highlight participation differences between day use and overnight use. Table 10. Places to Go to Enjoy Favorite Recreational Activity or Cultural Site Place park operated by local parks department park operated by county park operated by Arizona State Parks park operated by National Park Service area operated by Bureau of Land Management area operated by U.S. Forest Service (National Forest) area operated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (National Refuge) area operated by Arizona Game and Fish Department tribal lands museum or archaeologcial site operated by local group botanical garden or nature preserve operated by local group other 21 Spare Day 62% 37% 61% 58% 34% 75% 40% 51% 28% 52% 45% 3% Spare Weekend 27% 56% 61% 30% 74% 40% 57% 27% 35% 30% 3% 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks Respondents were asked how often they would participate in the various activities at a recreation area: regularly, occasionally or never (Table 11). “NA” indicates that this activity was not asked in that study. Survey results indicate that the activities participated in most frequently are walking, sightseeing and picnicking. Table 11. Participation Frequency in Recreational Activities at a Recreation Area 1994 Survey Activity Bicycling Boating Walking Camping-Tent Camping-RV/Trailer Camping-Truck Camper Ranger-led Hikes Fishing Hiking Horseback riding Nature Study OHV Recreation Picnicking Personal Watercraft Riding Sightseeing Swimming Regularly 1998 Survey Occasionally Never Not sure Regularly Occasionally Never Not sure 14% 15% NA 15% 8% 42% 53% NA 42% 27% 31% 22% NA 33% 55% 12% 9% NA 9% 10% 10% 16% 50% 23% NA 41% 50% 44% 39% NA 38% 23% 4% 27% NA 10% 11% 2% 11% NA 11% NA 26% 30% 14% 17% 12% 37% 30% NA 48% 52% 43% 52% 26% 56% 47% NA 21% 12% 32% 17% 50% 5% 12% NA 5% 6% 12% 14% 12% 2% NA 6% 26% 31% 10% 16% 11% 41% NA 38% 46% 48% 39% 53% 32% 54% NA 37% 22% 14% 35% 16% 42% 3% NA 18% 6% 7% 35% 15% 14% 2% 9% 41% 22% 34% 54% 54% 43% 3% 17% 15% 3% 7% 11% 46% 20% 29% 48% 50% 46% 3% 23% 15% 3% 6% Surveys were also conducted for the State Recreational Trails Plan and the State Historic Preservation Plan. See the section on Other Statewide Resource Plans and Studies for more information. 22 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses County Profiles There are fifteen counties in Arizona, each with its unique array of outdoor recreation opportunities. The following are brief descriptions of each county and the outdoor recreation priorities identified by its residents through a statewide telephone survey conducted by Arizona State Parks in Spring 2002. Figure 8. Comparing County Population, Land Base and Grant Award Percentages Apache Coconino 1.3% pop. 9.8% land 2.7% grants 2.3% pop. 16.4% land 6.5% grants Mohave Navajo 3.0% pop. 11.8% land 6.5% grants 1.9% pop. 8.7% land 5.9% grants Yavapai 3.3% pop. 7.1% land 5.9% grants La Paz 3.1% pop. 4.9% land 4.3% grants Gila 1.0% pop. 4.2% land 3.7% grants Maricopa 59.9% pop. 8.1% land 37.9% grants Graham Pinal Yuma Pima Legend Percent of AZ population in each county Percent of AZ land base in each county Percent of total grant dollars awarded in each county 3.5% pop. 4.7% land 5.1% grants 16.5% pop. 8.1% land 9.9% grants Santa Cruz 0.7% pop. 4.1% land 0.9% grants Greenlee 0.4% pop. 3.9% land 6.3% grants 0.2% pop. 1.6% land 0.4% grants Cochise 2.3% pop. 5.5% land 1.9% grants 0.8% pop. 1.1% land 2.1% grants Population figures are from the 2000 U.S. Census data. Land ownership information is taken from the Arizona State Land Department, Resource Information System, April 2002. Grant figures include all Arizona State Parks’ awarded grants from 1964 to August 2002. 23 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks Apache County Profile Apache County is located in the northeast part of the state. It has 1.35% (69,423) of the state’s population and 9.84% (7,178,082 acres or 11,216 square miles) of the state’s land base. Population density is 6 people per square mile. The county seat is St. Johns with 3,269 people. The largest town is Defiance, located within the Navajo Nation, with 7,120 people. Land Ownership The landscape ranges from Federal Private 11% 13% high desert to high elevation spruce and fir forests offering a wide range of outdoor recreation State opportunities. The Navajo Nation occupies most of the northern land 9% and the southern land is primarily Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. There are opportunities for hiking, backpacking, camping, OHV driving, fishing, hunting, sightseeing and winter skiing. There are numerous archaeological sites open to the public, including Casa Tribal Malapais and Canyon de Chelly National Monument. There are 67% several municipal parks. Other destination spots are Petrified Forest National Park, Fort Defiance, Lyman Lake State Park, Mt. Baldy and Big Lake. Arizona State Parks Grants Awarded within Apache County Grant Program and Fund Source Number of Grants Awarded Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) 17 Arizona Heritage Fund (AHF–3 grant components) - Parks - Trails - Historic Preservation Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund (OHV) State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF) Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund (LEBSF) Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund Total Grant Dollars Received $621,743 2 3 13 5 28 8 0 76 $120,250 $120,160 $386,232 $673,452 $3,355,717 $251,502 $0 $5,529,056 Priority Park Type to Fund Apache County Survey Summary nature-oriented parks Approximately 56% of the households in Apache County say multi-use parks 12% 43% they visited a park or recreation area an average of 7.7 times in the past three months, which equates to 299,352 visits. Forty-nine percent say they travel more than 50 miles to get open space to the park they visit most often, 20% travel 6-50 miles, 24% 26% travel 1-5 miles and 7% travel less than two miles. Sixty percent of respondents say they would go more often if the neighborhood parks park was closer. Repondents were asked to prioritize 19% which type of parks should receive the limited available 24 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses park funding; small neighborhood parks, large Priority Park Project Type to Fund multi-facility parks, larger more nature-oriented Fix up existing parks or open space. Forty-three percent of Apache Develop new parks facilities 27% 45% County residents prefer larger nature-oriented parks. Residents were also asked to prioritize which type of park projects should receive funding. Forty-five percent prefer to see funds go to fixing up existing Add new facilities facilities. Regarding land acquisition for open 28% space, 69% say they prefer to see acquisition dollars go toward buying large open spaces with habitat for wildlife, while 29% prefer the dollars go to acquiring open spaces between housing developments. When asked if they would like to be more involved in the planning for parks and recreation areas, 36% say they would, while 64% say they are involved as much as they want. Thirtyseven percent say that surveys are the best way for them to provide their input; 26% say that public meetings are the best way, and 15% do not want to be involved. Of those preferring surveys, 67% prefer mail surveys, 19% phone surveys, 9% face to face surveys, and 5% webbased surveys. Apache County–Top 5 Responses when asked: What are the Major Problems Concerning Parks and Recreation Areas? 1. Too much litter and trash 2. Not well maintained 3. No problems 4. Not enough funding 5. Not enough parks Cochise County Profile Cochise County is located in the southeast corner of the state. It has 2.3% (117,755) of the state’s population and 5.54% (3,977,890 acres or 6,215 square miles) of the state’s land base. Population density is 19 people per square mile. The county seat is Bisbee with 6,090 people. The largest town is Sierra Vista with 37,775 people. Much of the landscape is Chihuahuan Desert with towering “sky islands,” tall forested mountains managed by the Coronado National Forest. Much of the lowlands are managed by the Bureau of Land Management, including the San Pedro National Conservation Area. Primary outdoor recreation activities include hiking, hunting, bird watching and camping. 25 Land Ownership Federal 25% Private 40% Tribal 0% State 35% 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks National Park sites include Fort Bowie National Historic Site and Chiricahua and Coronado National Monuments. State Parks include Kartchner Caverns and Tombstone Courthouse. Other notable attractions include historic towns of Bisbee and Tombstone, Parker Canyon Lake, Willcox Playa, Ramsey Canyon and San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge. Arizona State Parks Grants Awarded within Cochise County Grant Program and Fund Source Number of Grants Awarded Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) 29 Arizona Heritage Fund (AHF–3 grant components) - Parks - Trails - Historic Preservation Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund (OHV) State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF) Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund (LEBSF) Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund Total Grant Dollars Received $1,182,236 10 5 36 0 1 0 0 81 $1,012,460 $338,603 $1,342,808 $0 $11,700 $0 $0 $3,887,807 Cochise County Survey Summary Approximately 64% of the households in Cochise Priority Park Type to Fund County say they visited a park or recreation area an multi-use parks nature-oriented average of 5.5 times in the past three months, which 12% parks equates to 414,498 visits. Twenty-nine percent say 46% open space they travel more than 50 miles to get to the park 19% they visit most often, 15% travel 6-50 miles, 36% travel 1-5 miles and 20% travel less than two miles. Forty-four percent of respondents say they neighborhood parks 23% would go more often if the park was closer. Residents were asked to prioritize which type of parks should receive the limited available park funding. Forty-six percent of Cochise Priority Park Project Type to Fund County residents prefer larger nature-oriented parks. Residents were also asked to prioritize Develop new parks their preference regarding spending money to Fix up existing 30% facilities renovate existing facilities or develop new 40% parks. Forty percent prefer to see funds go to fixing up existing facilities. Regarding land acquisition for open space, Add new facilities 78% say they prefer to see acquisition dollars 30% go toward buying large open spaces with habitat for wildlife, while 21% prefer the dollars go to acquiring open spaces between housing developments. 26 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses When asked if they would like to be more involved in the planning for parks and recreation areas, 28% say they would, while 72% say they are involved as much as they want. Thirtyseven percent say that surveys are the best way for them to provide their input; 19% say public meetings; 18% say through the Internet and 16% do not want to be involved. Of those preferring surveys, 73% prefer mail surveys, 16% phone surveys and 10% web-based surveys. Cochise County–Top 5 Responses when asked: What are the Major Problems Concerning Parks and Recreation Areas? 1. No problems 2. Not enough funding 3. Not well maintained 4. Too crowded 5. Too much litter and trash Coconino County Profile Coconino County is located in the north central part of the state. It has 2.27% (116,320) of the state’s population and 16.36% (11,929,622 acres or 18,640 square miles) of the state’s land base. Population density is 6 people per square mile. The county seat is Flagstaff with 52,894 people. The next largest town is Tuba City with 8,225 people. Much of the county is Ponderosa pine forests managed by the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests, offering hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, camping, sightseeing, OHV driving and hunting opportunities. The San Francisco Mountains north of Flagstaff provide Land Ownership skiing and winter sport opportunities. The Colorado Private Plateau to the north encompasses the Grand Canyon, 13% offering whitewater rafting and hiking opportunities, and Lake Powell/Glen Canyon National Recreation State Federal 10% Area, offering boating and fishing opportunities. 39% National Park sites include Grand Canyon National Park and Sunset Crater, Wupatki, Navajo and Walnut Canyon National Monuments. The eastern portion of the county is primarily Navajo Nation Indian reservation. The Havasupai Tribe and part of Hualapai Tribe Indian Tribal 38% Reservations are in Coconino County. State Parks include Riordan Mansion State Historic Park and Slide Rock State Park. There are numerous county and municipal parks such as Fort Tuthill Park, Thorpe Park, Page Sports Complex and Cameron Visitor Center. Other notable attractions include the western edge of the Mogollon Rim, Lee’s Ferry and Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness Area. 27 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks Arizona State Parks Grants Awarded within Coconino County Grant Program and Fund Source Number of Grants Awarded Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Arizona Heritage Fund (AHF–3 grant components) - Parks - Trails - Historic Preservation Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund (OHV) State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF) Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund (LEBSF) Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund Total Grant Dollars Received 30 $1,298,716 15 29 27 15 19 18 0 153 $3,220,626 $1,498,361 $1,173,689 $1,767,846 $3,429,718 $1,224,339 $0 $13,613,295 Coconino County Survey Summary Priority Park Type to Fund Approximately 74% of the households in Coconino multi-use parks County say they visited a park or recreation area an nature-oriented 13% parks average of 8.9 times in the past three months, which 40% equates to 766,083 visits. Thirty-three percent say they travel more than 50 miles to get to the park they visit most often, 13% travel 6-50 miles, 34% open space travel 1-5 miles and 20% travel less than two 31% miles. Thirty-nine percent of respondents say they would go more often if the park was closer. neighborhood parks 16% Residents were asked to prioritize which type of parks should receive the limited available park funding. Forty percent of Coconino County residents prefer larger nature-oriented parks. Residents were also asked their preference regarding spending money to renovate existing facilities or develop new parks. Forty-eight percent prefer to see funds go to fixing up existing facilities. Regarding land acquisition for open space, 82% say they prefer to see acquisition dollars go toward buying large open spaces with habitat for wildlife, while 17% Priority Park Project Type to Fund prefer the dollars go to acquiring open spaces between housing developments. Develop new parks 32% Fix up existing facilities 48% Thirty-one percent say they would like to be more involved in the planning for parks and recreation areas, while 69% say they are involved as much as they want. Thirty-seven percent say that surveys are the best way for Add new facilities them to provide their input; 19% say public 20% meetings; 22% say through the Internet; and 11% do not want to be involved. Of those preferring surveys, 69% prefer mail surveys, 19% phone surveys and 10% web-based surveys. 28 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Coconino County–Top 5 Responses when asked: What are the Major Problems Concerning Parks and Recreation Areas? 1. Too much litter and trash 2. Not enough funding 3. Too crowded 4. Not well maintained 5. No problems Gila County Profile Gila County is located in the east central part of the state. It has 1.0% (51,335) of the state’s population and 4.2% (3,066,606 acres or 4,791 square miles) of the state’s land base. Population density is 11 people per square mile. The county seat is Globe with 7,486 people. The largest town is Payson with 13,620 people. Land Ownership Much of the Private county is 4% State forested land 1% managed by the Coconino and Tonto National Forests, offering hiking, camping, sightseeing, OHV driving, hunting and fishing Tribal opportunities. The Fort Apache and San Carlos Apache 40% Federal 55% Indian Reservations offer a variety of outdoor recreation opportunities, notably camping, boating, fishing and hunting. The Tonto Apache Tribe is also located in Gila County. The Salt and Verde Rivers provide whitewater rafting, tubing and fishing opportunities, and the many lakes along the rivers provide boating and fishing opportunities. There is one National Park site, Tonto National Monument and one State Park, Tonto Natural Bridge. There are numerous municipal parks. Other notable attractions include Fort Apache, Salt River Canyon, Roosevelt Lake and the Mogollon Rim. Arizona State Parks Grants Awarded within Gila County Grant Program and Fund Source Number of Grants Awarded Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Arizona Heritage Fund (AHF–3 grant components) - Parks - Trails - Historic Preservation Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund (OHV) State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF) Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund (LEBSF) Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund Total 29 Grant Dollars Received 12 $1,974,087 6 1 7 1 25 20 0 72 $861,539 $29,600 $307,808 $234,069 $3,103,519 $2,025,127 $0 $8,535,749 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks Gila County Survey Summary Priority Park Type to Fund Approximately 65% of the households in Gila multi-use parks nature-oriented 7% County say they visited a park or recreation area parks an average of 7.5 times in the past three months, 40% which equates to 250,258 visits. Forty-one open space percent say they travel more than 50 miles to 32% get to the park they visit most often, 13% travel 6-50 miles, 32% travel 1-5 miles and 14% travel less than 2 miles. Thirty-eight percent of respondents say they would go more often if neighborhood parks the park was closer. 21% Residents were asked to prioritize which type of parks should receive the limited available park funding. Forty percent of Gila County residents prefer larger natureoriented parks; 32% prefer open space. Priority Park Project Type to Fund Residents were also asked their preference Develop new parks Fix up existing regarding spending money to renovate facilities 28% existing facilities or develop new parks. 45% Forty-five percent prefer funds go to fixing up existing facilities. Regarding land acquisition for open space, 79% say they prefer to see acquisition dollars go toward buying large open spaces with habitat for wildlife, while 20% prefer the dollars go to acquiring open spaces between housing developments. Add new facilities 27% Twenty-six percent say they would like to be more involved in the planning for parks and recreation areas, while 74% say they are involved as much as they want. Thirtyseven percent say that surveys are the best way for them to provide their input; 26% say that public meetings are the best way and 15% do not want to be involved. Of those preferring surveys, 63% prefer mail surveys, 22% phone surveys, 4% face to face surveys and 11% web-based surveys. Gila County–Top 5 Responses when asked: What are the Major Problems Concerning Parks and Recreation Areas? 1. Too much litter and trash 2. Not well maintained 3. Not enough parks 4. No problems 5. Too crowded 30 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Graham County Profile Graham County is located in the eastern part of the state. It has 0.65% (33,489) of the state’s population and 4.1% (2,975,155 acres or 4,648 square miles) of the state’s land base. The population density is 7 people per square mile. The county seat is Safford with 9,232 people. The next largest town is Thatcher with 4,022 people. Much of Graham County is agricultural land. The Bureau of Land Management administers a large portion of the public lands, such as the Gila Box National Conservation Area, offering hiking, camping, sightseeing, hunting and offhighway vehicle driving opportunities. There are Land Ownership several forested mountain Private ranges managed by the 10% Federal Coronado National Forest 38% State which offer camping, 16% hiking and hunting. The Gila River offers seasonal rafting opportunities, and San Carlos Lake, managed by the San Carlos Apache Tribe, offers camping, boating and fishing opportunities. There is one State Park, Roper Lake. There are several county and municipal parks such as Graham Tribal County Park, Firth Park and the Discovery Center. 36% Arizona State Parks Grants Awarded within Graham County Grant Program and Fund Source Number of Grants Awarded Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Arizona Heritage Fund (AHF–3 grant components) - Parks - Trails - Historic Preservation Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund (OHV) State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF) Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund (LEBSF) Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund Total Grant Dollars Received 10 $574,001 0 0 3 4 9 0 0 26 $0 $0 $90,800 $171,950 $1,045,169 $0 $0 $1,881,920 Graham County Survey Summary Approximately 65% of the households in Graham County say they visited a park or recreation area an average of 4.7 times in the past three months, which equates to 102,309 visits. Thirty percent say they travel more than 50 miles to get to the park they visit most often, 18% travel 6-50 miles, 41% travel 1-5 miles and 11% travel less than 2 miles. Fortyfive percent of respondents say they would go more often if the park was closer. 31 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks Residents were asked to prioritize which type of parks should receive the limited available park funding. Forty-nine percent prefer larger natureoriented parks. Priority Park Type to Fund multi-use parks 13% nature-oriented parks 49% open space 17% Residents were also asked their preference regarding spending money to renovate existing facilities or develop new parks. Fifty-eight percent neighborhood parks 21% prefer funds go to fixing up existing facilities. Regarding land acquisition for open space, 68% say they prefer to see acquisition dollars go toward buying large open spaces with habitat for wildlife, while 29% prefer the dollars go to acquiring open spaces between housing Priority Park Project Type to Fund developments. Develop new parks 19% Fix up existing facilities 56% Twenty-nine percent say they would like to be more involved in the planning for parks and recreation areas, while 71% say they are involved as much as they want. Forty percent Add new facilities 25% say that surveys are the best way for them to provide their input; 23% say that public meetings are the best way and 15% do not want to be involved. Of those preferring surveys, 56% prefer mail surveys, 27% phone surveys, 6% face to face surveys and 10% web-based surveys. Graham County–Top 5 Responses when asked: What are the Major Problems Concerning Parks and Recreation Areas? 1. Too much litter and trash 2. Not well maintained 3. No problems 4. Costs too much 5. Too crowded Land Ownership Greenlee County Profile Federal Private Greenlee County is located on the eastern 77% 8% border of the state. It State 15% has 0.17% (8,547) of the state’s population and Tribal 1.61% (1,175,385 acres 0% or 1,836 square miles) of the state’s land base. Population density is 5 people per square mile. The county seat is Clifton with 2,596 people. The next largest town is Morenci with 1,879 people. 32 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Both are old mining towns. The topography consists of forested ranges, river valleys and desert terrain. Much of the land is managed by the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest offering camping, hiking, hunting and fishing. Other notable attractions include the Coronado Trail, a winding paved road which offers panoramic views, Hannagan Meadow at 9,092 feet and the Blue Range Primitive Area. Arizona State Parks Grants Awarded within Greenlee County Grant Program and Fund Source Number of Grants Awarded Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Arizona Heritage Fund (AHF–3 grant components) - Parks - Trails - Historic Preservation Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund (OHV) State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF) Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund (LEBSF) Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund Total Grant Dollars Received 2 $95,000 0 1 5 2 0 0 0 10 $0 $10,800 $138,610 $42,894 $0 $0 $0 $287,304 Greenlee County Survey Summary Priority Park Type to Fund Approximately 56% of the households in Greenlee County say they visited a park or multi-use parks nature-oriented 11% parks recreation area an average of 4.7 times in the 44% past three months, which equates to 22,496 open space visits. Forty-three percent say they travel 17% more than 50 miles to get to the park they visit most often, 13% travel 6-50 miles, 20% travel 1-5 miles and 23% travel less than 2 neighborhood parks 28% miles. Forty-eight percent of respondents say they would go more often if the park was closer. Residents were asked to prioritize which type of parks should receive the limited available park funding. Forty-four percent prefer larger nature-oriented parks. Residents were also asked their preference regarding spending money to renovate existing facilities or develop new parks. Priority Park Project Type to Fund Forty-seven percent prefer funds go to fixing up existing facilities. Fix up existing Develop new parks 25% Add new facilities 28% facilities 47% Regarding land acquisition for open space, 73% say they prefer to see acquisition dollars go toward buying large open spaces with habitat for wildlife, while 24% prefer the dollars go to acquiring open spaces between housing developments. 33 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks Twenty-seven percent say they would like to be more involved in the planning for parks and recreation areas, while 73% say they are involved as much as they want. Forty percent say that surveys are the best way for them to provide their input; 23% say that public meetings are the best way and 22% do not want to be involved. Of those preferring surveys, 56% prefer mail surveys, 27% phone surveys, 4% face to face surveys and 13% web-based surveys. Greenlee County–Top 5 Responses when asked: What are the Major Problems Concerning Parks and Recreation Areas? 1. Too much litter and trash 2. Not well maintained 3. Too crowded 4. No problems 5. Not enough parks La Paz County Profile La Paz County is located on the western border of the state. It has 0.38% (19,715) of the state’s population and 3.96% (2,891,502 acres or 4,517 square miles) of the state’s land base. This averages out to four people per square mile. The county seat is Parker with 3,140 people. The largest town is Quartzsite with 3,354 people. The topography is primarily Sonoran Desert with a few desert mountain ranges. The Colorado River forms a boundary between Land Ownership Arizona and California. This is Arizona’s largest river Private offering boating and fishing opportunities especially State 5% along the Parker Strip. The Bureau of Land 9% Management manages much of the public lands. There Tribal are two state parks: Buckskin Mountain State Park 8% providing camping and boat access facilities along the Colorado River, and Alamo Lake State Park, located between the Santa Maria and Bill Williams Rivers, Federal offering camping, boating and fishing opportunities. 78% There are several county and municipal parks. There are the Bill Williams, Cibola and Imperial National Wildlife Refuges, part of the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge as well as the Yuma Proving Grounds. The Colorado River Indian Tribes are located in La Paz County. 34 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks Grants Awarded within La Paz County Grant Program and Fund Source Number of Grants Awarded Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Arizona Heritage Fund (AHF–3 grant components) - Parks - Trails - Historic Preservation Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund (OHV) State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF) Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund (LEBSF) Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund Total Grant Dollars Received 11 $514,306 3 1 2 4 57 20 0 98 $327,388 $44,784 $8,633 $301,926 $9,472,124 $2,437,079 $0 $13,106,240 La Paz County Survey Summary Priority Park Type to Fund Approximately 54% of the households in La Paz County say they visited a park or recreation area multi-use parks 11% nature-oriented an average of 6.2 times in the past three months, parks 41% which equates to 66,006 visits. Twenty-six percent open space say they travel more than 50 miles to get to the 24% park they visit most often, 15% travel 6-50 miles, 41% travel 1-5 miles and 18% travel less than 2 miles. Fifty-one percent of respondents say they would go more often if the park was closer. neighborhood parks 24% Priority Park Project Type to Fund Develop new parks 31% Add new facilities 25% Fix up existing facilities 44% Residents were asked to prioritize which type of parks should receive the limited available park funding. Forty-one percent prefer larger nature-oriented parks. Residents were also asked their preference regarding spending money to renovate existing facilities or develop new parks. Forty-four percent prefer funds go to fixing up existing facilities. Regarding land acquisition for open space, 73% say they prefer to see acquisition dollars go toward buying large open spaces with habitat for wildlife, while 27% prefer the dollars go to acquiring open spaces between housing developments. Thirty-six percent say they would like to be more involved in the planning for parks and recreation areas, while 64% say they are involved as much as they want. Thirty-one percent say that surveys are the best way for them to provide their input; 24% say that public meetings are the best way and 25% do not want to be involved. Of those preferring surveys, 61% prefer mail surveys, 23% phone surveys, 5% face to face surveys and 13% web-based surveys. 35 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks La Paz County–Top 5 Responses when asked: What are the Major Problems Concerning Parks and Recreation Areas? 1. Too much litter and trash 2. Not well maintained 3. Doesn’t meet my needs 4. No problems 5. Not enough parks Maricopa County Profile Maricopa County is located in the center of the state. It has nearly 60% (3,072,149) of the state’s population and 8% (5,902,107 acres or 9,222 square miles) of the state’s land base. This averages out to 333 people per square mile. The county seat is Phoenix with 1,321,045 people; Phoenix is also the state capital. Phoenix is surrounded by many other cities and towns (seven with 100,000 to 400,000 people each—Mesa, Glendale, Scottsdale, Chandler, Tempe, Gilbert and Peoria), comprising one of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas. Land Ownership The topography is primarily Sonoran Desert with a Private 30% few desert mountain ranges, several are protected as desert mountain preserves providing hiking opportunities. Much of the land is managed by the Federal Bureau of Land Management, Tonto National Forest 56% and Arizona State Land Department. There are two State Indian tribes: Fort McDowell Mohave-Apache 9% Indian Community and Salt River Pima-Maricopa Tribal Indian Community. Maricopa County has a large 5% number of regional parks that offer hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, picnic sites and interpretive and educational centers. Lake Pleasant Regional Park, located along the Aqua Fria River, offers boating and fishing opportunities. There is a wide array of municipal parks, such as Phoenix Mountain Preserves, Encanto Park, Peoria Sports Complex, Hohokam Park, Chaparral Park and Indian Bend Wash. Other notable attractions include Tempe Town Lake and Rio Salado projects along the Salt River, Pueblo Grande Museum and many other cultural and recreational features. 36 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks Grants Awarded within Maricopa County Grant Program and Fund Source Number of Grants Awarded Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Arizona Heritage Fund (AHF–3 grant components) - Parks - Trails - Historic Preservation Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund (OHV) State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF) Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund (LEBSF) Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund Total Grant Dollars Received 291 $25,742,046 65 29 84 14 99 10 5 597 $14,273,920 $1,315,770 $3,950,926 $1,322,761 $17,869,170 $856,561 $14,320,636 $79,651,790 Maricopa County Survey Summary Approximately 68% of the households in Maricopa County say they visited a park or recreation area an average of 7.9 times in the past three months, which equates to 16,503,584 visits. Twenty-one percent say they travel more than 50 miles to get to the park they visit most often, 16% travel 6-50 miles, 40% travel 1-5 miles and 23% travel less than 2 miles. Forty-six percent say they would go more often if the park was closer. Priority Park Type to Fund multi-use parks 16% nature-oriented parks 42% open space 21% neighborhood parks 21% Residents were asked to prioritize which type of parks should receive the limited available park funding. Forty-two percent prefer larger nature oriented parks. Residents were also asked their preference regarding spending Priority Park Project Type to Fund money to renovate existing facilities or develop new Fix up existing Develop new parks facilities parks. Forty-five percent prefer funds go to fixing 31% 45% up existing facilities. Add new facilities 24% Regarding land acquisition for open space, 73% say they prefer to see acquisition dollars go toward buying large open spaces with habitat for wildlife, while 27% prefer the dollars go to acquiring open spaces between housing developments. Thirty percent say they would like to be more involved in the planning for parks and recreation areas, while 70% say they are involved as much as they want. Thirty-three percent say that surveys are the best way for them to provide their input; 15% say public meetings; 25% say that the Internet is the best way and 17% do not want to be involved. Of those preferring surveys, 63% prefer mail surveys, 21% phone surveys and 15% web-based surveys. 37 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks Maricopa County–Top 5 Responses when asked: What are the Major Problems Concerning Parks and Recreation Areas? 1. No problems 2. Too much litter and trash 3. Not well maintained 4. Personal safety 5. Too crowded Mohave County Profile Mohave County is located in the northwestern part of the state. It has 3% (155,032) of the state’s population and 11.8% (8,627,206 acres or 13,480 square miles) of the state’s land base. This averages out to 11 people per square mile. The county seat is Kingman with 20,069 people. The largest town is Lake Havasu City with 41,938 people. The topography is primarily Land Ownership Mohave Desert Private with low hills 17% and forested State mountain ranges managed primarily by the Bureau of 7% Land Management. The Colorado River, Arizona’s Tribal largest river, forms a boundary between Arizona and 7% California and provides boating and fishing opportunities especially at Lake Havasu and Cattail Federal 69% Cove State Parks, Davis Camp and Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The Fort Mojave and Hualapai Indian Tribes manage lands with recreation opportunities. There are numerous county and municipal parks, such as Hualapai Mountain Park, Centennial Park and Rotary Park. Other notable attractions include Pipe Springs National Monument, Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, Burro Creek, Route 66 and Hoover Dam. Arizona State Parks Grants Awarded within Mohave County Grant Program and Fund Source Number of Grants Awarded Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Arizona Heritage Fund (AHF–3 grant components) - Parks - Trails - Historic Preservation Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund (OHV) State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF) Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund (LEBSF) Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund Total 38 Grant Dollars Received 11 $657,631 11 7 12 4 113 17 0 175 $1,727,001 $195,621 $392,812 $415,690 $28,092,325 $2,849,730 $0 $34,330,810 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Mohave County Survey Summary Approximately 66% of the households in Mohave County say they visited a park or recreation area an average of 7.2 times in the past three months, which equates to 736,712 visits. Twenty percent say they travel more than 50 miles to get to the park they visit most often, 14% travel 6-50 miles, 55% Priority Park Project Type to Fund travel 1-5 miles and 11% travel less than 2 miles. Thirty-six percent say they would go Fix up existing Develop new parks more often if the park was closer. facilities 30% 49% Residents were asked to prioritize which type of parks should receive the limited available park funding. Forty percent prefer Add new facilities larger nature oriented parks. Respondents 21% were also asked their preference regarding spending money to renovate existing facilities or develop new parks. Forty-nine percent prefer funds go to fixing up existing facilities Priority Park Type to Fund Regarding land acquisition for open space, 77% say they prefer to see acquisition dollars go toward buying large open spaces with habitat for wildlife, while 21% prefer the dollars go to acquiring open spaces between housing developments. multi-use parks 14% nature-oriented parks 40% open space 23% Twenty-two percent say they would like to be neighborhood parks more involved in the planning for parks and 23% recreation areas, while 78% say they are involved as much as they want. Thirty-six percent say that surveys are the best way for them to provide their input; 15% say public meetings, 22% say through the Internet is the best way and 17% do not want to be involved. Of those preferring surveys, 60% prefer mail surveys, 25% phone surveys, 3% face to face surveys and 12% web-based surveys. Mohave County–Top 5 Responses when asked: What are the Major Problems Concerning Parks and Recreation Areas? 1. Not well maintained 2. No problems 3. Too much litter and trash 4. Not enough parks 5. Not enough funding 39 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks Navajo County Profile Navajo County is located in the northern part of the state. It has 1.9% (97,470) of the state’s population and 8.7% (6,367,095 acres or 9.948 square miles) of the state’s land base. This averages out to 9.8 people per square mile. The county seat is Holbrook with 4,917 people. The largest town is Winslow with 9,520 people. The topography to the north is primarily high desert with sandstone spires and buttes, especially within the Navajo Tribal Park at Monument Valley. Most of this land Land Ownership is managed by the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribes. The Federal 9% Private south part is rugged mountain area, heavily wooded 18% Tribal with Piñon-Juniper and Ponderosa pine, managed 67% primarily by the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest State 6% and the White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe. The National Park sites include Navajo National Monument and portions of Petrified Forest National Park. There two State Parks, Homolovi Ruins and Fool Hollow Lake State Recreation Area. There are several county and municipal parks, such as Cholla Lake County Park, McHood Park Lake, Winslow City Park, Woodland Lake Park and Hunt Park. Other notable attractions include Monument Valley and the Painted Desert. Arizona State Parks Grants Awarded within Navajo County Grant Program and Fund Source Number of grants awarded Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) 28 Arizona Heritage Fund (AHF–3 grant components) - Parks 10 - Trails 5 - Historic Preservation 26 Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund (OHV) 0 State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF) 37 Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund (LEBSF) 18 Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund 0 Total 124 40 Grant dollars received $1,928,388 $1,309,894 $218,516 $983,190 $0 $7,391,762 $490,147 $0 $12,321,897 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Navajo County Survey Summary Approximately 62% of the households in Navajo County say they visited a park or recreation area an average of 4.9 times in the past three months, which equates to 296,114 visits. Thirty-four percent say they travel more than 50 miles to get to the park they visit most often, 8% travel 6-50 miles, 37% travel 1-5 miles and 20% travel less than 2 miles. Forty-two percent of respondents say they would go more often if the park was closer. Priority Park Type to Fund multi-use parks 10% nature-oriented parks 40% open space 24% neighborhood parks 26% Residents were asked to prioritize which type of parks should receive the limited available park funding. Forty percent prefer larger nature-oriented parks. Priority Park Project Type to Fund Develop new parks 27% Respondents were also asked their preference regarding spending money to renovate existing facilities or develop new parks. Fifty-two percent prefer funds go to fixing up existing facilities. Add new facilities 21% Fix up existing facilities 52% Regarding land acquisition for open space, 76% say they prefer to see acquisition dollars go toward buying large open spaces with habitat for wildlife, while 23% prefer the dollars go to acquiring open spaces between housing developments. Twenty-five percent say they would like to be more involved in the planning for parks and recreation areas, while 75% say they are involved as much as they want. Thirty-four percent say that surveys are the best way for them to provide their input 22% say that public meetings are the best way. Of those preferring surveys, 58% prefer mail surveys, 24% phone surveys, 6% face to face surveys and 12% web-based surveys. Navajo County–Top 5 Responses when asked: What are the Major Problems Concerning Parks and Recreation Areas? 1. Too much litter and trash 2. Not well maintained 3. No problems 4. Not enough funding 5. Not enough parks 41 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks Pima County Profile Pima County is located in the southern part of the state. It has 16% (843,746) of the state’s population and 8% (5,877,511 acres or 9,183 square miles) of the state’s land base. This averages out to 92 people per square mile. The county seat is Tucson with 486,699 people. The next largest town is Oro Valley with 29,700 people. The topography is primarily Sonoran Desert. There are several forested mountain ranges managed by the Coronado National Forest. Much of the desert lands are managed by the Bureau of Land Management and Arizona State Land Department. There are two Indian reservations: Tohono O’odham and Pascua Land Ownership Yaqui. National Park sites include Saguaro Private Federal National Park and Organ Pipe Cactus National 19% 31% Monument; there is one State Park, Catalina. There are numerous county and municipal parks such as State Tucson Mountain Park, Arthur Pack Regional Park, 6% Reid Park, Ft. Lowell Park and Acuna-Los Niños Park. Other notable attractions include Mission of Tribal San Xavier del Bac, Kitt Peak, Mt. Lemmon, Sabino 44% Canyon, Empire Cienega National Conservation Area, Ironwood Forest National Monument, Buenos Aires and Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuges and the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. Arizona State Parks Grants Awarded within Pima County Grant Program and Fund Source Received Number of Grants Awarded Grant Dollars Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) 146 Arizona Heritage Fund (AHF–3 grant components) - Parks 21 - Trails 9 - Historic Preservation 53 Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund (OHV) 7 State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF) 9 Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund (LEBSF) 0 Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund 1 Total 246 42 $8,927,824 $4,802,510 $480,992 $1,984,245 $2,218,614 $999,153 $0 $1,400,000 $20,813,338 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Pima County Survey Summary Approximately 70% of the households in Pima County say they visited a park or recreation area an average of 7.4 times in the past three months, which equates to 4,370,604 visits. Eighteen percent say they travel more than 50 miles to get to the park they visit most often, 30% travel 6-50 miles, 34% travel 1-5 miles and 18% travel less than 2 miles. Forty-two percent of respondents say they would go more often if the park was closer. Priority Park Type to Fund multi-use parks 14% nature-oriented parks 43% open space 24% neighborhood parks 19% Residents were asked to prioritize which type of parks should receive the limited available park funding. Forty-three prefer larger nature-oriented parks. Respondents were also asked their preference regarding spending money to renovate existing facilities or develop new parks. Forty-eight percent prefer funds go to fixing up existing facilities. Priority Park Project Type to Fund Develop new parks 29% Fix up existing facilities 48% Regarding land acquisition for open space, 77% say they prefer to see acquisition dollars go toward buying large open spaces with habitat for wildlife, while 22% prefer the dollars go to acquiring open spaces between housing developments. Add new facilities 23% Twenty-nine percent say they would like to be more involved in the planning for parks and recreation areas, while 71% say they are involved as much as they want. Forty-one percent say that surveys are the best way for them to provide their input; 13% say public meetings; 21% say that through the Internet is the best way and 16% do not want to be involved. Of those preferring surveys, 62% prefer mail surveys, 27% phone surveys and 12% web-based surveys. Pima County –Top 5 Responses when asked: What are the Major Problems Concerning Parks and Recreation Areas? 1. Not well maintained 2. Too much litter and trash 3. No problems 4. Doesn’t meet my needs 5. Not enough funding 43 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks Pinal County Profile Pinal County is located in the central part of the state. It has 3.5% (179,727) of the state’s population and 4.7% (3,437,462 acres or 5,371 square miles) of the state’s land base. This averages out to 33 people per square mile. The county seat is Florence with 17,054 people. The largest town is Apache Junction with 31,814 people. Much of the topography is Sonoran Desert, with areas of irrigated agriculture. The eastern part is mountainous. Much of the land is managed by the Arizona State Land Department and Land Ownership Bureau of Land Federal Management, Private 19% 25% offering hiking, sightseeing, hunting and off-highway vehicle driving. There are two Indian reservations: Gila River Indian Community Tribal and Ak-Chin Indian Community. 20% State 36% State and National Park sites include Lost Dutchman State Park, Picacho Peak State Park, Oracle State Park–Center for Environmental Education, McFarland State Historic Park, Boyce Thompson Arboretum State Park and Casa Grande and Hohokam Pima National Monuments. There are numerous county and municipal parks. Other notable attractions include Aravaipa Canyon, Box Canyon, the Biosphere and Picacho Reservoir. Arizona State Parks Grants Awarded within Pinal County Grant Program and Fund Source Number of Grants Awarded Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Arizona Heritage Fund (AHF–3 grant components) - Parks - Trails - Historic Preservation Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund (OHV) State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF) Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund (LEBSF) Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund Total 44 Grant Dollars Received 41 $3,241,006 17 3 28 0 6 0 0 95 $1,712,828 $156,153 $1,415,572 $0 $4,323,719 $0 $0 $10,849,278 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Pinal County Survey Summary Approximately 60% of the households in Pinal County say they visited a park or recreation area an average of 4 times in the past three months, which equates to 431,345 visits. Thirty-seven percent say they travel more than 50 miles to get to the park they visit most often, 26% travel 6-50 miles, 28% travel 1-5 miles and 9% travel less than 2 miles. Fifty-one percent say they would go more often if the park was closer. Priority Park Type to Fund multi-use parks 15% nature-oriented parks 40% open space 27% neighborhood parks 18% Residents were asked to prioritize which type of parks should receive the limited available park funding. Forty percent prefer larger nature-oriented parks. Respondents were also asked their preference regarding spending money to renovate existing facilities or develop new parks. Forty-seven percent prefer funds go to fixing up existing facilities. Priority Park Project Type to Fund Develop new parks 29% Fix up existing facilities 47% Regarding land acquisition for open space, 76% say they prefer to see acquisition dollars go toward buying large open spaces with habitat for wildlife, while 23% prefer the dollars go to acquiring open spaces between housing developments. Add new facilities 24% Twenty-six percent say they would like to be more involved in the planning for parks and recreation areas, while 74% say they are involved as much as they want. Thirty-eight percent say that surveys are the best way for them to provide their input; 19% say public meetings; 14% say through the Internet are the best way and 19% do not want to be involved. Of those preferring surveys, 73% prefer mail surveys, 19% phone surveys and 6% webbased surveys. Pinal County–Top 5 Responses when asked: What are the Major Problems Concerning Parks and Recreation Areas? 1. No problems 2. Too much litter and trash 3. Not well maintained 4. Too crowded 5. Not enough funding 45 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks Santa Cruz County Profile Santa Cruz County is located in the extreme south part of the state along the Mexican border. It has 0.75% (38,381) of the state’s population and 1% (790,819 acres or 1,235 square miles) of the state’s land base. This averages out to 31 people per square mile. The county seat is Nogales with 20,878 people. The next largest town is Patagonia with 881 people. Much of the topography is rolling green grasslands, Land Ownership agricultural lands, wooded hills and rugged forested Federal 54% Private mountains. The Coronado National Forest manages 38% much of the public lands, offering hiking, horseback riding, sightseeing, camping, off-highway vehicle driving, hunting and fishing opportunities. National Park sites include Tumacacori National Monument and Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail. There are several State Parks: Tubac Presidio State Historic Park, Patagonia Lake State Park, Sonoita Creek State State Natural Area and San Rafael Ranch State Park. 8% Tribal 0% Other notable attractions include Nogales, AZ and Nogales, Sonora, which are the main entryway into Mexico, the historic town of Tubac, the rolling green grasslands and wine country around Sonoita/Elgin, Santa Cruz River and numerous historic mining towns. Arizona State Parks Grants Awarded within Santa Cruz County Grant Program and Fund Source Number of Grants Awarded Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Arizona Heritage Fund (AHF–3 grant components) - Parks - Trails - Historic Preservation Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund (OHV) State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF) Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund (LEBSF) Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund Total 46 Grant Dollars Received 9 $748,655 6 4 12 3 13 0 0 47 $749,652 $310,852 $517,180 $275,112 $1,672,955 $0 $0 $4,274,406 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Santa Cruz Survey Summary Approximately 66% of the households in Santa Cruz County say they visited a park or recreation area an average of 5.3 times in the past three months, which equates to 134,257 visits. Twenty-one percent say they travel more than 50 miles to get to the park they visit most often, 27% travel 6-50 miles, 32% travel 1-5 miles and 20% travel less than 2 miles. Sixty-eight Priority Park Project Type to Fund percent of respondents say they would go Fix up existing more often if the park was closer. Residents were asked to prioritize which type of parks should receive the limited available park funding. Forty-two percent prefer larger nature-oriented parks. Develop new parks 59% facilities 26% Add new facilities 15% Respondents were also asked their preference regarding spending money to renovate existing facilities or develop new parks. Fifty-nine percent prefer funds go to developing new parks. Regarding land acquisition for open space, 78% say they prefer to see acquisition dollars go toward buying large open spaces with Priority Park Type to Fund habitat for wildlife, while 22% prefer the dollars nature-oriented parks go to acquiring open spaces between housing multi-use parks 42% 26% developments. Thirty-nine percent say they would like to be more involved in the planning for parks and open space recreation areas, while 61% say they are 16% involved as much as they want. Thirty-six neighborhood parks percent say that surveys are the best way for 16% them to provide their input; 25% say public meetings; 13% say through the Internet are the best way and 18% do not want to be involved. Of those preferring surveys, 86% prefer mail surveys, 25% phone surveys, 4% face to face surveys and 9% web-based surveys. Santa Cruz County–Top 5 Responses when asked: What are the Major Problems Concerning Parks and Recreation Areas? 1. Not well maintained 2. Not enough parks 3. Doesn’t meet my needs 4. No problems 5. Too much litter and trash 47 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks Yavapai County Profile Yavapai County is located in the west central part of the state. It has 3.3% (167,517) of the state’s population and 7% (5,199,884 acres or 8,124 square miles) of the state’s land base. This averages out to 21 people per square mile. The county seat is Prescott with 33,938 people. The next largest town is Prescott Valley with 23,535 people. Much of the topography is grassland, wooded hills and rugged forested mountains managed by the Prescott National Forest. These public Land Ownership lands offer hiking, mountain biking, backpacking, horseback Private 25% riding, off-highway vehicle driving, camping and hunting opportunities. National Park sites include Tuzigoot, Montezuma Castle and Montezuma Well National Monuments. There are several State Parks: Federal 51% Dead Horse Ranch State Park/Verde River Greenway, Red Rock State Park–Center for Environmental Education and Jerome and Ft. Verde State Historic State Parks. There are numerous county and municipal 24% parks such as Pioneer Park, Congress Tenderfoot Hill, Tribal 0% Watson Lake, A.C. Williams Granite Creek, Butler Park and Riverfront Park. Other notable attractions include the towns of Jerome, Sedona and surrounding red rock country, Oak Creek Canyon, Tavasci Marsh and the Verde River. Arizona State Parks Grants Awarded within Yavapai County Grant Program and Fund Source Number of Grants Awarded Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Arizona Heritage Fund (AHF–three grant components) - Parks - Trails - Historic Preservation Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund (OHV) State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF) Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund (LEBSF) Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund Total 48 Grant Dollars Received 37 $2,484,952 25 5 27 9 16 0 0 119 $4,303,236 $236,343 $859,179 $1,651,841 $3,661,302 $0 $0 $13,196,853 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Yavapai County Survey Summary Approximately 59% of the households in Yavapai County say they visited a park or recreation area an average of 7.7 times in the past three months, which equates to 761,030 visits. Thirty percent say they travel more than 50 miles to get to the park they visit most often, 20% travel 6-50 miles, 35% travel 1-5 miles and 15% travel less than 2 miles. Twenty-eight percent of respondents say they would go more often if the park was closer. Priority Park Project Type to Fund Develop new parks 27% Fix up existing facilities 48% Add new facilities 25% Residents were asked to prioritize which type of parks should receive the limited available park funding. Forty-two percent prefer larger nature-oriented parks. Respondents were also asked their preference regarding spending money to renovate existing facilities or develop new parks. Forty-eight percent prefer funds go to fixing up existing facilities. Regarding land acquisition for open space, 86% say they prefer to see acquisition dollars go toward buying large open spaces Priority Park Type to Fund with habitat for wildlife, while 13% prefer the dollars go to acquiring open spaces between nature-oriented multi-use parks parks 11% housing developments. 42% Twenty-two percent say they would like to be more involved in the planning for parks and recreation areas, while 78% say they are involved as much as they want. Forty percent say that surveys are the best way for them to neighborhood parks provide their input; 21% say public meetings; 18% 15% say through the Internet are the best way and 17% do not want to be involved. Of those preferring surveys, 71% prefer mail surveys, 17% phone surveys and 10% web-based surveys. pen space 29% Yavapai County–Top 5 Responses when asked: What are the Major Problems Concerning Parks and Recreation Areas? 1. Too much litter and trash 2. Not well maintained 3. Not enough funding 4. No problems 5. Costs too much 49 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses Arizona State Parks Yuma County Profile Yuma County is located in the southwest part of the state. It has 3% (160,026) of the state’s population and 4.8% (3,534,832 acres or 5,523 square miles) of the state’s land base. This averages out to 29 people per square mile. The county seat is Yuma with 77,515 people. The next largest town is San Luis with 15,322 people. Much of the topography is lower Sonoran Desert, with areas of irrigated agriculture. The Bureau of Land Management manages much of the public land. The Land Ownership Department of Private Defense manages the military test ranges, Barry M. 11% State Federal Goldwater Air Force Range and Yuma Proving 5% 84% Grounds. National Wildlife Refuges include Kofa and Tribal Cabeza Prieta. There are two Indian Reservations: 0% Fort Yuma-Quechan and Cocopah Tribes. There are two State Historic Parks: Yuma Territorial Prison and Yuma Crossing. There are numerous municipal parks such as Joe Munoz Park, Friendship Park, Butterfield Park and Joe Henry Park. Other notable attractions include the Camino del Diablo, Colorado River and the Gila River. Arizona State Parks Grants Awarded within Yuma County Grant Program and Fund Source Number of Grants Awarded Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Arizona Heritage Fund (AHF–three grant components) - Parks - Trails - Historic Preservation Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund (OHV) State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF) Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund (LEBSF) Growing Smarter/Land Conservation Fund Total Grant Dollars Received 26 $1,011,102 11 3 18 5 12 21 0 96 $1,630,095 $221,350 $1,013,801 $210,650 $3,124,923 $1,912,874 $0 $9,124,795 Yuma County Survey Summary Approximately 70% of the households in Yuma County say they visited a park or recreation area an average of 6.5 times in the past three months, which equates to 728,118 visits. Fourteen percent say they travel more than 50 miles to get to the park 50 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Outdoor Recreation Analyses they visit most often, 15% travel 6-50 miles, 44% travel 1-5 miles and 26% travel less than 2 miles. Sixty percent of respondents say they would go more often if the park was closer. Priority Park Project Type to Fund Develop new parks 44% Residents were asked to prioritize which type of parks should receive the limited available park funding. Fifty-one percent prefer larger nature-oriented parks. Fix up existing facilities 37% Add new facilities 19% Respondents were also asked their preference regarding spending money to renovate existing facilities or develop new parks. Forty-four percent prefer funds go to developing new parks. Priority Park Type to Fund multi-use parks 22% nature-oriented parks 51% open space 9% neighborhood parks 18% Regarding land acquisition for open space, 75% say they prefer to see acquisition dollars go toward buying large open spaces with habitat for wildlife, while 24% prefer the dollars go to acquiring open spaces between housing developments. Thirty-eight percent say they would like to be more involved in the planning for parks and recreation areas, while 62% say they are involved as much as they want. Thirty-seven percent say that surveys are the best way for them to provide their input; 23% say public meetings; 13% say through the Internet are the best way and 20% do not want to be involved. Of those preferring surveys, 59% prefer mail surveys, 23% phone surveys, 10% face to face surveys and 8% web-based surveys. Yuma County–Top 5 Responses when asked: What are the Major Problems Concerning Parks and Recreation Areas? 1. Doesn’t meet my needs 2. No problems 3. Too much litter and trash 4. Not well maintained 5. Personal safety 51 2003 SCORP-Open Project Selection Process Arizona State Parks Land and Water Conservation Fund and Local, Regional and State Parks Heritage Fund Process The information presented herein details the open project selection process used to make funding decisions for the state Local, Regional and State Parks (LRSP) Heritage Fund and federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grant programs administered by Arizona State Parks (ASP). Information includes program information, a program time schedule, guidelines used for the LRSP/LWCF program and the rating points given for each. The guidelines for the LRSP/LWCF programs are based on the results of the SCORP planning process and task force meetings to gather public input. The LRSP/LWCF grant programs run concurrently and follow the same application, rating and award process. Project Solicitation In Arizona, the LRSP/LWCF grant programs are set up on an annual cycle; the schedule for the application and selection process remains the same from year to year. Eligible applicants under the LRSP/LWCF grant programs include the state, all of its political subdivisions and tribal governments. In accordance with a 1994 Memorandum of Agreement between the Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission (AORCC) and the Arizona State Parks Board (ASPB), a portion of the LWCF allocation will be made available for competitive grants and a portion will be used for outdoor recreation projects at Arizona State Parks. Grant workshop announcements are made as early as August and workshop announcements are mailed to eligible applicants in September. The grant workshops, held in November, provide the applicants an opportunity to review the program and to see if there have been any modifications during the past year. The workshops are designed to ensure that applicants understand the guidelines and rating criteria used in the LRSP/LWCF programs, and assist them in developing quality projects and applications. Project Selection After LRSP/LWCF grant applications are received, each application undergoes a two step evaluation process. First, each application is screened to make sure it meets the 52 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Open Project Selection Process minimum guidelines and legal requirements set forth by the National Park Service (NPS) and the ASPB. Staff then visits the site of each proposed project to become familiar with the projects. Those applications that meet all of the minimum requirements are then presented to AORCC for review. Secondly, each application is rated by a team of at least three, using the rating criteria. This rating criteria was developed from various components of the SCORP planning process and a task force comprised of recreation professionals from around the state. Arizona State Parks projects are not rated competitively since the 1994 Memorandum of Agreement allows a portion of the LWCF allocation to be used for outdoor recreation projects within the Arizona State Parks system. The results of the rating criteria are presented to AORCC along with staff funding recommendations in August. Applicants receive the same information and are encouraged to attend the AORCC meeting. After all public input has been heard, AORCC either adopts staff’s recommendations or develops its own funding recommendations. Staff and AORCC recommendations are presented to the ASPB in September for final action. The public also has an opportunity to provide input at the ASPB meeting in September. Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission AORCC is an advisory body to the ASPB with many responsibilities, including oversight of the LRSP/LWCF grant process. Made up of representatives appointed by the Governor, AORCC guides staff in developing guidelines and rating criteria to ensure objectivity. AORCC is responsible for making funding recommendations to the ASPB. Arizona State Parks Board Once AORCC has made its funding recommendation to the ASPB, the Board takes final action on the recommendations and directs the ASP Director or designee to sign grant award participant agreements. The ASPB, whose seven members are appointed by the Governor, oversees the administration of these grants, which is accomplished by the Grants staff. Program Assistance Program assistance is a priority for all grant programs at ASP. There are three ways applicants and the general public can receive this assistance. First, applicants and the general public are encouraged to call the Grants Section with questions or concerns about the LRSP/LWCF programs. Second, in order to provide project development assistance to all applicants, the Grants Section holds three grant application workshops across the state each year before the beginning of each grant cycle. Third, the Grants Section offers a review of applications prior to the submission deadline to provide applicants with information and assistance to create a better application. Public Participation Public participation is the basis of the Arizona SCORP and LRSP/LWCF grant programs in Arizona. Public participation is integral to the LRSP/LWCF grant programs for guidelines and rating criteria development process and in project solicitation and 53 2003 SCORP-Open Project Selection Process Arizona State Parks selection. This participation is achieved through numerous public meetings held during the SCORP and grant planning process, and opportunities for public comments at AORCC and ASPB meetings. Program Review and Updating Task Force Further, in an effort to obtain pertinent input from the applicants AORCC occasionally establishes a task force comprised of recreation professionals representing various geographical locales and jurisdictional affiliations. This group meets to discuss and evaluate the current rating criteria and guidelines that are being used. Ultimately the group may recommend, for AORCC and ASPB consideration, changes to the process for future use. As a result, the rating criteria and weightings change periodically to reflect the needs and demands of recreation providers and the public. Current guidelines and the rating criteria can be found in the LRSP/ LWCF grant application manual, which is revised and printed each year. Affirmative Action Both the SCORP process and the LRSP/LWCF programs are sensitive to the needs of all special populations. Participants representing low-income communities, the physically challenged, minority groups, women and other special populations participated at all levels in the SCORP planning process. Beginning in the issue development phase of SCORP; continuing through the guideline and rating system criteria process of the LRSP/LWCF program; and finally into the approval and award phase of the grant process, representatives from all these populations have had input into the development of this open project selection process. The staff at ASP are committed to meeting the needs of all Arizona’s population, and ensuring that representatives from all special populations are invited and continue to participate during all phases of the SCORP process and in the LRSP/LWCF grant program. LRSP/LWCF Grant Program Details The following is a brief summary of the annual LRSP/LWCF grant programs. This information is available to the general public as well as any group or organization upon request from Arizona State Parks. 54 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Open Project Selection Process Authorization and Purpose The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 (Public Law 88-578) became effective January 1, 1965 and has since been authorized to continue through 2015. The Act provides financial assistance to states, their political subdivisions and Indian tribal governments for the acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation areas and facilities. The Local, Regional and State Parks (LRSP) component of the Arizona State Parks Board Heritage Fund (A.R.S. § 41-503) was established in 1990 to provide funds for outdoor recreation and open space throughout Arizona. Eligible applicants for LRSP funds are cities, towns, counties and Indian tribal governments. Qualification for State Participation in the LWCF grant program To qualify for financial assistance under the LWCF program, each state must (1) designate an official to act for the state as liaison officer in dealing with the National Park Service; (2) designate an official to serve as the state’s fiscal officer to receive and disburse federal funds; and (3) prepare and maintain a comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan. In Arizona, the State Liaison Officer is the ASP Executive Director. For LWCF program assistance a local governmental entity must have a responsibility to provide outdoor recreation opportunities to the public and (1) independent governing authority; (2) independent signature authority; (3) independent authority to commit funds. Qualification for Participation in the LRSP grant program To qualify for financial assistance under the LRSP program, each governmental entity must have a responsibility to provide outdoor recreation opportunities to the public and (1) independent governing authority; (2) independent signature authority; (3) independent authority to commit funds. State Authorization Under provisions of A.R.S. § 41-511.26, state agencies and incorporated municipalities are granted authority to participate in the LRSP/LWCF grant programs. The State Parks Board is responsible for administering the program in Arizona and preparing and maintaining the required outdoor recreation plan. Eligible Applicants Eligible applicants under these programs include incorporated municipalities, counties, 55 2003 SCORP-Open Project Selection Process Arizona State Parks state agencies, and Indian tribal governments. ASP is not eligible for LRSP competitive grants. In accordance with a 1994 Memorandum of Agreement between AORCC and the ASPB, a portion of the LWCF allocation will be made available for competitive grants and a portion will be used for outdoor recreation projects at Arizona State Parks. Eligible Activities Eligible activities for both programs are outdoor recreation and open space. Projects include, but are not limited to: park development (e.g., playground equipment, lighting, picnic facilities, ballfields, ramadas, sports facilities, restrooms and other facilities deemed appropriate or eligible by federal and state guidelines) and land acquisition to serve future outdoor recreation and/or open space. Matching Requirement Both LRSP and LWCF grants are awarded on a 50/50 match where the participant provides at least 50% of the project cost and the grant provides the other 50%. Surcharge Each successful LWCF grant recipient is required to pay a “non-project” surcharge to ASP. Revenue from surcharge payments is used to administer awarded grants and to assist in the development of the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The surcharge is currently set at 10% of the grant award and is non-reimbursable. Application Evaluation and Approval Complete LRSP/LWCF applications are evaluated by State Parks staff, reviewed by AORCC, and subsequently approved by the State Parks Board. The National Park Service approves LWCF applications. Distribution of Funds AORCC makes funding recommendations to the State Parks Board for final action and distribution of funding through participant agreements. Application Deadline Complete LRSP/LWCF applications must be received by Arizona State Parks no later than 5:00 P.M. on the last working day in February. State Contact Contact Arizona State Park, Grants Section, at (602) 542-7129 for further information. 56 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Open Project Selection Process Table 12. Open Project Selection Process Recurring Funding Cycle LAST WORKING DAY IN FEBRUARY– Application must be received by State Parks by 5:00 p.m. MARCH/MAY – On-site inspections of proposed LRSP/LWCF projects by State Parks staff. JUNE – Project requests presented to AORCC. JULY/AUGUST – LRSP/LWCF applications rated by review team. AUGUST – Staff funding recommendations submitted to AORCC for consideration. SEPTEMBER – Recommendations submitted to the Arizona State Parks Board for final action. FOLLOWING BOARD ACTION - Participant agreements executed for approved projects and notice to proceed given. If Land and Water Conservation Funds become available, the project applications will be submitted to NPS following ASPB approval. Table 13. FY 2002 LRSP/LWCF Rating Criteria Grant Rating Criteria Summary Points Section I. Local Criteria 1. Comprehensive Planning 2. Public Involvement 3. Project-Specific Planning 10 20 20 Subtotal Section II. Project Design 4. New Opportunities 5. Conservation and Low-Maintenance Features 6. Partnerships/Donations 7. Under-Served Areas 50 15 13 7 5 Maximum Possible Section III. Administrative Compliance 8. Administrative Performance 9. Post-Completion Compliance 10. Workshop Attendance 40 4 4 2 Subtotal TOTAL POINTS 57 10 100 2003 SCORP-Open Project Selection Process Arizona State Parks FY 2002 LRSP Heritage Fund Rating Criteria Section I. Local Criteria Total of 50 points possible for this section This section measures the local need and support for the project, several aspects of project planning and issues related to public/ community involvement and support. Applicants should develop proposals that meet the high priority needs of local recreation users. The assessment of these needs should be based upon coordinated, long-range planning and public involvement efforts as well as site-specific plans. The explanation and documentation must demonstrate that the proposed project is based upon conscientious planning and decision-making processes. Points will be awarded based on how well the project is described and documented for each of the levels of planning and public involvement. An individual response must be provided for each of the criteria. Tell us why this project is a priority for you now by explaining and documenting each of the following: 1. Comprehensive Planning 0 to 10 points Long-range comprehensive planning efforts of a general nature that address outdoor recreation and open space needs. Up to five points may be awarded based on the appropriateness of the planning process and how it is described. Up to five points may be awarded for providing thorough documentation that is clearly referenced in the narrative. 2. Public Involvement 0 to 20 points Public involvement efforts that focus specifically on the needs, priority and public support for outdoor recreation and open space. Points are awarded based on the description of the need for this type of activity as expressed by the public, the priority of this type of activity for the applicant based on public involvement in the planning process and the degree of public support for the comprehensive plan. Points are awarded for documentation that supports the above descriptions if the documentation is provided and clearly referenced in the narrative. 58 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Open Project Selection Process 3. Project-Specific Planning 0 to 20 points Project-specific planning efforts that show the need, priority and public support for this particular project. Points are awarded based on the description of the need for this project as expressed by the applicant and the public, the priority of this project for the applicant and the degree of public support specific to this project. Points are awarded for documentation that supports the above descriptions if the documentation is provided and clearly referenced in the narrative. Often different components of the same document or plan provide answers to support more than one of the above questions. The same document can be used to answer each of these questions. Applicants providing documentation for both planning and public involvement will receive more points. The extent of planning and public involvement should be commensurate with the size of the project. Documentation must be clearly identified as to its relationship to this project. It must be referenced to the specific information appropriate to each response. You must provide the specific pages of the document(s) you referenced above that directly relate to your answers to receive points for documentation. Evidence of a planning/public involvement process might include one or more of the following documents: • an adopted comprehensive local plan or recreation master plan which supports the proposed project • an approved long-range comprehensive land use/management plan which supports the proposed project • documentation of the completed NEPA process (projects involving federal monies/ lands) • regional or statewide plans (i.e., State or regional park plans) in support of the proposed project • site or project-specific plan • notes/minutes and decisions from internal agency or interagency meetings that directly relate to the proposed project (show when, where, what was discussed/ decided, and who attended) • a bond action which supports the proposed project • public involvement research tools such as needs assessments, statistically valid surveys, questionnaires, and focus groups which support the proposed project • documented approval of the proposed project (such as citizen’s advisory committee, city or town council, the tribal council or board of supervisors decisions) • documented local support of the proposed project (such as informal survey results, letters of support, citizens speaking at public meetings, citizen petitions, etc.) 59 2003 SCORP-Open Project Selection Process Arizona State Parks • documentation of any public involvement activities with the proposed project (such as public meeting notices/agendas, attendance rosters, and/or minutes of public meetings, special events, volunteer projects) • public involvement and project support documented by local media (such as newspaper articles) • documented organizational support of the proposed project (show that organizations have been contacted, involved and endorsed the project) • an adopted capital improvement budget in support of the proposed project expenditures • a document specifying your community’s park service standards Section II. Project Design Total of 40 points possible for this section 4. New Opportunities 0, 5, 10, or 15 points Explain how the scope of work for this project is providing a new opportunity in your community. A new opportunity is defined as the acquisition of at least 1 acre of land and/or development of a facility that has never been available to the public for outdoor recreation at this location. A new opportunity may also include expansion of an existing facility to include new types of users. If the new opportunity involves development or expansion, information must be provided explaining what was previously and what is currently located at this site in order to establish that this is a new opportunity. For both acquisition and development projects, explain which scope items and their associated costs meet the new opportunity definition and why. A response to this question must clearly describe, and if necessary, document how the new opportunity definition is met. Facilities will not automatically be classified as new opportunities. 15 points will be awarded if 51-100% of the total project costs are for new opportunities. 10 points will be awarded if 26-50% of the total project costs are for new opportunities. 5 points will be awarded if 10-25% of the total project costs are for new opportunities. 0 points will be awarded if less than 10% of the total project costs are for new opportunities. Scope items and their associated costs must be listed and adequately described as new opportunities in order to receive points. 60 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Open Project Selection Process 5. Energy and Resource Conservation and Low-Maintenance Features 0, 5, 8 or 13 points Describe energy and resource conservation efforts and/or low-maintenance features on items included in the scope of work for this project. Examples might include water conservation, energy efficiency, waterless or low water restrooms, drip irrigation, xeriscaping, effluent recycling, revegetation with native plants with reduced need for irrigation, solar energy applications, vandal resistant surfaces, anti-theft measures and surfaces that do not require regular painting. Explain which scope items meet the energy and resource conservation and/or low-maintenance definition and how, and their associated costs. Land acquisition alone will not receive points for this question. 13 points will be awarded to projects incorporating energy and resource conservation and/or low-maintenance features into 51-100% of the total development costs. 8 points will be awarded to projects incorporating energy and resource conservation and/or low-maintenance features into 26-50% of the total development costs. 5 points will be awarded to projects incorporating energy and resource conservation and/or low-maintenance features into 10-25% of the total development costs. 0 points will be awarded to projects incorporating energy and resource conservation and/or low-maintenance features into less than 10% of the total development costs. If the scope items and their associated costs are not listed in the narrative, points will not be awarded. 6. Partnerships/Donations 0, 3, or 7 points Describe tangible and intangible (in-kind) contributions you have received for the scope of work of this project. Include letters of commitment/partnership to verify the contribution. Be sure to describe the contribution as it relates to the scope of work and the associated value of the contributions. Tangible contributions include cash donations, material donations, and equipment donations. Intangible (in-kind) contributions are labor donations. To calculate the value of labor donations, multiply the number of hours which will be worked by the minimum wage. If the donation is for skilled labor which requires specialized training or licensing, use the rate which would have been paid if the services were not donated. Examples of skilled labor include electricians, engineers and plumbers. 61 2003 SCORP-Open Project Selection Process Arizona State Parks 7 points will be awarded to those projects where 51-100% of the applicant match is made possible through partnerships and/or donations. 3 points will be awarded to those projects where 25-50% of the applicant match is made possible through partnerships and/or donations. 0 points will be awarded to those projects with less than 25% of the applicant match made possible through partnerships and/or donations. If the scope items and the associated value of the donations are not listed, points will not be awarded. 7. Under-Served Areas 0 to 5 points Is this area under-served for parks and recreation opportunities? How do you know? Provide information that helps identify why this project meets a critical need in your community and the impact of not funding the project on the community. Up to 5 points will be awarded based on the level of need expressed in this proposal and the impact of not funding the project on the community. Section III. Administrative Compliance Total of 10 points possible for this section This section will be completed by staff based on the applicant’s past history with Arizona State Parks grant programs. 8. Administrative Performance 0 to 4 points This category is for applicants who have had an LRSP grant in the past 5 years. Up to 2 points will be awarded based on the timely submission of quarterly reports. Up to 2 points will be awarded based on completion of the project within the original (2 or 3year) project period. If the applicant has not had any LRSP grants in the past 5 years, all 4 points will be awarded. 9. Post-Completion Compliance 0 to 4 points This category is for applicants who have a closed LRSP project in which the Term of Public Use is still active. For facilities (real property) the Term of Public Use is 25 years; for acquired land it is 99 years. Points will be awarded on a scale of 0-4 according to the participant’s compliance with the post-completion self-certification process. If the applicant does not have any projects that require compliance with the post-completion self-certification process, all 4 points will be awarded. 10. Workshop Attendance 0 or 2 points All applicants are encouraged to attend an annual grant workshop. Applicants represented at an LRSP workshop for this grant cycle will receive 2 points. 62 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Other Statewide Resource Plans and Studies ARIZONA TRAILS 2000: State Motorized and Nonmotorized Trails Plan Summary This plan includes both motorized and nonmotorized trail information, public involvement results and recommendations. The plan was prepared by Arizona State Parks as required by state legislation (State Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Recreation Plan, A.R.S. § 41-511.04 and State Trails Plan, § 41-511.22). The plan’s purpose is to provide information and recommendations to guide Arizona State Parks and other agencies in Arizona in their management of motorized and nonmotorized trail resources, and specifically to guide the distribution and expenditure of the Arizona Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Fund (A.R.S. § 28-1176), Arizona Heritage Fund trails component (A.R.S. § 41-503), and Federal Recreational Trails Program (23 U.S.C. 206). The entire plan is available on State Parks’ website www.azstateparks.com. Top 5 Recommendations—State OHV Recreation Plan 1. Preserve Existing Trails and OHV Areas 2. Renovate Eroded or Deteriorated Trails 3. Protect Access to Trails and OHV Areas 4. Promote Trail Etiquette and Environmental Ethics 5. Plan for and Develop New OHV Opportunities Top 5 Recommendations— State Nonmotorized Trails Plan 1. Renovate Eroded or Deteriorated Trails 2. 3. 4. 5. Keep Existing Trails Clean and Clear Promote Trail Etiquette and Environmental Ethics Protect Access to Trails Incorporate Trails into Local and Regional Planning 63 2003 SCORP-Other Statewide Resource Plans and Studies Arizona State Parks Arizona Historic Preservation Plan: 2000 Update Summary The Arizona Historic Preservation Plan provides the historic preservation community throughout Arizona a set of policy guidelines that reflect a consensus as to the state of cultural resource management and the public’s perspective on historic preservation issues. The Plan is used in all State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and related agencies’ programs in Arizona and is implemented on a daily basis through a specific and annually updated action plan. The 2000 Update of the Plan reviews 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 priority goals identified in the Arizona Historic Preservation Plan 2000 Update are: Historic Preservation Priority Goals 1. Better Resource Management 2. Effective Information Management 3. Maximizing Funding 4. Partnerships in Planning 5. Proactive Communities 6. Informed Supportive Public 7. Informed Supportive Policy-Makers 8. Informed Trained Professionals Arizona Watercraft Survey Summary The Arizona Watercraft Survey is the mechanism which determines the amount of gasoline tax to be allocated to the State Lake Improvement Fund (SLIF). The SLIF provides grant dollars to eligible applicants for improvements on Arizona’s lakes and rivers where boating is allowed, utilizing the tax revenue (percentages of the motor fuel tax and watercraft license fees) generated by boaters. Established in 1960, the program has evolved from a relatively small program funding a few thousand dollars worth of boating improvement projects at Arizona’s lakes each year to the multi-million dollar program it is today. 64 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Other Statewide Resource Plans and Studies The funding percentage for SLIF is derived from the results from the Arizona Watercraft Survey conducted every three years. The survey is conducted by the Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona Game and Fish Department and Arizona State Parks. Based on the 2000 Arizona Watercraft Survey gasoline tax percentage attributable to watercraft usage overall SLIF revenues for FY 2002 are estimated at $10 million. Approximately 60% of the annual SLIF revenues are usually available for the competitive grants program. The fuel consumption data is collected to determine the allocation of motor vehicle fuel tax to the SLIF. The information gathered on funding priorities and recreational watercraft usage patterns on Arizona’s lakes and rivers is necessary, in part, to determine the distribution of SLIF revenues to eligible grant applicants. The 2003 Arizona Watercraft Survey currently being conducted parallels the methodology used for the 1994, 1997 and 2000 studies. National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan Summary The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for preparing the National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan (NWPCP). The NWPCP provides a planning framework, criteria and guidance to assist agencies in identifying the types and locations of priority wetlands warranting consideration for state and federal acquisition and protection in accordance with Section 303 of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986. Section 303 amends the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act to authorize wetlands specifically as suitable replacement for LWCF lands slated for conversion to other uses. The NWPCP applies only to wetlands that would be acquired by Federal agencies and States using LWCF appropriations. The NWPCP was printed by the USFWS in 1989 and updated in 1991. Copies are available from the Service Publications Unit (Region 8) located in Arlington, Virginia (call USFWS, 703-358-2161). Regional USFWS Offices are responsible for maintaining a Regional Wetlands Concept Plan, in coordination with State fish and wildlife agencies and other State and Federal agencies, that includes lists of wetland sites warranting priority for acquisition. Arizona falls under the USFWS Region 2 office. For information regarding the Region 2 Regional Wetland Concept Plan published in 1991, contact David Dall, Regional Wetlands Coordinator, USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103. 65 2003 SCORP-Other Statewide Resource Plans and Studies Arizona State Parks Arizona’s Wetland Priorities In Arizona, all occurring wetland types are naturally scarce. Because the state’s wetlands are believed to have been generally attenuated in the last 140 years, and the process may be continuing, all wetland types are considered eligible for acquisition or other protection. Under the LWCF program, existing facilities acquired or developed with LWCF monies must be replaced if converted to nonrecreational uses. In choosing acceptable replacement sites, wetlands should be ranked for acquisitions. After determining that wetlands will be acquired or converted under Section 6(f) of the LWCF program, the priorities identified in this plan should take precedence for determining the best sites. The wetlands acquisition priorities listed in this plan represent no change from those appearing in the 1988 and 1994 Wetlands Addendum to the SCORPs. These priorities are based on NPS guidelines and the methods outlined in the NWPCP. Acquisition priorities for general wetland types in Arizona were determined by consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Arizona Game and Fish Department and were prioritized in relation to the nation’s priority listings in the NWPCP (Table 14). Priority Consideration will be given to the following (all are weighted equally): 1. Wetland types least protected by regulation or preservation (public or private). 2. Wetland types that have been destroyed, altered or degraded within the state. 3. Regions within the state with the least number of wetlands protected by regulation or preservation (public or private). 4. Wetland sites subject to identifiable threat of loss or degradation. 5. Wetland sites with diverse functions and values and/or high or special values for specific wetlands. 6. Wetland sites that are contiguous to protected areas or public land, or provide corridors, or enhance the functions and values of adjacent wetlands. 66 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Other Statewide Resource Plans and Studies Table 14. Priority Wetland Types Decreasing NWPCP Palustrine emergent Palustrine forested Palustrine scrub/shrub Estuarine intertidal emergent Estuarine intertidal forested Estuarine intertidal scrub/shrub Marine intertidal Stable Estuarine intertidal non-vegetated Estuarine subtidal Lacustrine Increasing Palustrine open water Palustrine unconsolidated shore Palustrine non-vegetated Arizona Palustrine emergent Palustrine forested Upper Riparian Lower Riparian Palustrine scrub/shrub Upper Riparian Lower Riparian *Palustrine open water *Lacustrine Riverine *Naturally occurring wetland types Growing Smarter Planning The Growing Smarter Act, passed by voters in 1998, consists of comprehensive municipal, county and State Land Department land use planning and zoning reforms, providing for the acquisition and preservation of open spaces and establishing a program for continuing study and consideration of pertinent issues relating to public land use policies. In addition to the existing planning requirements (which include a recreation component), the Growing Smarter Act requires that municipalities also address the following elements: land use, circulation/transportation, open space, growth area, environmental planning, cost of development and water resources. Arizona State Parks is responsible for administering the Land Conservation Fund, making matching grants which assists state sub-divisions and certain non-profit organizations in purchasing State Trust land which has been reclassified for conservation. The fund receives an annual appropriation of $20 million from the State General Fund for eleven years. If land is purchased with Growing Smarter funds, the land must remain as open space in perpetuity. 67 2003 SCORP-Appendices Grant Recipient Arizona State Parks Project Title Appendix A. Grant County Year Award List of Arizona LWCF Grant Awards Federal Fiscal Years 1965-2001 Appendix B. Total Project Cost 2003 SCORP Telephone Survey 68 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Appendices Grant Recipient Project Title Grant County Award Total Grant Recipient Project Title Grant County Year Award Total Project Cost Apache County Courts Lyman Lake State Park Eager Town Park Round Valley Recreaton Complex Springerville Town Park Springerville Lighting Project Springerville Park Improvements Apache County Ball Park Development Of City Park St. Johns Pool Expansion St. Johns Park Land Acq. St. Johns Handball Courts Park Improvements St. Johns Fairground Improvements Baseball Field Development St. Johns Park Ramada Airport Park Restrooms/Ramadas 1980 1967 1973 1985 1973 1980 1983 1974 1976 1979 1979 1981 1984 1985 1986 1986 1989 Apache Apache Apache Apache Apache Apache Apache Apache Apache Apache Apache Apache Apache Apache Apache Apache Apache $84,159 $6,616 $5,000 $52,000 $10,000 $18,869 $18,108 $42,872 $100,981 $125,000 $15,000 $18,200 $26,350 $27,526 $35,200 $10,000 $25,860 $168,318 $13,232 $10,000 $104,000 $20,000 $37,739 $36,217 $85,745 $201,962 $250,000 $30,000 $36,400 $52,700 $55,053 $70,400 $20,000 $51,720 Benson Athletic Field Park & Picnic Expansion Lions Park Development Bisbee Municipal Swimming Pool 8th St. Park Swimming Pool Veterans Memorial Tennis Courts Vet. Memorial Park Baseball Field 15th Street Park Little League Base Playground Equipment Construct Handball/Racquetball Courts Softball Field Development Phase I Copperking Baseball Field Lighting Veterans Park Tennis Courts Relighting Veteran’s Park Softball Relighting Termite Field Lighting Improvement 15th Street Softball Field Lighting Huachuca City Tennis Courts Veterans Memorial Park Veterans Memorial Park Bella Vista Neighborhood Park Veterans Memorial Park Baseball Field Lighting Civic Center Complex Ballfields Sierra Vista Park Acqusition Little League/Multi-Purpose Fields New City Park Willcox Rec Complex Willcox Lighted Ballfield Development Quail Drive Sports Park Improvements 1978 1979 1991 1967 1976 1978 1978 1979 1980 1980 1980 1980 1983 1983 1985 1986 1978 1968 1971 1973 1973 1980 1983 1985 1985 1967 1966 1978 2000 Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise Cochise $7,768 $6,433 $68,000 $47,500 $160,000 $54,028 $14,967 $13,673 $2,499 $25,000 $6,000 $63,276 $3,194 $7,000 $5,500 $20,934 $14,638 $88,501 $32,832 $3,520 $31,727 $41,418 $34,028 $71,875 $106,600 $5,000 $100,000 $36,957 $109,361 $15,537 $12,867 $136,000 $95,000 $320,000 $108,057 $29,934 $27,347 $4,999 $50,000 $12,000 $126,552 $6,388 $14,000 $11,000 $41,868 $29,276 $177,002 $65,664 $7,041 $63,454 $82,837 $68,057 $143,750 $213,200 $10,000 $200,000 $73,915 $218,722 Project Title ant County Award Total Appendix A. List of Arizona LWCF GrantsYG erFederal Fiscal Years 1965-2002 ar Project Cost Apache County Apache County Arizona State Parks Eagar Eagar Springerville Springerville Springerville St. Johns St. Johns St. Johns St. Johns St. Johns St. Johns St. Johns St. Johns St. Johns St. Johns Cochise County Benson Benson Benson Bisbee Douglas Douglas Douglas Douglas Douglas Douglas Douglas Douglas Douglas Douglas Douglas Douglas Huachuca City Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Tombstone Willcox Willcox Willcox 69 2003 SCORP-Appendices Grant Recipient Arizona State Parks Project Title Grant County Year Coconino County AZ Game & Fish Dep Willow Springs Lake 1966 Arizona State Parks Slide Rock Picnic Improvements 1989 Arizona State Parks Slide Rock Water & Waste Treatment 1992 Flagstaff Municipal Artificial Ice Rink 1970 Flagstaff Thorpe City Softball Lighting 1971 Flagstaff Thorpe Park Ramada & Bleachers Proj 1972 Flagstaff Three Parks Project 1972 Flagstaff Pine Park Manor 1972 Flagstaff Pine Park Manor 1973 Flagstaff Bushmaster Park Development 1975 Flagstaff Flagstaff Tennis/Handball Cts. 1978 Flagstaff Thorpe Park Playground Improvement 1979 Flagstaff Turquoise Tennis Court Renovation 1979 Flagstaff Tennis Court Lighting 1979 Flagstaff Tennis Courts - Cheshire Park 1979 Flagstaff Fox Glen Recreation Complex 1980 Flagstaff Ponderosa Park 1981 Flagstaff Bicycle Trail Development 1981 Flagstaff Thorpe Park Ballfield 1984 Flagstaff Foxglen Park Multi-Use Field 1987 Flagstaff Flagstaff Trail System 1990 Flagstaff Flagstaff Urban Trails System/Birch to B 1991 Flagstaff East Flagstaff Youth Sports Complex 1993 Fredonia Fredonia Swimming Pool Repair 1978 Fredonia Fredonia Double Tennis Courts 1981 Fredonia Fredonia Little League Field Dev. 1985 Page Aspen Tennis Center, Golliard Park 1979 Williams Ballpark Improvement Project 1977 Williams Williams Tennis Lighting 1979 Williams Williams City Park Multiple Use Faci 1985 Gila County AZ Game & Fish Dep Canyon Creek Fish Hatchery 1968 AZ Game & Fish Dep Tonto Creek Fish Hatchery Renovation 1985 AZ State Parks Tonto Natural Bridge State Park 2002 Globe Globe/Miami Rec. Dev. Phase I 1977 Globe Community Park Development 1984 Globe Globe Botanical Park 1991 Hayden Hastings Park & G. C. Dev. 1978 Miami Hostetler Pool Dev 1970 Miami Swimming Pool Renovation 1983 Miami Miami Basketball Court 1993 Payson Rumsey Park Acq/Dev 1976 Payson Payson Municipal Pool 1985 Graham County Arizona State Parks Roper Lake S. P. - Dankworth Unit 1978 Graham County Graham County Reg. Park 1976 Graham County Graham Co. MU Recreation Field 1980 Graham County Open Space Activity Area 1984 Graham County Pueblo Viejo Park 1990 Safford Mt. Graham Golf Course 1967 Safford Mt. Graham Golf Course Expansion 1972 70 Award Total Project Cost Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino Coconino $154,825 $72,000 $63,000 $99,000 $28,982 $9,114 $7,000 $39,922 $40,000 $68,500 $63,104 $12,000 $29,800 $23,092 $29,240 $122,097 $34,340 $3,466 $9,976 $48,719 $47,928 $47,600 $36,744 $40,000 $22,000 $11,413 $97,500 $8,174 $2,175 $27,000 $309,650 $144,000 $126,000 $198,000 $57,964 $18,228 $14,000 $79,845 $80,000 $137,000 $126,208 $24,000 $59,600 $46,184 $58,480 $244,194 $68,681 $6,933 $19,953 $97,438 $95,856 $95,200 $73,488 $80,000 $44,000 $22,827 $195,000 $16,348 $4,350 $54,000 Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila Gila $266,800 $212,200 $791,171 $113,994 $44,874 $69,736 $27,797 $10,440 $22,084 $23,343 $191,647 $200,000 $533,600 $424,400 $1,582,342 $227,988 $89,748 $139,472 $55,594 $20,880 $44,169 $46,687 $383,295 $400,000 Graham Graham Graham Graham Graham Graham Graham $72,562 $49,600 $124,532 $17,500 $34,617 $57,000 $89,700 $145,125 $99,201 $249,064 $35,000 $69,234 $114,000 $179,400 Arizona State Parks Grant Recipient 2003 SCORP-Appendices Project Title Grant County Year Safford Glenn Meadows Park 1980 Safford Dry Lake Park Development 1986 Safford Multi-Use Path Development 2000 Greenlee County Duncan Duncan Community Park 1990 Greenlee County Morenci Town Park A&D 1989 La Paz County Arizona State Parks Red Rock Unit 1967 Arizona State Parks Buckskin Mountain State Park 1970 Arizona State Parks Buckskin Point Unit 1971 Arizona State Parks Restrooms & Cabanas Buckskin Pt. 1972 La Paz County La Paz County Park 1973 Parker Community Park 1968 Parker Parker Community Park Phase II 1969 Parker Parker Community Park-Phase III 1970 Parker Parker Western Park 1973 Parker Swimming Pool 1976 Parker Town Park Ballfield Relighting 1983 Maricopa County AZ Game & Fish Dep Black Canyon Shooting Range 1967 AZ Game & Fish Dep Black Canyon Shooting Range 1968 Arizona State Parks State Outdoor Recreation Plan 1965 Arizona State Parks Outdoor Rec. Plan Maintenance 1969 Arizona State Parks Project Agreement Cancelled 1971 Arizona State Parks Arizona SCORP Project No. 2 1971 Arizona State Parks Project Agreement Cancelled 1972 Arizona State Parks Arizonia State Park Plans 1973 Arizona State Parks Statewide Bicycle & Foot Pathway 1973 Arizona State Parks Phoenix Metro Area Bikeway Dev. 1975 Arizona State Parks Arizona Scorp Update 1976 Arizona State Parks SCORP Planning Process, Addendum I 1979 Arizona State Parks 1989 Arizona Scorp 1986 Arizona State Parks 1994 Arizona SCORP 1991 Avondale Mountainview Park Development 1970 Avondale Avondale Park Acq. & Dev. 1979 Avondale Cashion Park Lighting & Rec Equip 1979 Avondale Coldwater Park Lighting & Restroom Dev 1991 Chandler Armstrong Memorial Park Dev. 1973 Chandler Arrowhead Meadows Park Dev. 1973 Chandler Navarette Park Development 1973 Chandler Knox Acquisition 1974 Chandler Folley Memorial Park Development 1975 Chandler Chandler Tennis Courts 1975 Chandler Knox Property, Phase I Dev. 1976 Chandler E. Neighborhood Park Phase I 1976 Chandler Arrowhead Pool 1978 Chandler Oakland Tennis Courts 1978 Chandler Folley Park Ballfield Lighting 1979 Chandler Chandler Acquisition and Development 1980 Chandler Hoopes Park Phase I 1983 Chandler Pima Park Phase II 1983 Chandler Shawnee Park Phase I 1983 71 Award Total Project Cost Graham Graham Graham $55,165 $10,772 $62,552 $110,330 $21,544 $125,104 Greenlee Greenlee $20,000 $75,000 $40,000 $150,000 Paz Paz Paz Paz Paz Paz Paz Paz Paz Paz Paz $98,991 $10,693 $17,548 $39,792 $21,437 $22,609 $10,000 $16,442 $7,500 $255,348 $13,944 $197,982 $21,387 $35,096 $79,584 $42,874 $45,218 $20,000 $32,884 $15,000 $510,696 $27,888 Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa $27,658 $111,576 $33,349 $12,850 $4,235 $48,979 $9,900 $20,000 $31,556 $185,187 $84,780 $200,000 $100,000 $135,000 $8,745 $50,578 $30,000 $55,355 $2,200 $15,817 $2,282 $25,000 $125,000 $22,500 $95,340 $25,000 $251,969 $11,415 $65,527 $147,400 $42,900 $60,000 $81,750 $55,316 $223,153 $66,699 $25,700 $8,470 $97,958 $19,800 $40,000 $63,113 $370,374 $169,560 $400,000 $200,000 $270,000 $17,490 $101,157 $60,000 $110,710 $4,400 $31,634 $4,565 $50,000 $250,000 $45,000 $190,681 $50,000 $503,939 $22,830 $131,054 $294,800 $85,800 $120,000 $163,500 La La La La La La La La La La La 2003 SCORP-Appendices Arizona State Parks Grant Recipient Project Title Grant County Year Award Chandler Chandler El Mirage Fountain Hills Gila Bend Gila Bend Gilbert Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Glendale Goodyear Goodyear Goodyear Goodyear Guadalupe Guadalupe Guadalupe Maricopa County Maricopa County Maricopa County Maricopa County Maricopa County Maricopa County Maricopa County Maricopa County Maricopa County Maricopa County Maricopa County Maricopa County Maricopa County Maricopa County Maricopa County Maricopa County Chandler Recreation Lighting Chandler Retention Parks Improvement El Mirage Park Renovation Development of Fountain Park: Phase II Community Tennis Courts Parks Improvement Lindsey Road Regional Park Thunderbird Park Water System Rose Lane & O’Neil Parks Thunderbird Rec. Area Glendale Recreation Facilities Glendale-Apollo Swimming Pool Thunderbird Development Phase I Ballfield Lighting At Apollo H.S. Land Acquisition For Park Development Glendale Union H.S. Lighting Tierra Buena Court Lighting Glendale Park Development Kachina School Lighting Bicentennial School Lighting Sands Park Development Glendale H.S. Swim Pool & Bathhouse Relamping Rose Lane & O’Neil Parks Cactus High School Swimming Pool Cholla Park Recreation Facilities Development Of Rose Lane Park Heritage School Ballfield Lights Development Of Tierra Buena Park Sahuaro Ranch Park Development Goodyear Tennis Court Development Development Of Goodyear Parks Goodyear Park Development Tennis Lighting Loma Linda Park Community Park Development Biehn Colony Ballfield Lighting Biehn Colony Park Improvements Sun Circle Trail Lake Pleasant Development Lake Pleasant Development II Casey Abbott Rec. Area White Tank Mountain Regional Park McDowell Mountain Regional Park Buckeye Hills Recreation Area Lake Pleasant Regional Park Phase 4 White Tank Mountain Regional Park Buckeye Hills Rec Area Usery Mountain Recreation Area Usery Mountain Rec. Area Campground Casey Abbott Dev, Phase II McDowell Mtn. Park II Casey Abbott Dev. White Tank Min. Park, III 1985 1985 1988 2001 1978 1979 1987 1967 1968 1970 1971 1973 1974 1974 1975 1976 1977 1977 1977 1977 1978 1978 1979 1979 1980 1981 1981 1981 1983 1975 1976 1977 1979 1976 1979 1989 1966 1967 1968 1970 1971 1971 1971 1972 1972 1972 1973 1974 1976 1977 1977 1978 $4,500 $27,450 $7,153 $237,307 $13,549 $14,498 $75,000 $31,000 $7,312 $50,900 $83,984 $111,723 $98,983 $34,961 $385,156 $24,346 $3,000 $229,710 $9,438 $11,257 $61,904 $230,386 $23,582 $233,750 $95,947 $43,130 $14,000 $78,852 $303,821 $13,374 $14,000 $10,000 $4,489 $37,134 $34,730 $6,250 $21,627 $31,500 $144,000 $65,983 $14,990 $48,932 $50,000 $56,976 $184,740 $3,626 $36,000 $53,216 $156,239 $199,245 $142,317 $278,766 72 Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Total Project Cost $9,000 $54,900 $14,307 $1,496,650 $27,098 $28,996 $150,000 $62,000 $14,624 $101,800 $167,968 $223,446 $197,966 $69,922 $770,312 $48,693 $6,000 $459,421 $18,876 $22,514 $123,808 $460,772 $47,165 $467,500 $191,894 $86,261 $28,000 $157,705 $607,642 $26,749 $28,000 $20,000 $8,979 $74,269 $69,460 $12,500 $43,254 $63,000 $288,000 $131,966 $29,980 $97,865 $100,000 $113,953 $369,481 $7,253 $72,000 $106,432 $312,478 $398,491 $284,634 $557,532 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Appendices Grant Recipient Project Title Grant County Year Award Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Peoria Peoria Peoria Casey Abbott Horse Arena Ballfields, Lighting At Laveen School Aguila Community Park, Phase I Recreation Lighting Pendergast Sch Laveen Recreational Facilities Agua Fria H.S Recreation Improvements Theme Playground Development Dunivant Park III Kino Swimming Pool Reed Park Fitch Park Fitch Park Phase II Reed Park Phase II Park Site Southwest Area Of Mesa Ballfield Lighting And Dev Palo Verde Park Dev Phase I Playground Equipment At Mesa Parks Evergreen Park Development Dev. At Four Mesa Parks Kleinman Park Fremont Pool Farnsworth Property Park Site S. Greenfield Rd. Park Park Of The Canals Poston Junior High School Lighting S. W. Park Dev. Jefferson Park Site Development Of Northwest Park Dev. Of Dobson Ranch Park Neighborhood Parks Improvement Kleinman Park Development Dobson Ranch Park Developmnent Neighborhood Park Development Phase Carriage Lane Park Development Phase I Greenfield Park Development, Phase I Riverview Park Development Phase II Sherwood Manor Park Dev. Phase I Riverview Park Dev. - Phase III Mountain View Park Development Ph I Greenfield Park/Dev. Phase III Emerald Park Development Phase I Carriage Lane Park Dev. Phase III Dobson Ranch Park Improvements Sherwood Park Phase III Kingsborough Park Phase III Pioneer Park Park Of The Canals III Fitch Park Rehabilitation Augusta Ranch Park Development Peoria Pk Acq. & Dev. Peoria Parks Dev. Kiwanis Park 1978 1979 1979 1979 1980 1980 1986 1986 1968 1970 1970 1971 1971 1971 1972 1972 1972 1972 1973 1974 1975 1975 1977 1977 1977 1978 1978 1979 1979 1979 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1980 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1981 1983 1985 1985 1985 1986 1986 2002 1973 1978 1984 $318,933 $62,500 $59,000 $32,725 $64,727 $21,327 $62,179 $41,546 $68,000 $75,453 $76,946 $85,395 $89,168 $66,000 $11,993 $34,060 $6,250 $2,993 $15,809 $53,665 $150,000 $39,690 $25,000 $55,888 $22,000 $50,000 $187,772 $150,000 $100,000 $44,806 $48,697 $139,306 $27,991 $25,000 $75,000 $194,665 $26,000 $54,150 $26,000 $19,690 $27,641 $51,271 $35,615 $27,519 $13,000 $37,750 $27,750 $60,000 $394,439 $22,421 $265,000 $92,500 County County County County County County County County 73 Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Total Project Cost $637,867 $125,000 $118,000 $65,451 $129,454 $42,654 $124,359 $83,093 $136,000 $150,907 $153,893 $170,791 $178,336 $132,000 $23,987 $68,120 $12,500 $5,987 $31,619 $107,331 $300,000 $79,380 $50,000 $111,776 $44,000 $100,000 $375,544 $300,000 $200,000 $89,613 $97,395 $278,613 $55,983 $50,000 $150,000 $389,330 $52,000 $108,300 $52,000 $39,381 $55,282 $102,543 $71,230 $55,039 $26,000 $75,500 $55,500 $120,000 $839,233 $44,842 $530,000 $185,000 2003 SCORP-Appendices Arizona State Parks Grant Recipient Project Title Grant County Year Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix South Mountain Park 1966 Squaw Peak Park 1966 Roeser Road Park 1967 Papago Regional Park 1967 North Mountain Park 1967 Roadrunner Park Development 1967 Cortez Canal Bank Park 1967 Camelback Mountain 1968 Paradise Valley Urban Park 1969 Cortez Park Development 1969 Sueno Park, 43rd Ave & Encanto 1970 La Pradera Park, 39th Ave. & Glendale 1971 G.R. Herberger Pk, 28th St/ Indian Schl 1971 El Reposo Park 1971 Little Canyon Pk, 31st Ave & Missouri 1971 Ma-Ha-Tuak Park, 7th Ave/ McNeil 1971 Desert West Park, 63rd Ave/ Encanto 1971 Palma Pk, 11th Street and Townley 1971 Paradise Valley Park Community Center 1972 Echo Canyon Park Acq. 1972 El Oso Park, 75th Ave & Osborn 1972 Acoma Park, 39th Ave & Acoma 1972 Circle K Pk, 12th St/ S Mountain Ave 1972 Royal Palm Pk, 15th Ave & Butler 1972 Unnamed Pk. In Phoenix Mt. Preserve 1973 Acacia Park, 30th Ave & Hearn 1973 Dev. Of El Oso Pk, 75th Ave & Osborn 1973 Nevitt Park, 44th St. & Vineyard 1973 Cactus Pk Swimming Pool 1973 Cactus Park Development 1973 Sweetwater Park, 40th St./ Tatum 1973 Unnamed Pk Between 32nd & 40th St 1973 Durham Acq. Option 2/ Phx Mtn Prsve. 1974 Meig Acquisition Phoenix Mtn. Preserve 1974 El Reposo Pk-Initial Dev. 1974 Sueno Pk-Initial Dev, 43rd Ave/ Encanto 1974 Acoma Park-Initial Dev, 39 Ave/ Acoma 1974 Ma-Ha-Tuak Initial Dev, 7th Ave/ McNeil 1974 Royal Palm Pk, 15th Ave & Butler 1974 Alvord/Caesar Chavez Lake Develop 1975 Construction Of Tennis Courts-El Reposo 1975 Nuestro Park-Acq/Dev, 8th St/ Pima 1975 Los Olivos Park, 28th St/ Glenrosa 1975 Meig Acq, 4th Option-Phx Mtn Prsve 1975 Paradise Valley Park Gymkhana 1975 Palma Park, 12th St. & Dunlap 1975 Alvord Park/Caesar Chavez Dev Phase II 1976 La Pradera Park 1976 Durham Property Acq.-Phx Mtn Prsve 1977 Sandpiper/Crossed Arrows Pks-Acq. Dev 1977 Westcor Pt.I-Sweetwater/Cholla Cove Pk 1978 Phoenix Mountain Preserve Acq. 1978 74 Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Award $28,000 $103,152 $100,961 $105,000 $60,000 $149,000 $62,736 $165,585 $108,133 $135,270 $95,520 $192,135 $239,500 $79,974 $99,000 $20,475 $104,347 $76,250 $3,538 $207,500 $28,100 $38,343 $76,450 $257,500 $137,500 $68,700 $25,187 $36,250 $201,842 $34,575 $47,250 $120,000 $220,613 $47,460 $40,900 $49,400 $13,850 $42,000 $36,400 $261,324 $70,000 $110,000 $87,188 $47,565 $34,532 $19,580 $137,500 $101,225 $195,939 $200,000 $254,487 $344,675 Total Project Cost $56,000 $206,305 $201,923 $210,000 $120,000 $298,000 $125,472 $331,170 $216,266 $270,541 $191,040 $384,270 $479,000 $159,949 $198,000 $40,950 $208,695 $152,500 $7,077 $415,000 $56,200 $76,687 $152,900 $515,000 $275,000 $137,400 $50,375 $72,500 $403,685 $69,150 $94,500 $240,000 $441,226 $94,920 $81,800 $98,800 $27,700 $84,000 $72,800 $522,648 $140,000 $220,000 $174,376 $95,130 $69,065 $39,160 $275,000 $202,450 $391,878 $400,000 $508,974 $689,350 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Appendices Grant Recipient Project Title Grant County Year Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Singer Property Acq/Dev-Conocido Pk 1978 Durham Property Acq. Phx Mtn Preserve 1978 Parcel 65 Acq. Phoenix Mtn. Preserve 1979 Sweetwater/Cholla Cove Pks-Acq/ Dev II 1979 Paradise Valley Park Dev. Phase 6 1979 Parcel 57 Acq. Phoenix Mtn. Preserves 1979 G.R. Herberger Pk, 56th St/ Indian Schl 1979 Edison Park Development 1979 Sandpiper/Crossed Arrows Pk-61/Acoma1980 Hoelzen Land Acq- Nevitt & Hoshoni Pks 1980 Central Park Development 1980 El Reposo Park Continuing Development 1980 Nueve Park Continuing Development 1980 Norton Park Acq, 12th St & Hatcher 1980 Hayden Park Addition 1980 Develop Sueno & Sumida Parks 1981 Alvord Pk & S. Mtn Parcel Acq 1981 Hayden Park Development 1981 Arcadia Park, 56th St & Osborn 1981 Parcel 49 Acq. Phoenix Mtn. Pres. 1981 Sunburst Paradise Pk-47 Av/Paradise Ln 1981 La Pradera Park Development 1983 Encanto Park 1983 Moon Valley Park 1984 Cactus Park 1984 Nevitt Park Continuing Development 1985 Christy Cove Park Development 1985 Desert West Park - Phase I Development 1985 Cave Crk/Rose Mofford Sports Complex 1985 El Reposo Park Restroom 1986 Cholla Cove Park 1986 Solano Park Lighted Ballfield 1987 Hermoso Park Picnic And Play Area 1988 Nueve Park Game Court/Play Area Devel 1988 Lookout Mountain Park Improvements 1989 Buffalo Ridge Park Improvements 1993 63rd Ave. & Garfield Dev. 1995 Scottsdale Community Pool 1966 Scottsdale Short Course Swim Pool 1967 Eldorado Park Urban Campground 1969 Chesnutt Neighborhood Park 1969 Improvement Projects In 4 Parks 1970 Eldorado Lake 1970 Jackrabbit Park 1971 Jackrabbit Park Phase II 1972 Jackrabbit Park Aquatic Center 1972 McCormick Pk. East Dev. 1973 Scottsdale City Bikeways 1973 Chaparral Tennis Lighting 1974 New Urban Parks Dev. Project 1974 Indian Bend Wash Flood Control 1974 75 Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Award $148,050 $274,798 $300,000 $88,712 $148,929 $300,000 $23,357 $26,203 $204,803 $236,749 $9,807 $115,932 $116,000 $100,050 $157,790 $325,000 $210,000 $101,488 $152,205 $106,538 $85,173 $106,000 $125,000 $147,565 $18,000 $59,077 $60,125 $65,000 $140,000 $25,851 $66,750 $32,995 $31,942 $32,403 $45,637 $114,500 $227,500 $25,782 $81,751 $124,595 $19,882 $54,250 $73,875 $102,253 $339,596 $314,053 $100,000 $7,500 $15,000 $229,600 $494,195 Total Project Cost $296,101 $549,596 $600,000 $177,425 $297,859 $600,000 $46,714 $52,406 $409,606 $473,498 $19,614 $231,865 $232,000 $200,100 $315,581 $650,000 $420,000 $202,976 $304,411 $213,076 $170,347 $212,000 $250,000 $295,130 $36,000 $118,155 $120,250 $130,000 $280,000 $51,703 $133,500 $65,990 $63,884 $64,807 $91,274 $229,000 $455,000 $51,564 $163,503 $249,190 $39,764 $108,500 $147,750 $204,506 $679,193 $628,107 $200,000 $15,000 $30,000 $459,200 $988,390 2003 SCORP-Appendices Arizona State Parks Grant Recipient Project Title Grant County Year Award Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Scottsdale Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tempe Tolleson Tolleson Tolleson Tolleson Tolleson Wickenburg Wickenburg Wickenburg Chaparral Park Phase III Scottsdale City Bikeways Phase II Vista Del Camino Spray Pad Scottsdale Alamos Neighborhood Pk/Ac Scottsdale City Bikeways, Phase IV Gainey Ranch Park Tempe Canal Park Escalante Park Tempe Canal Park No 2 Joyce Park Development Meyer Park Development Multi-Purpose Field Lighting Rotary Park Development Cyprus Park Development Selleh Park Development Kiwanis Community Park Acquisition Suggs Nghbrhd Park Acq. (Scudder) Knoell Site Acquisition (Cole Park) Tempe Canal Park Phase III Papago Park Development Phase I Hudson Park Development Selleh Park Development Phase II Prelim Dev. Of Five Neighborhood Pks Kiwanis Pk Dev. Papago Park, Phase II Development Clark Park Swimming Pool Escalante Park Swimming Pool Casa Madre Park (Ehrhardt Park) Tennis Court Improvement Moeur Park Development Neighborhood Park - Carver Road & La Dev. Of Two Neighborhood Parks Handball Court Lighting Multipurpose Athletic Field Dev. General Park Development Kiwanis Pk. Group Picnic & Garden Areas Recreation Facilities Relighting Neighborhood Park Improv. Phase III Neighborhood Park Improv., Phase II Escalante Park Ballfield Improvements Kiwanis Park Ramada McClintock Swimming Pool Renovation Tempe Sports Complex: Phase II Tolleson Jr HS Ballfield Lighting Tolleson Park Dev. Project A Development Of Two Park Sites Ballfield Lighting Tolleson Raquetball/Handball Overhaul To Existing Swimming Pool Constellation Park Development Wellik Park Development-Phase I 1974 1974 1974 1975 1975 1984 1967 1968 1970 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1973 1973 1974 1974 1974 1975 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1980 1980 1981 1985 1985 1986 1989 1994 2002 1977 1979 1983 1986 1989 1973 1979 1991 $32,500 $13,500 $10,000 $90,000 $25,000 $38,075 $50,000 $11,320 $37,523 $8,250 $6,985 $49,770 $5,000 $6,860 $13,000 $382,307 $17,835 $13,083 $10,140 $18,218 $7,811 $7,824 $46,875 $137,500 $49,237 $150,000 $158,694 $64,263 $20,257 $65,612 $55,000 $55,000 $18,203 $225,000 $70,278 $328,500 $17,080 $38,460 $81,630 $11,601 $75,000 $370,000 $500,000 $23,214 $19,372 $42,500 $61,150 $26,337 $18,823 $3,915 $75,000 76 Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Maricopa Total Project Cost $65,000 $27,000 $20,000 $180,000 $50,000 $76,150 $100,000 $22,641 $75,046 $16,500 $13,971 $99,541 $10,000 $13,721 $26,000 $764,614 $35,671 $26,166 $20,281 $36,437 $15,000 $15,649 $93,750 $275,000 $98,475 $300,000 $317,388 $128,527 $40,514 $131,225 $110,000 $110,000 $36,406 $450,000 $140,556 $657,000 $34,161 $76,920 $163,260 $23,203 $150,000 $1,162,200 $1,855,000 $46,428 $38,744 $85,000 $122,300 $52,674 $37,646 $7,830 $150,000 Arizona State Parks Grant Recipient Mohave County Arizona State Parks Arizona State Parks Arizona State Parks Arizona State Parks Arizona State Parks Bullhead City Kingman Kingman Kingman Mohave County Mohave County Navajo County Arizona State Parks Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Holbrook Navajo County Navajo County Navajo County Pinetop-Lakeside Pinetop-Lakeside Pinetop-Lakeside Show Low Show Low Show Low Show Low Show Low Snowflake Snowflake Taylor Taylor Taylor Winslow Winslow Winslow Winslow Winslow Winslow Winslow Pima County Arizona State Parks Oro Valley Oro Valley Oro Valley Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County 2003 SCORP-Appendices Project Title Grant County Year Award Lake Havasu State Park Cattail Cove Development Lake Havasu State Park Day Use Area & Restrooms Campsites & Toilets Nicklause Park Development Kingman Swimming Pool & Bathhouse Kingman Municipal Golf Course Fire Fighter Memorial Park Neal-Butler Ballpark Lights & Water Davis Camp Improvements 1967 1969 1971 1972 1972 1968 1972 1973 1975 1979 1983 Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave Mohave $10,000 $18,867 $51,635 $15,052 $10,750 $31,432 $54,051 $266,580 $79,916 $9,850 $109,495 $20,000 $37,735 $103,271 $30,105 $21,500 $62,864 $108,102 $533,160 $159,832 $19,700 $218,990 Homolovi Ruins State Park Holbrook Swimming Pool Holbrook Tennis Courts Ball Park Lighting & Playground Dev. Development of City School Courts Navajo County Recreation Center Little Painted Desert Park Picnic Fa Heber/Overgaard Park Development Woodland Lake Park Woodland Park Active Recreation Woodland Lake Trail and Access Show Low City Pk Dev. Show Low City Pk Dev. - Phase II Show Low City Park, III David C. Porter Park Baseball Field Show Low H S Ballfield Relighting Snowflake Golf Course Centennial Park Dev. Town Park Development Taylor Town Park Acquisition Taylor Park Project Winslow Bathhouse City of Winslow Hospitality Park Winslow Trail, Ballfield & Courts Centennial Plaza Park Little League Park Sprinkler System Coopertown Mini-Park Multi-use Field Improvements 1993 1977 1978 1979 1980 1980 1981 1983 1984 1987 1990 1973 1974 1978 1983 1988 1977 1978 1976 1990 1993 1966 1979 1980 1981 1981 1982 1986 Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Apache Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo Navajo $62,500 $285,438 $48,815 $49,500 $110,000 $181,857 $10,000 $25,000 $39,000 $43,238 $35,084 $32,953 $29,961 $67,026 $44,842 $25,745 $188,360 $109,305 $38,552 $22,500 $19,520 $15,742 $299,915 $75,000 $12,597 $4,750 $30,198 $20,955 $125,000 $570,876 $97,630 $99,000 $220,000 $363,715 $20,000 $50,000 $78,000 $86,476 $70,169 $65,907 $59,922 $134,052 $89,684 $51,490 $376,720 $218,610 $77,104 $45,000 $39,595 $31,485 $599,830 $150,000 $25,195 $9,500 $60,397 $41,910 Catalina State Park Land Acquisition Dennis Weaver Park Dennis Weaver Park Light MU Fields Dennis Weaver Ajo County Park Marana Park Marana Park Tennis Courts Los Ninos Park Western Hills Park Manzanita Park Dev. 1979 1973 1977 1980 1966 1967 1969 1970 1970 1970 Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima $300,000 $132,425 $66,000 $50,000 $6,051 $22,823 $8,255 $5,182 $31,415 $48,359 $600,000 $264,850 $132,000 $100,000 $12,103 $45,647 $16,511 $10,364 $62,830 $96,719 77 Total Project Cost 2003 SCORP-Appendices Arizona State Parks Grant Recipient Project Title Grant County Year Award Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County Pima County South Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Marana Park Swimming Pool Los Ninos Neighborhood Park Marana Community Park Fort Lowell Archery Range Land Acq. Spanish Trail Bicycle & Hiking Trail Emily Gray School Playground Ajo Neighborhood Park Cross Jr. High School Community Coop Marana Hs Community Recreation Coop Flowing Wells Rec. Coop. Casas Adobes Neighborhood Park Los Ninos Park Continuing Development Anamax Neighborhood Park Ajo Neighborhood Park II Ajo Regional Park, Phase VII Rillito Town Park Reynolds/Manzanita Park Tucson Mountain Park Expansion E.S. “Bud” Walker Neighborhood Park Arthur Pack Softball Complex McDonald District Park Wildwood Neighborhood Park Denny Dunn Neighborhood Park McDonald Park Ballfield Lighting Arthur Pack Ballfield Lighting Phase South Tucson Park Acquisition Mansfield Swim. Pool & Bathhouse Pueblo Garden Bathhouse Addition Tucson Night Lighting Fort Lowell Park Pantano Swimming Pool Palo Verde Park Palo Verde Swimming Pool Mission-Del Norte Park Del Norte Park Improvements Vista Del Pueblo Park Improvement Mirasol Park Improvements Kennedy Park Improvements Palo Verde Park Improvements Rodeo Park Improvements Mission Park Improvements Mansfield Park Improvements Pantano Park Improvements Southwest Neighborhood Park Dev. Northwest Dist. Park Acquisition Northwest District Park Dev. Oury Park Acquisition Ft. Lowell Park Tennis Courts Kennedy Lake Mission Park Baseball Field Lighting Mini Park #5 Development Model Cities Neighborhood Park Dev. 1970 1972 1972 1972 1975 1975 1975 1976 1976 1976 1976 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1978 1979 1980 1980 1980 1981 1981 1983 1983 1972 1966 1966 1966 1967 1967 1967 1967 1967 1970 1970 1970 1970 1970 1970 1970 1970 1970 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1971 1972 1972 $44,657 $90,214 $10,997 $5,000 $150,000 $30,000 $100,942 $10,969 $14,093 $50,650 $18,488 $17,500 $74,809 $29,003 $30,675 $12,738 $42,191 $132,390 $55,000 $71,676 $40,713 $48,079 $55,393 $75,000 $75,000 $14,850 $36,921 $9,467 $30,634 $65,568 $38,709 $14,750 $29,128 $25,986 $15,286 $923 $12,763 $4,495 $945 $11,848 $11,415 $3,781 $12,699 $8,539 $82,032 $70,529 $16,500 $33,401 $57,094 $69,960 $7,150 $14,167 78 Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Total Project Cost $89,314 $180,428 $21,995 $10,000 $300,000 $60,000 $201,884 $21,938 $28,186 $101,301 $36,976 $35,000 $149,619 $58,007 $61,350 $25,476 $84,383 $264,781 $110,000 $143,353 $81,427 $96,159 $110,787 $150,000 $150,000 $29,700 $73,842 $18,934 $61,268 $131,136 $77,418 $29,500 $58,256 $51,973 $30,573 $1,846 $25,526 $8,990 $1,891 $23,696 $22,831 $7,563 $25,398 $17,078 $164,064 $141,059 $33,000 $66,802 $114,188 $139,920 $14,300 $28,334 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP-Appendices Grant Recipient Project Title Grant County Year Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Northeast District Park 1972 Mini Park #4 Development 1972 El Rio Swimming Pool & Misc. Dev. 1972 Del Norte Irrigation 1972 Mini Park 3 Dev 1972 Randolph Tennis & Handball Cts 1972 Prudence Land Acq 1972 Rodeo Irrigation Turf & Trees 1972 Pantano Baseball Field 1972 Santa Rita Softball Field & Lighting 1972 Oury Park Development 1972 Diving Bays At Three Municipal Pools 1972 Tennis Court Lighting Randolph Park 1972 Escalante Pk Swimming Pool 1973 Kennedy Park Swimming Pool 1973 Hearthstone Pk Site Acquisition 1973 Lakeside Park Site Acquisition 1973 Bravo Park Acquisition & Development 1974 Lakeside Park - Phase II Development 1974 Ft. Lowell Ballfield Lighting 1974 NW Dst. Park Lighted Softball Field 1974 Rodeo Pk Softball Field Lighting 1974 Mansfield Park Land Acq. 1974 Casas Del Sol Pk Site Acq. 1974 Randolph Center Pool Bathhouse 1974 Santa Cruz Greenbelt 1975 Tucson H.S. Tennis Court Lighting 1975 Catalina High School Swim Pool 1975 Amphitheater H.S. B-ball/Tennis Lighting 1975 Flowing Wells H.S. Tennis Ct. Lighting 1975 Utterback J.H.S. Multi-Use Ct. Lighting 1975 Doolen JHS Softball Fld/ M-U Ct Lighting 1975 Freedom Pk Devel/ Case Pk Addition 1975 Hearthstone Park Development 1976 Freedom Pk Pool/ Case Pk Addition 1976 Amphitheater H.S. Pool 1976 Sunnyside Park Development 1976 Gridley J.H.S. Multiple-Use Ct. Lighting 1976 Vail J.H.S. Multiple-Use Ct. Lighting 1976 Rincon High School Multiple-Use Court 1976 Oury Park Swimming Pool 1976 Canyon Del Oro High School Coop 1977 Magee Jr. H.S. Playfield Lighting 1977 Santa Rita High School Lighting 1977 Magee Jr HS Multi Use Courts Lighting 1977 Palo Verde HS Multiple Use Lighting 1977 Sahuaro HS M-U Courts Lighting 1977 Catalina High School Court Lighting 1977 Fickett J.H.S. M-U Court Lighting 1977 Utterback J.H.S. Playfield Lighting 1977 Flowing Wells Lighting 1977 Santa Rita H.S. Baseball Field Lighting 1977 79 Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Award $57,300 $3,566 $103,653 $7,500 $3,606 $83,524 $28,800 $5,000 $50,000 $25,370 $27,215 $79,067 $14,776 $102,073 $75,773 $22,500 $40,500 $49,725 $53,829 $60,000 $18,437 $12,231 $41,950 $11,250 $67,901 $76,252 $12,175 $201,150 $56,500 $8,174 $4,000 $13,004 $85,000 $46,533 $145,141 $202,500 $265,000 $3,000 $2,000 $2,000 $120,056 $23,178 $15,000 $7,927 $3,488 $4,984 $3,490 $6,000 $3,510 $10,389 $40,087 $34,994 Total Project Cost $114,600 $7,133 $207,306 $15,000 $7,212 $167,049 $57,600 $10,000 $100,000 $50,741 $54,430 $158,135 $29,553 $204,146 $151,546 $45,000 $81,000 $99,450 $107,659 $120,000 $36,874 $24,462 $83,900 $22,500 $135,802 $152,504 $24,350 $402,300 $113,000 $16,348 $8,000 $26,008 $170,000 $93,066 $290,283 $405,000 $530,000 $6,000 $4,000 $4,000 $240,113 $46,356 $30,000 $15,854 $6,977 $9,968 $6,980 $12,000 $7,020 $20,779 $80,174 $69,989 2003 SCORP-Appendices Arizona State Parks Grant Recipient Project Title Grant County Year Award Total Project Cost Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Pinal County Apache Junction Apache Junction Apache Junction Apache Junction Arizona State Parks Arizona State Parks Arizona State Parks Arizona State Parks Arizona State Parks Arizona State Parks Arizona State Parks Casa Grande Casa Grande Casa Grande Casa Grande Casa Grande Casa Grande Casa Grande Silverbell Golf Course Tennis Lighting - James Thomas Park Four Lighted Tennis Courts Santa Cruz Riverpark Acq. Santa Cruz Riverpark Dev., II Silverbell Regional Park Phased Dev Randolph Park Tennis & Handball Courts Randolph Park Baseball Field Lights Park Renovation/Catalina Armory Parks Ormsby Park Lights Menlo Park Landscaping & Lighting Lincoln Regional Park Phased Dev Lakeside Park Phase III Dev Himmel Park Tennis Court Lights Desert Shadows Neighborhood Park Reid Park & Zoo Improvements Amphitheater Jr HS Playfield Lights J.F. Kennedy Regional Park Eastside Golf Course Reid Regional Park Renovation Northeast Regional Park Phase I Amphitheater HS Basketball Lighting Northwest Park Baseball Lighting Udall Park Phase II Santa Rita Park Comfort Station Kennedy Regional Park Development Mansfield Park Development Lakeside Park Dev Greasewood Park Dev Udall Park Picnic And Baseball Facility Case Park Development: Phase II North Central Park: Phase I 1977 1978 1978 1978 1978 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979 1980 1980 1980 1981 1981 1981 1981 1983 1983 1984 1985 1986 1986 1986 1988 2002 2002 Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima Pima $301,600 $6,712 $59,528 $296,184 $130,000 $50,751 $281,009 $151,825 $52,070 $25,592 $33,123 $300,000 $29,482 $29,957 $47,797 $215,000 $17,811 $151,659 $564,191 $62,673 $75,000 $10,000 $37,500 $72,000 $20,000 $197,200 $71,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $124,022 $191,802 $603,200 $13,424 $119,057 $592,368 $260,000 $101,503 $562,019 $303,650 $104,140 $51,184 $66,246 $600,000 $58,965 $59,915 $95,595 $430,000 $35,622 $303,318 $1,128,382 $125,346 $150,000 $20,000 $75,000 $144,000 $40,000 $394,400 $142,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $255,736 $383,604 Ball Park & Tennis Courts 1980 Prospector Park Development Phase I 1985 City Hall Park Improvements 1987 Prospector Park Open Space 1987 Picacho Peak State Park 1966 Picacho Peak State Park 1971 Picacho Peak Restroom, Shower, Water 1992 Picacho Peak State Park 1993 Lost Dutchman State Park Development 1995 Picacho Peak SP Restroom/Shower 2000 Picacho Peak SP Restroom/Shower 2001 Municipal Golf Course 1976 Santa Cruz Park - Phase II 1979 Eastland Park Development 1980 Westside Park Development 1980 Mosley Park Development 1980 Gilbert Park Improvements 1985 Ed Hooper Rodeo Pk Multisports Complex2000 Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal $95,952 $102,500 $50,000 $75,000 $50,311 $30,820 $76,075 $55,000 $125,656 $208,945 $491,235 $283,000 $15,650 $15,000 $16,475 $23,500 $13,801 $315,625 $191,905 $205,000 $100,000 $150,000 $100,623 $61,641 $152,151 $110,000 $343,750 $417,890 $982,470 $566,000 $31,300 $30,000 $32,950 $47,000 $27,602 $1,500,000 80 Arizona State Parks Grant Recipient 2003 SCORP-Appendices Project Title Grant County Year Coolidge West School Park Coolidge Coolidge Regional Park Phase II Coolidge Coolidge Regional Park Phase I Coolidge Coolidge Regional Park Phase III Coolidge Coolidge Regional Park Phase IV Coolidge East Park Improvement Eloy Trekell Park Development Eloy Jones Park Facilities Project Eloy Eloy Facilities Improvement Eloy Eloy Facilities Improvement Florence Heritage Park Renovation Florence Heritage Park Florence Neighborhood Park Kearny Hubbard Park Kearny Kearny Swimming Pool & Bathhouse Kearny Hubbard Park Improvements Kearny Lighting For Ballfield Kearny Kearny Parks Renovation Mammoth Mammoth Municipal Swimming Pool Mammoth Mammoth Multi-Use Park Dev. Superior Lighting At Kennedy & Roosevelt Schs Superior Ballfield Lighting Project Phase II Superior Superior Comm Park Acq & Devel Santa Cruz County Arizona State Parks Patagonia Lake Park Improvements Arizona State Parks Patagonia Lake State Parks Campground Nogales Nogales Tennis Courts Nogales Madison Street Park Nogales Anza Drive Dev. Nogales Jr. Olympic Swimming Pool Nogales Multi-Use Softball Field Nogales Reg. Park And Golf Course Patagonia Community Swimming Pool Yavapai County Arizona State Parks Dead Horse Ranch State Park Arizona State Parks Dead Horse Ranch State Park Phase II Arizona State Parks Dead Horse Ranch Dev. Camp Verde Camp Verde Recreation Center Chino Valley Chino Valley Center Dev. Chino Valley Chino Valley Youth & Community Park Chino Valley Chino Valley Multi-Use Court Dev. Clarkdale Selna Ballfield Park Clarkdale Clarkdale Swimming Pool Improvements Clarkdale Clarkdale Municipal Pool Renovation Cottonwood Cottonwood Park & Playground Cottonwood Cottonwood Swimming Pool Cottonwood Cottonwood Riverfront Park Prescott Prescott City Park Prescott Prescott City Park Prescott City - College Park Prescott Willow Lake Pk Picnic & Rest Station Prescott Granite Creek Park 81 1974 1980 1980 1983 1985 1989 1977 1979 1995 2002 1987 1990 1995 1973 1978 1979 1979 1995 1975 1985 1979 1980 1988 Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal Pinal 1982 1985 1967 1968 1973 1974 1974 1978 1987 Santa Santa Santa Santa Santa Santa Santa Santa Santa 1973 1975 1976 1979 1977 1981 1986 1977 1985 1991 1978 1980 1985 1966 1966 1973 1974 1974 Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Award Total Project Cost $38,225 $47,000 $50,000 $20,049 $29,113 $8,359 $20,154 $18,787 $63,000 $253,802 $29,000 $30,000 $63,810 $43,883 $140,295 $42,000 $17,742 $65,435 $60,000 $23,853 $44,539 $22,340 $65,069 $76,451 $94,000 $100,000 $40,098 $58,226 $16,719 $40,309 $37,575 $126,000 $507,604 $58,000 $60,000 $127,620 $87,767 $280,590 $84,000 $35,484 $147,500 $120,000 $47,706 $89,079 $44,680 $130,138 Cruz $299,587 Cruz $86,800 Cruz $4,225 Cruz $2,160 Cruz $24,883 Cruz $62,500 Cruz $18,500 Cruz $175,000 Cruz $75,000 $599,175 $173,600 $8,450 $4,320 $49,766 $125,000 $37,000 $350,000 $150,000 $72,675 $260,095 $70,000 $47,313 $5,000 $30,800 $11,023 $32,310 $8,550 $72,500 $18,484 $182,000 $49,875 $4,000 $14,465 $46,814 $18,700 $14,560 $145,350 $520,191 $140,000 $94,627 $10,000 $61,600 $22,046 $64,621 $17,100 $145,000 $36,968 $364,000 $99,750 $8,000 $28,931 $93,628 $37,400 $29,120 2003 SCORP-Appendices Arizona State Parks Grant Recipient Project Title Grant County Year Award Total Project Cost Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Prescott Valley Prescott Valley Prescott Valley Prescott Valley Prescott Valley Sedona Sedona Sedona Yavapai County Yavapai County Yuma County San Luis San Luis San Luis Somerton Wellton Wellton Wellton Wellton Wellton Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma County Yuma County Yuma County Yuma County Yuma County Yuma County Willow Lake Park, II Granite Creek Park, III Granite Creek Park Heritage Park Phase Iii Development Granite Mtn. Tennis Courts Heritage Park Multi-use Field Complex Pioneer Multiple Use Park Willow & Watson Lake Improvements Site Development-Prescott Valley Prescott Valley Dev. Phase II Community Park Development Neighborhood Park Development Viewpoint Park Sedona Rec. Park Sedona Posse Grounds Posse Grounds Park Improvements Tenderfoot Hill Park Lynx Creek Natural History Park 1976 1977 1978 1979 1981 1984 1991 1992 2001 1978 1980 1983 1986 2002 1974 1981 1993 1977 2001 Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai Yavapai $34,169 $11,981 $30,800 $19,645 $29,389 $8,484 $66,189 $100,000 $560,000 $9,848 $17,992 $16,313 $11,058 $252,000 $54,000 $67,600 $46,800 $24,607 $164,908 $68,338 $23,962 $61,600 $39,290 $58,779 $16,968 $132,378 $200,000 $3,922,195 $19,696 $35,984 $32,626 $22,116 $740,000 $108,000 $135,200 $93,600 $49,214 $329,816 Friendship Park San Luis Friendship Park Phase II San Luis Town Park Development Council Avenue Park: Phase I Butterfield Park Butterfield Park 2 Butterfield Park Phase III Wellton Cooperative Recreation Project Mini Park/Recreation Complex Development Of Smucker Park John F. Kennedy Ball Field Sanguinetti Athletic Field Convention Center Recreation Complex Reg. Complex Expansion Tennis Courts Kennedy Park Expansion Recreation Complex Expansion Joe Henry Park Improvements Carver Park Improvements Sanguinetti Park Improvements Riverfront Gateway Park N. R. Adair Memorial Park N. R. Adair Memorial Park Gadsden Park Dev. N. R. Adair Memorial Park Dev N. R. Adair Mexican Silhouette Gadsden Park 1971 1972 1988 2002 1967 1970 1972 1977 1983 1967 1967 1968 1978 1979 1979 1980 1983 1985 1986 2001 1968 1970 1970 1970 1971 1977 Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma Yuma $18,595 $13,939 $61,050 $130,000 $3,131 $2,500 $5,000 $19,343 $12,827 $6,423 $75,915 $18,400 $58,400 $32,607 $146,852 $30,000 $70,400 $53,000 $7,500 $184,000 $11,960 $17,480 $2,000 $12,417 $5,000 $12,362 $37,191 $27,878 $122,100 $260,000 $6,263 $5,000 $10,000 $38,686 $25,654 $12,846 $151,830 $36,800 $116,800 $65,214 $293,704 $60,000 $140,800 $106,000 $15,000 $368,000 $23,920 $34,960 $4,000 $24,834 $10,000 $24,724 Totals Statewide LWCF Grant Awards Total Project Costs 700 Projects $51,001,671 $108,325,044 82 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Appendix B 2003 SCORP Final Telephone Survey Results Prepared for Arizona State Parks by: Survey Research Laboratory Department of Sociology Arizona State University July 2002 83 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Appendix B. 2002 Final Telephone Survey Results Arizona State Parks contracted with the Survey Research Lab at Arizona State University in March 2002 to conduct a statewide telephone survey of Arizona households regarding outdoor recreation preferences and priorities for use in preparing the 2003 SCORP for Arizona. Sampling This survey is structured differently from many statewide surveys which are sampled proportionately by population percentages by county. The goal for this survey was to have the resulting data statistically valid for not only the state’s population but also for each county’s population, therefore, the numbers sampled within each county were similar (instead of larger numbers in the heavily populated counties). A sampling frame was selected to achieve a sampling error of ±5.3% at the 95% confidence level for each of the 15 counties in Arizona (or, a sampling error of ±6.3% at the 90% confidence level). To achieve this, approximately 240 interviews will be completed in each county. See Table 1. The questionnaire was field-tested and interviewing began on March 23rd and finished at the end of the day on June 30, 2002. As of June 30, 2002 there were 64,626 calls made to 16,383 unique phone numbers. Response rates varied from 38% in La Paz County to 70% in Maricopa. Overall, interviewers achieved a statewide response rate of 55%. Table I. Survey Results by County Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma State Interviews % total % county 5.9% 252 105% 6.2% 264 110% 6.7% 288 120% 5.7% 244 102% 7.5% 323 135% 5.6% 238 99% 4.9% 208 87% 10.8% 464 193% 6.0% 256 107% 5.1% 217 90% 9.5% 406 169% 6.9% 294 123% 7.3% 312 130% 6.1% 260 108% 6.0% 259 108% 4285 100.0% 118% *the questionnaire follows the analysis 84 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Question Frequencies (statewide and by county) Question 1. We are interested in people's use of city, state and national parks. In the last 3 months, how many times have you or anyone in your household visited an outdoor park or recreation area in Arizona? Average number of visits in last 3 months mean State 6.49 Apache 7.69 Cochise 5.47 Coconino 8.86 Gila 7.54 Graham 4.66 Greenlee 4.72 La Paz 6.24 Maricopa 7.90 Mohave 7.18 Navajo 4.88 Pima 7.40 Pinal 4.01 Santa Cruz 5.34 Yavapai 7.68 Yuma 6.54 85 N 4254 244 264 286 243 323 237 206 463 254 216 404 290 307 259 258 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Visits in past 3 months (grouped) No Visits 1 to 5 visits 6 to 29 visits 30 visits or more State N 1518 1740 771 225 % 35.7 40.9 18.1 5.3 Apache N 107 96 31 10 % 43.9 39.3 12.7 4.1 Cochise N 96 115 42 11 % 36.4 43.6 15.9 4.2 Coconino N 74 109 82 21 % 25.9 38.1 28.7 7.3 Gila N 86 105 35 17 % 35.4 43.2 14.4 7.0 Graham N 114 151 51 7 % 35.3 46.7 15.8 2.2 Greenlee N 105 87 38 7 % 44.3 36.7 16.0 3.0 La Paz N 94 67 33 12 % 45.6 32.5 16.0 5.8 Maricopa N 148 188 92 35 % 32.0 40.6 19.9 7.6 Mohave N 87 99 52 16 % 34.3 39.0 20.5 6.3 Navajo N 81 95 32 8 % 37.5 44.0 14.8 3.7 Pima N 121 170 84 29 % 30.0 42.1 20.8 7.2 Pinal N 115 128 38 9 % 39.7 44.1 13.1 3.1 Santa Cruz N 106 132 57 12 % 34.5 43.0 18.6 3.9 Yavapai N 106 95 39 19 % 40.9 36.7 15.1 7.3 Yuma N 78 103 65 12 % 30.2 39.9 25.2 4.7 86 Total 4254 100% 244 100% 264 100% 286 100% 243 100% 323 100% 237 100% 206 100% 463 100% 254 100% 216 100% 404 100% 290 100% 307 100% 259 100% 258 100% Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices (asked if respondent replied "0" to "visits in the past 3 months") Question 1a. What about in the past 12 months? (How often have you or anyone else in your household visited an outdoor park or recreation area in Arizona?) Average number of visits in last 12 months mean State 1.51 Apache 0.91 Cochise 1.86 Coconino 2.23 Gila 1.53 Graham 1.85 Greenlee 0.86 La Paz 0.68 Maricopa 0.99 Mohave 2.02 Navajo 2.35 Pima 1.63 Pinal 0.90 Santa Cruz 1.95 Yavapai 2.64 Yuma 0.71 87 N 1508 107 95 74 85 113 102 93 148 87 79 121 114 106 106 78 Arizona State Parks Visits in past 12 months (grouped) No Visits 1 to 5 visits State N 888 530 % 58.9 35.1 Apache N 72 31 % 67.3 29.0 Cochise N 51 37 % 53.7 38.9 Coconino N 25 42 % 33.8 56.8 Gila N 55 25 % 64.7 29.4 Graham N 64 39 % 56.6 34.5 Greenlee N 67 31 % 65.7 30.4 La Paz N 69 22 % 74.2 23.7 Maricopa N 93 51 % 62.8 34.5 Mohave N 49 26 % 56.3 29.9 Navajo N 39 33 % 49.4 41.8 Pima N 67 47 % 55.4 38.8 Pinal N 70 41 % 61.4 36.0 Santa Cruz N 59 39 % 55.7 36.8 Yavapai N 55 42 % 51.9 39.6 Yuma N 53 24 % 67.9 30.8 2003 SCORP–Appendices 6 to 29 visits 30 visits or more 81 9 5.4 0.6 4 0 3.7 0.0 7 0 7.4 0.0 6 1 8.1 1.4 4 1 4.7 1.2 9 1 8.0 0.9 4 0 3.9 0.0 2 0 2.2 0.0 4 0 2.7 0.0 12 0 13.8 0.0 6 1 7.6 1.3 6 1 5.0 0.8 3 0 2.6 0.0 6 2 5.7 1.9 7 2 6.6 1.9 1 0 1.3 0.0 88 Total 1508 100% 107 100% 95 100% 74 100% 85 100% 67 100% 102 100% 93 100% 148 100% 87 100% 79 100% 121 100% 114 100% 106 100% 106 100% 78 100% Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Question 2. How many miles did you travel to the park or area you visited most often within the last {3/12} months? State N % Apache N % Cochise N % Coconino N % Gila N % Graham N % Greenlee N % La Paz N % Maricopa N % Mohave N % Navajo N % Pima N % Pinal N % Santa Cruz N % Yavapai N % Yuma N % Less than 1 mile 412 17.6 8 7.1 28 20.4 35 20.1 18 14.0 17 10.9 28 23.5 18 17.6 64 23.3 18 11.5 26 19.8 44 18.0 14 9.2 32 20.4 22 15.4 40 26.1 1 to 5 miles 845 36.1 27 23.9 49 35.8 59 33.9 41 31.8 64 41.0 24 20.2 42 41.2 110 40.0 86 55.1 49 37.4 84 34.4 43 28.1 50 31.8 49 34.3 68 44.4 6 to 50 miles More then 50 miles 422 663 18.0 28.3 23 55 20.4 48.7 20 40 14.6 29.2 22 58 12.6 33.3 17 53 13.2 41.1 28 47 17.9 30.1 16 51 13.4 42.9 15 27 14.7 26.5 43 58 15.6 21.1 21 31 13.5 19.9 11 45 8.4 34.4 72 44 29.5 18.0 40 56 26.1 36.6 42 33 26.8 21.0 29 43 20.3 30.1 23 22 15.0 14.4 89 Total 2342 100% 113 100% 137 100% 174 100% 129 100% 156 100% 119 100% 102 100% 275 100% 156 100% 131 100% 244 100% 153 100% 157 100% 143 100% 153 100% Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Question 3. Would you go more often if it were closer? State Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Yes # % 1859 46.2% 142 60.4% 112 44.4% 109 38.9% 89 38.0% 140 45.3% 109 47.6% 101 51.3% 200 45.5% 87 36.0% 88 42.1% 160 41.9% 140 50.5% 179 67.5% 69 27.6% 134 59.6% No # % 2167 53.8% 93 39.6% 140 55.6% 171 61.1% 145 62.0% 169 54.7% 120 52.4% 96 48.7% 240 54.5% 155 64.0% 121 57.9% 222 58.1% 137 49.5% 86 32.5% 181 72.4% 91 40.4% if question 2 = less than 1/2 mile, ask question 4a if question 2 = more than 1/2 mile to 3 miles, ask question 4b Question 4a. What if the park were 1 mile away? Would you still go as often, less often, or not at all? State Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma As Often Less Often # % # % 152 68.8% 56 25.3% 2 66.7% 1 33.3% 11 84.6% 2 15.4% 13 61.9% 8 38.1% 4 57.1% 3 42.9% 6 66.7% 3 33.3% 13 81.3% 3 18.8% 10 71.4% 4 28.6% 20 60.6% 11 33.3% 7 87.5% 1 12.5% 10 90.9% 1 9.1% 19 70.4% 7 25.9% 5 62.5% 2 25.0% 12 70.6% 2 11.8% 10 71.4% 2 14.3% 10 50.0% 6 30.0% Not at ALL # % 13 5.9% 2 6.1% 1 3.7% 1 12.5% 3 17.6% 2 14.3% 4 20.0% 90 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Question 4b. What if the park were 5 miles away? Would you still go as often, less often, or not at all? State Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma As Often Less Often # % # % 476 55.6% 319 37.3% 20 80.0% 4 16.0% 30 54.5% 24 43.6% 29 45.3% 31 48.4% 23 56.1% 17 41.5% 31 70.5% 12 27.3% 22 51.2% 19 44.2% 20 58.8% 11 32.4% 51 42.1% 57 47.1% 49 73.1% 11 16.4% 33 61.1% 18 33.3% 54 56.3% 30 31.3% 18 51.4% 12 34.3% 31 59.6% 20 38.5% 25 61.0% 15 36.6% 40 47.6% 38 45.2% Not at ALL # % 61 7.1% 1 4.0% 1 1.8% 4 6.3% 1 2.4% 1 2.3% 2 4.7% 3 8.8% 13 10.7% 7 10.4% 3 5.6% 12 12.5% 5 14.3% 1 1.9% 1 2.4% 6 7.1% 91 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Question 5. Not all projects can be funded. I'll read a list of possible priorities. Please select the one you would most like to see funded. First, small parks that have only a few facilities; [e.g., playground and basketball court] Second, large parks with lots of facilities; [multi-use park, e.g., basketball, baseball, tennis, swimming, etc] Third, larger more nature-oriented parks with areas for hiking, picnicking or camping; [has parking lots, trails, bathrooms, etc] And, finally, open spaces in a natural setting with very little development [no parking, picnic, or bathroom facilities] Small Parks Large Parks State N % Apache N % Cochise N % Coconino N % Gila N % Graham N % Greenlee N % La Paz N % Maricopa N % Mohave N % Navajo N % Pima N % Pinal N % Santa Cruz N % Yavapai N % Yuma N % 852 20.4 47 19.3 60 23.2 46 16.2 50 21.1 66 20.8 63 28.0 47 23.6 95 20.9 57 23.0 56 26.5 74 18.6 51 18.0 49 16.0 45 17.6 46 18.3 595 14.3 29 11.9 30 11.6 36 12.7 17 7.2 40 12.6 25 11.1 22 11.1 73 16.0 36 14.5 21 10.0 58 14.6 44 15.5 80 26.1 28 11.0 56 22.3 Larger City Open Spaces /Natural Parks 1783 942 42.7 22.6 104 64 42.6 26.2 120 49 46.3 18.9 113 89 39.8 31.3 93 77 39.2 32.5 158 53 49.8 16.7 98 39 43.6 17.3 82 48 41.2 24.1 191 96 42.0 21.1 97 58 39.1 23.4 83 51 39.3 24.2 168 97 42.3 24.4 113 76 39.8 26.8 129 48 42.2 15.7 108 74 42.4 29.0 126 23 50.2 9.2 92 Total 4172 100.0% 244 100.0% 259 100.0% 284 100.0% 237 100.0% 317 100.0% 225 100.0% 199 100.0% 455 100.0% 248 100.0% 211 100.0% 397 100.0% 284 100.0% 306 100.0% 255 100.0% 251 100.0% Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Question 6. Would you prefer to see the money go towards: State Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Fixing up existing park facilities 1881 45.1 111 45.3 103 40.2 136 47.9 106 45.3 177 55.5 108 47.2 88 43.8 202 44.5 125 49.4 110 52.1 188 47.6 135 47.0 80 26.3 120 48.2 92 36.7 Adding new Developing new Total features to parks existing parks 985 1306 4172 23.6 31.3 100.0% 68 66 245 27.8 26.9 100.0% 77 76 256 30.1 29.7 100.0% 56 92 284 19.7 32.4 100.0% 63 65 234 26.9 27.8 100.0% 81 61 319 25.4 19.1 100.0% 63 58 229 27.5 25.3 100.0% 51 62 201 25.4 30.8 100.0% 109 143 454 24.0 31.5 100.0% 53 75 253 20.9 29.6 100.0% 45 56 211 21.3 26.5 100.0% 92 115 395 23.3 29.1 100.0% 70 82 287 24.4 28.6 100.0% 46 178 304 15.1 58.6 100.0% 63 66 249 25.3 26.5 100.0% 48 111 251 19.1 44.2 100.0% 93 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Question 7. Some park funds will go to buying open space. Some open spaces are large enough to support a wide variety of wildlife. Others will only serve to separate housing developments. When it comes to open space, which is more important to you: Having open spaces between housing developments State Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % 952 22.8 72 29.1 53 20.7 48 17.0 49 20.4 92 29.1 55 24.0 55 27.2 114 25.1 51 20.6 49 23.0 86 21.9 67 23.4 66 22.0 34 13.3 61 24.2 94 Having large natural habitats that support a diversity of wildlife 3170 76.0 171 69.2 201 78.5 232 82.3 189 78.8 216 68.4 167 72.9 147 72.8 332 73.0 191 77.0 162 76.1 303 77.3 218 76.2 233 77.7 219 85.9 189 75.0 Doesn't Care 51 1.2 4 1.6 2 0.8 2 0.7 2 0.8 8 2.5 7 3.1 0 0.0 9 2.0 6 2.4 1 0.9 3 0.8 1 0.3 1 0.3 2 0.8 2 0.8 Total 4173 100.0% 247 100.0% 256 100.0% 282 100.0% 240 100.0% 316 100.0% 229 100.0% 202 100.0% 455 100.0% 248 100.0% 213 100.0% 392 100.0% 286 100.0% 300 100.0% 255 100.0% 252 100.0% Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Question 8. What do you think are the major problems concerning Arizona's parks and recreation areas? (respondents are prompted with "are there any other major problems?" State Dichotomy label Doesn't meet my needs Too much litter/trash Not enough parking spaces Not well maintained Not close enough to my home Unsure where they are located Too crowded Cannot use it at night Personal safety Not accessible It's closed when I want to use it Costs too much Not enough parks Not enough funding No Problems Other Don't Know 6 missing cases; 4,279 valid cases Name Q8A Q8B Q8C Q8D Q8E Q8F Q8G Q8H Q8I Q8J Q8K Q8L Q8M Q8N Q8O Q8P Q8Q Count 293 538 32 523 47 47 266 43 242 97 21 199 291 327 493 1363 723 Pct of Pct of Responses Cases 5.3 6.8 9.7 12.6 .6 .7 9.4 12.2 .8 1.1 .8 1.1 4.8 6.2 .8 1.0 4.4 5.7 1.7 2.3 .4 .5 3.6 4.7 5.2 6.8 5.9 7.6 8.9 11.5 24.6 31.9 13.0 16.9 Name Q16A Q16B Q16C Q16D Q16E Q16F Q16G Q16I Q16J Q16L Q16M Q16N Q16O Q16P Q16Q Count 8 37 2 36 6 4 14 5 2 6 16 23 25 78 52 314 Pct of Pct of Responses Cases 2.5 3.2 11.8 14.8 .6 .8 11.5 14.4 1.9 2.4 1.3 1.6 4.5 5.6 1.6 2.0 .6 .8 1.9 2.4 5.1 6.4 7.3 9.2 8.0 10.0 24.8 31.2 16.6 20.8 100.0 125.6 Apache Dichotomy label Doesn't meet my needs Too much litter/trash Not enough parking spaces Not well maintained Not close enough to my home Unsure where they are located Too crowded Personal safety Not accessible Costs too much Not enough parks Not enough funding No Problems Other Don't Know Total responses 2 missing cases; 250 valid cases 95 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Cochise Dichotomy label Doesn't meet my needs Too much litter/trash Not well maintained Not close enough to my home Unsure where they are located Too crowded Cannot use it at night Personal safety Not accessible It's closed when I want to use it Costs too much Not enough parks Not enough funding No Problems Other Don't Know Total responses 1 missing cases; 263 valid cases Name Q16A Q16B Q16D Q16E Q16F Q16G Q16H Q16I Q16J Q16K Q16L Q16M Q16N Q16O Q16P Q16Q Count 19 22 24 2 6 23 3 21 10 2 19 13 28 41 68 36 337 Pct of Pct of Responses Cases 5.6 7.2 6.5 8.4 7.1 9.1 .6 .8 1.8 2.3 6.8 8.7 .9 1.1 6.2 8.0 3.0 3.8 .6 .8 5.6 7.2 3.9 4.9 8.3 10.6 12.2 15.6 20.2 25.9 10.7 13.7 100.0 128.1 Name Q16A Q16B Q16C Q16D Q16F Q16G Q16H Q16I Q16J Q16L Q16M Q16N Q16O Q16P Q16Q Count 12 42 3 25 6 30 3 9 1 20 24 34 25 107 37 378 Pct of Pct of Responses Cases 3.2 4.2 11.1 14.6 .8 1.0 6.6 8.7 1.6 2.1 7.9 10.4 .8 1.0 2.4 3.1 .3 .3 5.3 6.9 6.3 8.3 9.0 11.8 6.6 8.7 28.3 37.2 9.8 12.8 100.0 131.3 Coconino Dichotomy label Doesn't meet my needs Too much litter/trash Not enough parking spaces Not well maintained Unsure where they are located Too crowded Cannot use it at night Personal safety Not accessible Costs too much Not enough parks Not enough funding No Problems Other Don't Know Total responses 0 missing cases; 288 valid cases 96 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Gila Dichotomy label Doesn't meet my needs Too much litter/trash Not enough parking spaces Not well maintained Too crowded Personal safety Not accessible It's closed when I want to use it Costs too much Not enough parks Not enough funding No Problems Other Don't Know Total responses 0 missing cases; 244 valid cases Name Q16A Q16B Q16C Q16D Q16G Q16I Q16J Q16K Q16L Q16M Q16N Q16O Q16P Q16Q Count 5 29 3 28 20 9 7 1 17 24 19 23 86 40 311 Pct of Pct of Responses Cases 1.6 2.0 9.3 11.9 1.0 1.2 9.0 11.5 6.4 8.2 2.9 3.7 2.3 2.9 .3 .4 5.5 7.0 7.7 9.8 6.1 7.8 7.4 9.4 27.7 35.2 12.9 16.4 100.0 127.5 Name Q16A Q16B Q16C Q16D Q16E Q16F Q16G Q16H Q16I Q16J Q16K Q16L Q16M Q16N Q16O Q16P Q16Q Count 16 52 2 44 5 1 19 4 12 5 1 25 5 18 43 97 54 403 Pct of Pct of Responses Cases 4.0 5.0 12.9 16.1 .5 .6 10.9 13.6 1.2 1.5 .2 .3 4.7 5.9 1.0 1.2 3.0 3.7 1.2 1.5 .2 .3 6.2 7.7 1.2 1.5 4.5 5.6 10.7 13.3 24.1 30.0 13.4 16.7 100.0 124.8 Graham Dichotomy label Doesn't meet my needs Too much litter/trash Not enough parking spaces Not well maintained Not close enough to my home Unsure where they are located Too crowded Cannot use it at night Personal safety Not accessible It's closed when I want to use it Costs too much Not enough parks Not enough funding No Problems Other Don't Know Total responses 0 missing cases; 323 valid cases 97 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Greenlee Dichotomy label Doesn't meet my needs Too much litter/trash Not enough parking spaces Not well maintained Not close enough to my home Too crowded Cannot use it at night Personal safety Not accessible It's closed when I want to use it Costs too much Not enough parks Not enough funding No Problems Other Don't Know Total responses 0 missing cases; 238 valid cases Name Q16A Q16B Q16C Q16D Q16E Q16G Q16H Q16I Q16J Q16K Q16L Q16M Q16N Q16O Q16P Q16Q Count 12 43 1 33 2 19 2 11 9 1 7 14 10 17 87 44 312 Pct of Pct of Responses Cases 3.8 5.0 13.8 18.1 .3 .4 10.6 13.9 .6 .8 6.1 8.0 .6 .8 3.5 4.6 2.9 3.8 .3 .4 2.2 2.9 4.5 5.9 3.2 4.2 5.4 7.1 27.9 36.6 14.1 18.5 100.0 131.1 Name Q16A Q16B Q16C Q16D Q16E Q16F Q16G Q16I Q16J Q16K Q16L Q16M Q16N Q16O Q16P Q16Q Count 15 21 1 23 2 4 6 8 4 1 8 12 15 31 65 38 254 Pct of Pct of Responses Cases 5.9 7.2 8.3 10.1 .4 .5 9.1 11.1 .8 1.0 1.6 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.1 3.9 1.6 1.9 .4 .5 3.1 3.9 4.7 5.8 5.9 7.2 12.2 15.0 25.6 31.4 15.0 18.4 100.0 122.7 La Paz Dichotomy label Doesn't meet my needs Too much litter/trash Not enough parking spaces Not well maintained Not close enough to my home Unsure where they are located Too crowded Personal safety Not accessible It's closed when I want to use it Costs too much Not enough parks Not enough funding No Problems Other Don't Know Total responses 1 missing cases; 207 valid cases 98 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Maricopa Dichotomy label Doesn't meet my needs Too much litter/trash Not enough parking spaces Not well maintained Not close enough to my home Unsure where they are located Too crowded Cannot use it at night Personal safety Not accessible It's closed when I want to use it Costs too much Not enough parks Not enough funding No Problems Other Don't Know Total responses 0 missing cases; 464 valid cases Name Q16A Q16B Q16C Q16D Q16E Q16F Q16G Q16H Q16I Q16J Q16K Q16L Q16M Q16N Q16O Q16P Q16Q Count 29 45 2 43 6 8 34 12 37 10 5 7 28 29 46 156 94 Name Q16A Q16B Q16C Q16D Q16E Q16F Q16G Q16I Q16J Q16K Q16L Q16M Q16N Q16O Q16P Q16Q Count 16 32 1 37 2 3 18 10 10 1 15 22 21 37 69 38 332 Pct of Pct of Responses Cases 4.9 6.3 7.6 9.7 .3 .4 7.3 9.3 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.7 5.8 7.3 2.0 2.6 6.3 8.0 1.7 2.2 .8 1.1 1.2 1.5 4.7 6.0 4.9 6.3 7.8 9.9 26.4 33.6 15.9 20.3 100.0 127.4 Mohave Dichotomy label Doesn't meet my needs Too much litter/trash Not enough parking spaces Not well maintained Not close enough to my home Unsure where they are located Too crowded Personal safety Not accessible It's closed when I want to use it Costs too much Not enough parks Not enough funding No Problems Other Don't Know Total responses 0 missing cases; 256 valid cases 99 Pct of Pct of Responses Cases 4.8 6.3 9.6 12.5 .3 .4 11.1 14.5 .6 .8 .9 1.2 5.4 7.0 3.0 3.9 3.0 3.9 .3 .4 4.5 5.9 6.6 8.6 6.3 8.2 11.1 14.5 20.8 27.0 11.4 14.8 100.0 129.7 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Navajo Dichotomy label Doesn't meet my needs Too much litter/trash Not enough parking spaces Not well maintained Not close enough to my home Unsure where they are located Too crowded Cannot use it at night Personal safety Not accessible Costs too much Not enough parks Not enough funding No Problems Other Don't Know Total responses 0 missing cases; 217 valid cases Name Q16A Q16B Q16C Q16D Q16E Q16F Q16G Q16H Q16I Q16J Q16L Q16M Q16N Q16O Q16P Q16Q Count 11 37 2 36 5 2 14 2 9 5 11 17 18 21 66 30 286 Pct of Pct of Responses Cases 3.8 5.1 12.9 17.1 .7 .9 12.6 16.6 1.7 2.3 .7 .9 4.9 6.5 .7 .9 3.1 4.1 1.7 2.3 3.8 5.1 5.9 7.8 6.3 8.3 7.3 9.7 23.1 30.4 10.5 13.8 100.0 131.8 Name Q16A Q16B Q16C Q16D Q16E Q16G Q16H Q16I Q16J Q16K Q16L Q16M Q16N Q16O Q16P Q16Q Count 39 45 4 47 4 20 8 37 10 2 25 22 38 45 143 59 548 Pct of Pct of Responses Cases 7.1 9.6 8.2 11.1 .7 1.0 8.6 11.6 .7 1.0 3.6 4.9 1.5 2.0 6.8 9.1 1.8 2.5 .4 .5 4.6 6.2 4.0 5.4 6.9 9.4 8.2 11.1 26.1 35.3 10.8 14.6 100.0 135.3 Pima Dichotomy label Doesn't meet my needs Too much litter/trash Not enough parking spaces Not well maintained Not close enough to my home Too crowded Cannot use it at night Personal safety Not accessible It's closed when I want to use it Costs too much Not enough parks Not enough funding No Problems Other Don't Know Total responses 1 missing cases; 405 valid cases 100 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Pinal Dichotomy label Doesn't meet my needs Too much litter/trash Not enough parking spaces Not well maintained Not close enough to my home Unsure where they are located Too crowded Cannot use it at night Personal safety Not accessible Costs too much Not enough parks Not enough funding No Problems Other Don't Know Total responses 0 missing cases; 294 valid cases Name Q16A Q16B Q16C Q16D Q16E Q16F Q16G Q16H Q16I Q16J Q16L Q16M Q16N Q16O Q16P Q16Q Count 17 34 2 34 3 2 22 3 15 8 8 19 22 36 82 62 369 Pct of Pct of Responses Cases 4.6 5.8 9.2 11.6 .5 .7 9.2 11.6 .8 1.0 .5 .7 6.0 7.5 .8 1.0 4.1 5.1 2.2 2.7 2.2 2.7 5.1 6.5 6.0 7.5 9.8 12.2 22.2 27.9 16.8 21.1 100.0 125.5 Name Q16A Q16B Q16C Q16D Q16E Q16F Q16G Q16H Q16I Q16J Q16K Q16L Q16M Q16N Q16O Q16P Q16Q Count 38 36 4 53 9 6 12 2 30 9 4 11 53 14 38 81 43 443 Pct of Pct of Responses Cases 8.6 12.2 8.1 11.5 .9 1.3 12.0 17.0 2.0 2.9 1.4 1.9 2.7 3.8 .5 .6 6.8 9.6 2.0 2.9 .9 1.3 2.5 3.5 12.0 17.0 3.2 4.5 8.6 12.2 18.3 26.0 9.7 13.8 100.0 142.0 Santa Cruz Dichotomy label Doesn't meet my needs Too much litter/trash Not enough parking spaces Not well maintained Not close enough to my home Unsure where they are located Too crowded Cannot use it at night Personal safety Not accessible It's closed when I want to use it Costs too much Not enough parks Not enough funding No Problems Other Don't Know Total responses 0 missing cases; 312 valid cases 101 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Yavapai Dichotomy label Doesn't meet my needs Too much litter/trash Not enough parking spaces Not well maintained Not close enough to my home Too crowded Cannot use it at night Personal safety Not accessible It's closed when I want to use it Costs too much Not enough parks Not enough funding No Problems Other Don't Know Total responses 1 missing cases; 259 valid cases Name Q16A Q16B Q16C Q16D Q16E Q16G Q16H Q16I Q16J Q16K Q16L Q16M Q16N Q16O Q16P Q16Q Count 12 26 4 26 1 10 2 10 4 3 16 9 24 24 99 48 318 Pct of Pct of Responses Cases 3.8 4.6 8.2 10.0 1.3 1.5 8.2 10.0 .3 .4 3.1 3.9 .6 .8 3.1 3.9 1.3 1.5 .9 1.2 5.0 6.2 2.8 3.5 7.5 9.3 7.5 9.3 31.1 38.2 15.1 18.5 100.0 122.8 Name Q16A Q16B Q16C Q16D Q16F Q16G Q16H Q16I Q16J Q16L Q16M Q16N Q16O Q16P Q16Q Count 44 37 1 34 5 5 2 19 3 4 13 14 41 79 48 349 Pct of Pct of Responses Cases 12.6 17.0 10.6 14.3 .3 .4 9.7 13.1 1.4 1.9 1.4 1.9 .6 .8 5.4 7.3 .9 1.2 1.1 1.5 3.7 5.0 4.0 5.4 11.7 15.8 22.6 30.5 13.8 18.5 100.0 134.7 Yuma Dichotomy label Doesn't meet my needs Too much litter/trash Not enough parking spaces Not well maintained Unsure where they are located Too crowded Cannot use it at night Personal safety Not accessible Costs too much Not enough parks Not enough funding No Problems Other Don't Know Total responses 0 missing cases; 259 valid cases 102 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Question 9. How involved are you in planning for the parks and recreation areas that you use? Would you say you are involved as much as you want to be, or would you like to be more involved? State Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Yes # % 2914 156 186 194 175 225 169 126 313 194 159 280 209 177 200 151 70.4% 63.9% 71.8% 68.8% 74.2% 71.0% 73.2% 64.3% 69.7% 77.6% 75.4% 71.2% 73.9% 61.0% 78.4% 61.9% No # % 1226 88 73 88 61 92 62 70 136 56 52 113 74 113 55 93 29.6% 36.1% 28.2% 31.2% 25.8% 29.0% 26.8% 35.7% 30.3% 22.4% 24.6% 28.8% 26.1% 39.0% 21.6% 38.1% Question 10. If a new park or recreation area is being planned, how would you prefer to give your input? State Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Through a Survey 1560 - 36.9% 91 - 36.8% 98 - 37.4% 107 - 37.5% 82 - 34.3% 127 - 39.8% 94 - 40.0% 63 - 31.0% 152 - 32.9% 91 - 35.8% 71 - 33.3% 166 - 41.5% 109 - 38.0% 112 - 36.4% 102 - 39.7% 95 - 37.3% At a public meeting 861 - 20.4% 64 - 25.9% 51 - 19.5% 53 - 18.6% 58 - 24.3% 75 - 23.5% 53 - 22.6% 48 - 23.6% 71 - 15.4% 39 - 15.4% 55 - 25.8% 52 - 13.0% 54 - 18.8% 77 - 25.0% 53 - 20.6% 58 - 22.7% By interviews in the park 286 - 6.8% 17 - 6.9% 24 - 9.2% 28 - 9.8% 12 - 5.0% 26 - 8.2% 8 - 3.4% 12 - 5.9% 32 - 6.9% 16 - 6.3% 12 - 5.6% 28 - 7.0% 24 - 8.4% 19 - 6.2% 12 - 4.7% 16 - 6.3% 103 Thorugh the Internet 699 - 16.5% 30 - 12.1% 47 - 17.9% 62 - 21.8% 34 - 14.2% 37 - 11.6% 27 - 11.5% 23 - 11.3% 117 - 25.3% 56 - 22.0% 30 - 14.1% 83 - 20.8% 40 - 13.9% 41 - 13.3% 38 - 14.8% 34 - 13.3% Some other way 84 - 2.0% 7 - 2.8% 0 - 0.0% 3 - 1.1% 3 - 1.3% 5 - 1.6% 2 - 0.9% 7 - 3.4% 13 - 2.8% 8 - 3.1% 8 - 3.8% 9 - 2.3% 6 - 2.1% 3 - 1.0% 8 - 3.1% 2 - 0.8% Does not want to be involved 736 - 17.4% 38 - 15.4% 42 - 16.0% 32 - 11.2% 50 - 20.9% 49 - 15.4% 51 - 21.7% 50 - 24.6% 77 - 16.7% 44 - 17.3% 37 - 17.4% 62 - 15.5% 54 - 18.8% 56 - 18.2% 44 - 17.1% 50 - 19.6% Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices IF question 10 = 1 ("through a survey"), ask next, else Skip to question 12. Question 11. Would you prefer to be surveyed by telephone, by mail, in person or using the Internet? State Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Telephone 341 - 22.0% 17 - 18.7% 16 - 16.5% 20 - 18.7% 18 - 22.0% 34 - 27.4% 25 - 26.6% 14 - 22.6% 32 - 21.2% 22 - 25.0% 11 - 15.5% 44 - 26.8% 21 - 19.3% 28 - 25.0% 17 - 17.0% 22 - 23.2% Mail 991 - 64.1% 61 - 67.0% 71 - 73.2% 74 - 69.2% 52 - 63.4% 70 - 56.5% 53 - 56.4% 38 - 61.3% 95 - 62.9% 53 - 60.2% 48 - 67.6% 101 - 61.6% 80 - 73.4% 68 - 60.7% 71 - 71.0% 56 - 58.9% Face-to-Face 53 - 3.4% 8 - 8.8% 0 - 0.0% 2 - 1.9% 3 - 3.7% 8 - 6.5% 4 - 4.3% 3 - 4.8% 1 - 0.7% 3 - 3.4% 4 - 5.6% 0 - 0.0% 1 - 0.9% 5 - 4.5% 2 - 2.0% 9 - 9.5% Web-based 161 - 10.4% 5 - 5.5% 10 - 10.3% 11 - 10.3% 9 - 11.0% 12 - 9.7% 12 - 12.8% 7 - 11.3% 23 - 15.2% 10 - 11.4% 8 - 11.3% 19 - 11.6% 7 - 6.4% 10 - 8.9% 10 - 10.0% 8 - 8.4% Question 12. Finally, I just need to ask you a few other questions simply for statistical purposes. All of your answers will be kept strictly confidential. What is your age? State Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma 18 to 30 731 - 17.4% 54 - 21.8% 49 - 19.0% 67 - 24.0% 22 - 9.1% 75 - 23.6% 33 - 14.1% 27 - 13.1% 98 - 21.6% 33 - 13.4% 33 - 15.7% 67 - 16.9% 45 - 15.7% 51 - 16.6% 26 - 10.1% 51 - 20.2% 31 to 40 860 - 20.5% 55 - 22.2% 45 - 17.4% 55 - 19.7% 29 - 11.9% 73 - 23.0% 58 - 24.8% 29 - 14.1% 108 - 23.8% 49 - 19.9% 41 - 19.5% 83 - 20.9% 50 - 17.4% 81 - 26.4% 37 - 14.3% 67 - 26.6% 41 to 55 1363 - 32.5% 67 - 27.0% 88 - 34.1% 104 - 37.3% 80 - 32.9% 85 - 26.7% 84 - 35.9% 65 - 31.6% 157 - 34.7% 76 - 30.9% 56 - 26.7% 137 - 34.5% 96 - 33.4% 92 - 30.0% 100 - 38.8% 76 - 30.2% 104 Over 55 1242 - 29.6% 72 - 29.0% 76 - 29.5% 53 - 19.0% 112 - 46.1% 85 - 26.7% 59 - 25.2% 85 - 41.3% 90 - 19.9% 88 - 35.8% 80 - 38.1% 110 - 27.7% 96 - 33.4% 83 - 27.0% 95 - 36.8% 58 - 23.0% Mean 47.09 44.89 47.08 42.75 53.96 44.85 46.43 52.22 43.91 48.66 49.24 46.63 49.09 46.38 51.38 44.24 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Question 13. Are you: State Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Employed full time 2167 - 51.1% 130 - 52.0% 135 - 51.3% 167 - 58.6% 115 - 47.3% 136 - 42.6% 111 - 46.6% 94 - 45.6% 275 - 60.2% 139 - 55.4% 99 - 45.8% 232 - 57.7% 155 - 53.3% 142 - 46.1% 114 - 44.5% 123 - 47.5% Employed part time 397 - 9.4% 30 - 12.0% 26 - 9.9% 29 - 10.2% 20 - 8.2% 34 - 10.7% 16 - 6.7% 15 - 7.3% 49 - 10.7% 19 - 7.6% 12 - 5.6% 46 - 11.4% 22 - 7.6% 31 - 10.1% 24 - 9.4% 24 - 9.3% Retired 815 - 19.2% 42 - 16.8% 48 - 18.3% 37 - 13.0% 80 - 32.9% 57 - 17.9% 35 - 14.7% 65 - 31.6% 55 - 12.0% 58 - 23.1% 57 - 26.4% 61 - 15.2% 68 - 23.4% 44 - 14.3% 75 - 29.3% 33 - 12.7% Not employed 233 - 5.5% 13 - 5.2% 16 - 6.1% 5 - 1.8% 9 - 3.7% 20 - 6.3% 19 - 8.0% 11 - 5.3% 19 - 4.2% 15 - 6.0% 12 - 5.6% 20 - 5.0% 14 - 4.8% 22 - 7.1% 10 - 3.9% 28 - 10.8% Homemaker 468 - 11.0% 23 - 9.2% 24 - 9.1% 16 - 5.6% 17 - 7.0% 52 - 16.3% 52 - 21.8% 17 - 8.3% 42 - 9.2% 13 - 5.2% 29 - 13.4% 26 - 6.5% 24 - 8.2% 58 - 18.8% 29 - 11.3% 46 - 17.8% Student 164 - 3.9% 12 - 4.8% 14 - 5.3% 31 - 10.9% 2 - 0.8% 20 - 6.3% 5 - 2.1% 4 - 1.9% 17 - 3.7% 7 - 2.8% 7 - 3.2% 17 - 4.2% 8 - 2.7% 11 - 3.6% 4 - 1.6% 5 - 1.9% Question 14. What is the highest level of education you had the opportunity to complete? State Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Less than H. School High School Vocatio nal School Some College In Collage 4-Year Degree Graduate Degree 343 - 10.2% 22 - 8.9% 23 - 8.8% 8 - 2.8% 15 - 6.3% 29 - 9.2% 22 - 9.2% 32 - 15.5% 29 - 6.3% 24 - 9.6% 24 - 11.2% 17 - 4.2% 37 - 12.8% 1098-25.9% 71 - 28.1% 53 - 20.3% 51 - 17.9% 70 - 29.2% 87 - 27.5% 90 - 37.8% 65 - 31.4% 85 - 18.5% 85 - 34.1% 58 - 27.0% 93 - 23.1% 74 - 25.5% 142-3.4% 5 - 2.0% 8 - 3.1% 1 - 0.4% 8 - 3.3% 8 - 2.5% 10 - 4.2% 11 - 5.3% 14 - 3.1% 11 - 4.4% 11 - 5.1% 15 - 3.7% 12 - 4.1% 1214-28.7% 79 - 32.0% 76 - 29.1% 86 - 30.2% 86 - 35.8% 110 - 34.8% 73 - 30.7% 56 - 27.1% 133 - 29.0% 74 - 29.7% 69 - 32.1% 94 - 23.3% 94 - 32.4% 138 - 3.3% 5 - 2.0% 11 - 4.2% 16 - 5.6% 0 - 0.0% 15 - 4.7% 3 - 1.3% 3 - 1.4% 22 - 4.8% 3 - 1.2% 6 - 2.8% 15 - 3.7% 8 - 2.8% 787 - 18.6% 41 - 16.6% 63 - 24.1% 73 - 25.6% 33 - 13.8% 43 - 13.6% 26 - 10.9% 28 - 13.5% 111 - 24.2% 37 - 14.9% 32 - 14.9% 101 - 25.1% 49 - 16.9% 423 - 10.0% 24 - 9.7% 27 - 10.3% 50 - 17.5% 28 - 11.7% 24 - 7.6% 14 - 5.9% 12 - 5.8% 65 - 14.2% 15 - 6.0% 15 - 7.0% 68 - 16.9% 16 - 5.5% 71 - 23.0% 16 - 6.2% 65 - 25.3% 91 - 29.4% 55 - 21.2% 70 -27.2% 18-5.8% 5 -1.9% 5 -1.9% 45 -14.6% 87 - 33.5% 52 -20.2% 9 - 2.9% 8 - 3.1% 14 -5.4% 51 - 16.5% 67 - 25.8% 32 - 12.5% 24 - 7.8% 22 - 8.5% 19 - 7.4% 105 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Question 15. What is your zip code? Zipcodes resolved to county level Frequency Percent Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total for State 252 264 288 244 323 238 208 464 256 217 406 294 213 260 259 4285 5.9 6.2 6.7 5.7 5.7 5.6 4.9 10.8 6.0 5.1 9.5 6.9 7.3 6.1 6.0 100.0 % of Target 105% 110% 120% 102% 135% 99% 87% 193% 107% 90% 169% 123% 130% 108% 108% 118% [We want to know what parts of the state our answers are coming from. We don't know your name or address, a computer generates the phone numbers.] 106 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Question 16. What is your current marital status? Are you single-never married, married, separated, divorced, widowed, or living together? Single State Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma 769 - 18.2% 60 - 24.2% 42 - 16.2% 71 - 25.0% 38 - 15.9% 56 - 17.8% 26 - 11.0% 33 - 16.1% 101 - 22.2% 47 - 18.7% 31 - 14.4% 89 - 22.1% 41 - 14.1% 58 - 19.0% 34 - 13.2% 42 - 16.3% Married 2551 - 60.4% 147 - 59.3% 171 - 65.8% 166 - 58.5% 143 - 59.8% 202 - 64.1% 162 - 68.4% 118 - 57.6% 271 - 59.6% 140 - 55.8% 147 - 68.4% 218 - 54.2% 178 - 61.4% 179 - 58.7% 151 - 58.5% 158 - 61.5% Separated 67 - 1.6% 2 - 0.8% 3 - 1.2% 4 - 1.4% 1 - 0.4% 3 - 1.0% 3 - 1.3% 6 - 2.9% 9 - 2.0% 3 - 1.2% 3 - 1.4% 9 - 2.2% 5 - 1.7% 7 - 2.3% 5 - 1.9% 4 - 1.6% Divorced 431 - 10.2% 15 - 6.0% 25 - 9.6% 26 - 9.2% 27 - 11.3% 28 - 8.9% 30 - 12.7% 19 - 9.3% 47 - 10.3% 24 - 9.6% 18 - 8.4% 54 - 13.4% 29 - 10.0% 30 - 9.8% 37 - 14.3% 22 - 8.6% Widowed 274 - 6.5% 15 - 6.0% 9 - 3.5% 9 - 3.2% 25 - 10.5% 18 - 5.7% 14 - 5.9% 20 - 9.8% 14 - 3.1% 25 - 10.0% 11 - 5.1% 17 - 4.2% 27 - 9.3% 22 - 7.2% 25 - 9.7% 23 - 8.9% Loving together 129 - 3.1% 9 - 3.6% 10 - 3.8% 8 - 2.8% 5 - 2.1% 8 - 2.5% 2 - 0.8% 9 - 4.4% 13 - 2.9% 12 - 4.8% 5 - 2.3% 15 - 3.7% 10 - 3.4% 9 - 3.0% 6 - 2.3% 8 - 3.1% Question 17. Which of the following best describes you? State Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma White 2783-66.4% 116 - 46.6% 181 - 69.9% 210 - 75.3% 207 - 87.7% 202 - 64.1% 136 - 57.6% 129 - 62.9% 338 - 74.6% 213 - 86.2% 169 - 78.6% 283 - 70.9% 195 - 67.9% 79 - 26.0% 222 - 87.4% 103 - 40.6% Hispanic 950 - 22.7% 15 - 6.0% 62 - 23.9% 24 - 8.6% 21 - 8.9% 78 - 24.8% 81 - 34.3% 41 - 20.0% 78 - 17.2% 23 - 9.3% 14 - 6.5% 85 - 21.3% 65 - 22.6% 212 - 69.7% 15 - 5.9% 136 - 53.5% Black 55 - 1.3% 2 - 0.8% 10 - 3.9% 6 - 2.2% 0 - 0.0% 3 - 1.0% 2 - 0.8% 2 - 1.0% 12 - 2.6% 1 - 0.4% 0 - 0.0% 7 - 1.8% 7 - 2.4% 0 - 0.0% 2 - 0.8% 1 - 0.4% 107 Native Am 260 - 6.2% 111 - 44.6% 2 - 0.8% 29 - 10.4% 4 - 1.7% 23 - 7.3% 4 - 1.7% 26 - 12.7% 5 - 1.1% 4 - 1.6% 26 - 12.1% 3 - 0.8% 12 - 4.2% 3 - 1.0% 3 - 1.2% 5 - 2.0% Asian 43 - 1.0% 1 - 0.4% 1 - 0.4% 1 - 0.4% 1 - 0.4% 4 - 1.3% 1 - 0.4% 2 - 1.0% 6 - 1.3% 1 - 0.4% 2 - 0.9% 9 - 2.3% 3 - 1.0% 4 - 1.3% 2 - 0.8% 5 - 2.0% Other 101 - 2.4% 4 - 1.6% 3 - 1.2% 9 - 3.2% 3 - 1.3% 5 - 1.6% 12 - 5.1% 5 - 2.4% 14 - 3.1% 5 - 2.0% 4 - 1.9% 12 - 3.0% 5 - 1.7% 6 - 2.0% 10 - 3.9% 4 - 1.6% Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Question 18. I'm going to ask you about your total household income, before taxes, for 2001. I'll read some ranges of household incomes, and you just say 'stop' when I say the category your household falls into. State Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma <$10 K 331 9.3% 40 18.3% 20 9.0% 16 6.8 9 4.8 32 11.7 22 10.8 23 13.7 11 2.9 16 7.4 12 6.7 14 4.2 26 11.0 45 16.6 18 8.8 27 12.2 10K to 20K 549 15.5% 33 15.1% 29 13.0% 31 13.2 35 18.7 49 17.9 22 10.8 40 23.8 33 8.7 30 13.9 28 15.7 49 14.5 30 12.7 72 26.6 23 11.2 45 20.3 20K to 30K 603 17.0% 40 18.3% 40 17.9% 24 10.2 31 16.6 55 20.1 30 14.8 35 20.8 41 10.8 35 16.2 29 16.3 69 20.5 35 14.8 50 18.5 41 20.0 48 21.6 30K to 40K 561 15.8% 33 15.1% 36 16.1% 34 14.5 35 18.7 39 14.3 40 19.7 24 14.3 54 14.2 45 20.8 26 14.6 46 13.6 42 17.8 32 11.8 38 18.5 37 16.7 40K to 60K 651 18.3% 33 15.1% 42 18.8% 48 20.4 38 20.3 56 20.5 55 27.1 16 9.5 75 19.7 41 19.0 35 19.7 60 17.8 54 22.9 39 14.4 35 17.1 24 10.8 Respondent's Gender Female Male 2645 1639 61.7% 38.2% 108 60K to 80K 423 11.9% 19 8.7% 29 13.0% 46 19.6 18 9.6 24 8.8 25 12.3 12 7.1 75 19.7 27 12.5 24 13.5 39 11.6 30 12.7 14 5.2 20 9.8 21 9.5 80K to 100K 198 5.6% 10 4.6% 15 6.7% 14 6.0 8 4.3 9 3.3 4 2.0 10 6.0 36 9.4 12 5.6 15 8.4 21 6.2 8 3.4 9 3.3 11 5.4 16 7.2 100K to 120K 99 2.8% 3 1.4% 8 3.6% 10 4.3 4 2.1 4 1.5 2 1.0 4 2.4 21 5.5 1 0.5 5 2.8 18 5.3 5 2.1 4 1.5 9 4.4 1 0.5 $120K+ 138 3.9% 7 3.2% 4 1.8% 12 5.1 9 4.8 5 1.8 3 1.5 4 2.4 35 9.2 9 4.2 4 2.2 21 6.2 6 2.5 6 2.2 10 4.9 3 1.4 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Questionnaire (Telephone Script) Question 1. We are interested in people's use of city, county, state and national parks. In the last 3 months, how many times have you or anyone in your household visited an outdoor park or recreation area in Arizona? [CLARIFICATION: Any area that allows outdoor recreation activities including canal banks and catchment areas, city or state parks, and forest service land] IF respondent answers zero to question 1, ask: Question 1a. What about in the past 12 months? (How often have you or anyone else in your household visited an outdoor park or recreation area in Arizona?) IF both question 1 and 1a are zero, SKIP to question 3. Question 2. How many miles did you travel to the park or area you visited most often within the last {3/12} months? [Do Not Read Categories Below; There Are 8 Blocks Per Mile] 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. 11. 12. 99. Less than 1/4 mile (less than 2 blocks) 1/4 to 1/2 mile (less than 4 blocks) 1/2 to 1 mile (less than 8 blocks) 1 to 2 miles 2 to 3 miles 3 to 5 miles 5 to 10 miles 10 to 20 miles 20 to 50 miles 50 to 100 miles 100 to 200 miles 200 miles or more DK/REF ( skip to q 13 ) Question 3. Would you go more often if it were closer? 1. Yes 2. No 9. Dk/Ref if q2 equals 'less than 1/2 mile' (1 or 2), ask q4a if q2 equals ' more than 1/2 mile to 3 miles' (3, 4, 0r 5), ask q4b 109 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Question 4a. What if the park were 1 mile away? Would you still go as often, less often, or not at all? 1. 2. 3. 9. As Often Less Often Not At All Dk/Ref Question 4b. What if the park were 5 miles away? Would you still go as often, less often, or not at all? 1. 2. 3. 9. As Often Less Often Not At All Dk/Ref Question 5. Not all projects can be funded. I'll read a list of possible priorities. Please select the one you would most like to see funded. First, small parks that have only a few facilities; [e.g., playground and basketball court] Second, large parks with lots of facilities; [mutli-use park, e.g., basketball, baseball, tennis, swimming, etc] Third, larger more nature-oriented parks with areas for hiking, picnicking or camping; [has parking lots, trails, bathrooms, etc] And, finally, open spaces in a natural setting with very little development [no parking, picnic, or bathroom facilities] 1. 2. 3. 4. 9. Small Parks Large Parks Larger City/County Parks Open Spaces Dk/Ref Question 6. Would you prefer to see the money go towards: 1. 2. 3. 9. Fixing up existing park facilities Adding new features to existing parks, or Developing new parks Dk/Ref 110 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Question 7. Some park funds will go to buying open space. Some open spaces are large enough to support a wide variety of wildlife. Others will only serve to separate housing developments. When it comes to open space, which is more important to you: 1. 2. 3. 9. Having open spaces between housing developments, or Having large natural habitats that support a diversity of wildlife Doesn't Care Dk/Ref Question 8. What do you think are the major problems concerning Arizona's parks and recreation areas? 1. Doesn't meet my needs/ can't do my activity there 2. Too much litter/trash 3. Not enough parking spaces 4. Not well maintained 5. Not close enough to my home 6. Don't know where they are located/ not enough information 7. Too crowded 8. Cannot use it at night/no lights 9. Don't feel safe/personal safety 10. Not accessible 11. It's closed when I want to use it 12. Costs too much 13. Not enough parks 14. Not enough funding 15. No Problems 16. Other (Specify) Question 9. How involved are you in planning for the parks and recreation areas that you use? Would you say you are involved as much as you want to be, or would you like to be more involved? 1. Involved As Much As They Want 2. Wants More Involvement 9. Dk/Ref Question 10. If a new park or recreation area is being planned, how would you prefer to give your input? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 9. Through a survey, At a public meeting, By interviews in the parks, Through the Internet or WEB (such as e-mail), Some other way (Specify), Or do you not want to be involved? Dk/Ref IF question 10 = 1, ask next, else Skip to question 12. 111 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Question 11. Would you prefer to be surveyed by telephone, by mail, in person or using the Internet? 1. 2. 3. 4. Telephone Mail Face-To-Face (in person) Web-Based Question 12. Finally, I just need to ask you a few other questions simply for statistical purposes. All of your answers will be kept strictly confidential. What is your age? Question 13. Are you: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 9. Employed Full Time, Employed Part Time, Retired, Not Employed Now, A Homemaker, Or A Student? Dk/Refused Question 14. What is the highest level of education you had the opportunity to complete? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. Did Not Complete High School Completed High School Vocational School Some College Or A Community College Currently Enrolled In College 4 Year College Degree Or BS Completed Graduate Degree Dk/Refused Question 15. What is your zip code? [We want to know what parts of the state our answers are coming from. We don't know your name or address, a computer generates the phone numbers.] 112 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Appendices Question 16. What is your current marital status? Are you single-never married, married, separated, divorced, widowed, or living together? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 9. Single, Never Married Married Separated Divorced Widowed Living Together Dk/Ref Question 17. Which of the following best describes you? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 9. White, Anglo Hispanic, Latino Black, African-American Native American, American Indian Asian, Pacific Islander Or something else? (Specify) Dk/Ref Question 18. I'm going to ask you about your total household income, before taxes, for 2001. I'll read some ranges of household incomes, and you just say 'stop' when I say the category your household falls into. (If you are more comfortable doing so, just give me a number.) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 0. Under $10,000 $10, 000--$20,000 $20,000--$30,000 $30,000--$40,000 $40,000--$60,000 $60,000--$80,000 $80,000--$100,000 $100,000--$120,000 Over $120,000 Don't Know/Refused 113 Arizona State Parks 2003 SCORP–Photograph Credits Photographs used in this document are examples of projects funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Botanical Garden Globe, Gila County cover photo and on page 29 Catalina State Park Pima County cover photo and on page 42 Lyman Lake State Park Apache County cover photo and on page 24 Anza Drive Park Nogales, Santa Cruz County cover photo and on page 46 Community Park Duncan, Greenlee County cover photo and on page 32 Dead Horse Ranch State Park Cottonwood, Yavapai County cover photo and on page 48 Buckskin Mountain State Park La Paz County cover photo and on page 34 Lake Havasu State Park Lake Havasu City, Mohave County cover photo and on page 38 McClintock Swimming Pool Tempe, Maricopa County cover photo and on page 36 Veterans Memorial Park Baseball Field Douglas, Cochise County cover photo and on page 25 Homolovi Ruins State Historical Park Navajo County cover photo and on page 40 Joe Henry Park Yuma, Yuma County cover photo and on page 50 Slide Rock State Park Coconino County Cover photo and on page 27 Page 52 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 58 Page 60 Page 61 Mount Graham Golf Course Graham County Cover photo and on page 31 Papago Park, Maricopa County Thorpe Park, Flagstaff, Coconino County Santa Cruz River Park, Tucson, Pima County Verde River area, Yavapai County Granite Creek, Yavapai County Roper Lake State Park, Graham County Indian Bend Wash, Scottsdale, Maricopa County 114 Picacho Peak State Park Pinal County Cover photo and on page 44